Let's debunk what CO2 does. Let's also explain what it does not do.

Unfortunately you tube has no truth filters let alone academic referencing

 

...self deleted

 

When I post things that meet those tests, they go ignored. And given many scientists do not blame man for any alleged future disaster, I side with those.

Supposedly if we obey a group of politicians who impose draconian duties on us, we will be fine. I do not believe the politicians.

Politics

Poli mean many
Tics are blood sucking insects

 

I do not reply to every post on every watched thread but from memory the posts that have been substantiated are bloody few and mostly from denialist websites or one of the 100 qualified scientists world wide who do not agree in mainstream consensus opinion. And if you think 100 is a large number there are 198 scientific organisations and academies worldwide that have issued statements supporting the theory of AGW and if we estimate that each academy only has 100 members (and I am betting that it is at least 10 times that number) then the weight of consensus outweighs your handful

 

Scientifically, you should never at any point call people names. Such as denialists. This hints that no matter what any scientist tells you, you accept all of them.

I try my best to stick to real scientists who actually understand climate science. As to gangs on political bodies, I don't know those people. I saw the list but when it came from CA, living here, I kind of smile. I know CA politics.

 

Bull!!! What have I been trying to tell you about fact finding and academic rigour?

That is first appeared on several different sites has been on Wiki and is bloody easy to verify. Or did you miss that most of the sites listed were hyperlinks to the original site where you could verify the claim

 

Let's examine that science in Australia

Been researching their science.

How about that. Can't write papers without lying.

It's for the money.
http://joannenova.com.au/tag/corruption-science/

 

We manage forest very well in this country and by those huge evil corporations who do an exceptional job at managing those forest and wildlife. Why? Not because government forces them to do so, because it is in their best interest to do so. Amazing how a free market works with government doesn't continually inject itself.

 

My rigour starts with you.

Explain to me and the forum why I need lessons from you?

When a poster gets hot over the conversation, my flags really go super high. I wonder what is in it them to obtain one new believer?

 

The USA has daily reduced our Carbon dioxide output. Despite that the earth has not cooled. Some claim it has not stopped getting warmer.

 

Because you are the poster who did not seem to understand basics

I have been arguing this topic now for over 20 years. Been able to destroy a lot of twaddle in that time

 

ROFL I would say the Sun is a HUGE nuclear powered climate conditioner, what do you think drives our climate?

 

Frankly to the carbon dioxide believers.

I wish one of you suggested solutions. I have a few.
1. A lot more vegetation must be planted.
2. Protect the coasts where you truly fear flooding.
3. Explain the minute sea level rise yet all we hear is the oceans will flood our cities?

 

Simple self-serving dismissals refuter nothing.

 

Science

Read some

IF you had actually read ONE science paper on the effect of CO2 you would see exactly how fallacious this argument is. Sort of like a small boy saying to his mother "But Mum I tidied up my desk" when the whole room is trashed. Tell you what. Why don't you read the IPCC report? At least then you would have an idea of what the whole thing is really about

 

OK prove you have done the basic homework and actually read the IPCC report

Then we cab talk in depth specifics

 

And this is why if you want to be taken seriously you should at least read the IPCC report. It is not that hard to wade through.

As for planting more vegetation you ARE aware aren't you that 1/5 of global warming is because of deforestation? To plant enough vegetation to reverse the effects would mean replanting, with forests millions of acres

 

...

 

Yes. I get your tone of reply. Go to hell Robert with the idea of planting more trees. I must regulate YOU despite the USA being lower in carbon dioxide.

Look, seek help from those you blame.

 

Why assume I have never read the report by that political group?

 

Because if you had you would be able to frame more informed posts

 

I see no informed posts by you. But you can pass along propaganda with the best of them.

 

I'm under no obligation to do so.

 

IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change.

As if they plan to reverse course.How do they add OOOOOOPPPPPPPS to the name?

 

I agree. But who is going to pay for it? Tax dollars? Where are you going to get the land.

Great idea. Let's build a huge wall from Jacksonville, down past Miami, around the Keys, up to the Panhandle, Westward past New Orleans, and on to Brownsville. And we'll get Mexico to pay for it!

Huh?