Global Warming/Climate Change hoax

Status
Not open for further replies.
@leadbelly: I am not so sure about the water-tightness of the contents of that list. 78 downplays methane on the grounds that it is a relatively small portion of existing gases in the atmosphere but in 34 it argues about the addition of CO2. However, according to the EPA methane is a much larger contributor to global warming potential by human-caused emissions than CO2. There is supposed to be a lot of CO2 in the air...or the ecosystem wouldn't work!

Not sure if you noticed the "Intermediate" tab?
Is the science settled?
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.
 
I am amazed that people think that climate scientists go into the field because they want to make a lot of money. Rather than go into something public-welfare oriented like, say, the petroleum industry.

How many billionaire or millionaire climate scientists are you aware of, honestly? Is that what materialistically inclined young people are drawn to do nowadays or in the past century -- to study climate science??!?

How much public funding goes into climate science compared to (in the US at least) into oil company government subsidies?
 
If you lived in the USA, you wouldn't be so sure that it's fiction.

Hah! Yes, but what I wrote was that it's fiction because: we have bigger TV's than that now, and also trash burn facilities.
Then I went on about how people do not seem capable of picking up their own trash... Sort of indirectly suggesting that no, it does not help towards making the real world better than that wonderful movie depiction (Idiocracy).
It really is quite depressing.
 
Last edited:
I am amazed that people think that climate scientists go into the field because they want to make a lot of money.
You can ask them and find out why they go into the field that they do. Also, you can ask people why they want money, whatever the amount may be.

How many billionaire or millionaire climate scientists are you aware of, honestly? Is that what materialistically inclined young people are drawn to do nowadays or in the past century -- to study climate science??!?

How much public funding goes into climate science compared to (in the US at least) into oil company government subsidies?
Let us know if / when you find out. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.