webtrekker Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oz93666 Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 Oh MY GOD !!! I knew politians were stupid , but not that stupid , ... Vidio shows a pannel of politians asked what % of atmosphere is CO2 , They ALL say 5% or 10% Politians are selected becauce they are suseptable to mind control ... The answer is .035% and all the 'climate changge' panic is because it used to be .03% (off the top of my head) ... in the distant past it used to be over .3% ten times what it is today and the Earth flourished .. Above video is a testament to the "education system" 90% of politicians and public are lost. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webtrekker Posted April 13 Author Share Posted April 13 Yes, and add to that the fact that, in the entire history of Earth, increased CO2 levels have never caused an increase in temperature. Increased CO2 levels have always been preceded by an increase in temperature, not vice versa. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Owl Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 From Wikipedia: Quote The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas There is FAR more water vapour in the atmosphere, but carbon dioxide is 'problematic'. Despite being the most abundant 'greenhouse gas', water vapour (ie 'clouds') is not even acknowledged as a 'driver of climate change'. The 'effect' of clouds on temperatures are something that anyone can physically observe and experience. In recent weeks here in the UK, one can clearly feel that when the clouds 'break', the sunlight is warm, but as soon as the clouds come back over, the temperature noticeably drops. Temperatures then equally plummet on cloudless nights, while reducing less on cloudy nights. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sock muppet Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 1 hour ago, Grumpy Owl said: From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas There is FAR more water vapour in the atmosphere, but carbon dioxide is 'problematic'. Despite being the most abundant 'greenhouse gas', water vapour (ie 'clouds') is not even acknowledged as a 'driver of climate change'. The 'effect' of clouds on temperatures are something that anyone can physically observe and experience. In recent weeks here in the UK, one can clearly feel that when the clouds 'break', the sunlight is warm, but as soon as the clouds come back over, the temperature noticeably drops. Temperatures then equally plummet on cloudless nights, while reducing less on cloudy nights. Simple graphic depicting H2O against the other greenhouse gases. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bamboozooka Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 the video also said once co2 gets to 0.2% plants die 3 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 On 4/13/2023 at 11:23 AM, webtrekker said: I think the folk singer Rodriguez described this brilliantly in a song ( "a monkey in silk is a monkey no less") modern translation, a fucking idiot in a suit is still just a fucking idiot 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 On 4/13/2023 at 7:43 PM, webtrekker said: Increased CO2 levels have always been preceded by an increase in temperature, not vice versa. Exactly ,ice core samples indicate there is a rise in temperature then an 800 year lag then a rise in co2,therefore it's obvious that co2 is not driving catastrophic global warming,sorry global warming,sorry climate change, in a couple of years it will be known a a heat wave if this trend continues . The amount of carbon in the atmosphere has just past 400 parts per million ,once again the ice core samples indicate the atmospheric carbon has been as high as 7,000 parts per million did the earth burst into flames ,no plant life flourished, ice core samples can also indicate ambient temperatures by the amount of oxygen isotopes in the given sample 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Owl Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 16 hours ago, peter said: Exactly ,ice core samples indicate there is a rise in temperature then an 800 year lag then a rise in co2,therefore it's obvious that co2 is not driving catastrophic global warming,sorry global warming,sorry climate change, in a couple of years it will be known a a heat wave if this trend continues . The amount of carbon in the atmosphere has just past 400 parts per million ,once again the ice core samples indicate the atmospheric carbon has been as high as 7,000 parts per million did the earth burst into flames ,no plant life flourished, ice core samples can also indicate ambient temperatures by the amount of oxygen isotopes in the given sample The Wikipedia article I linked to in my previous post shows the ice core sample data: Unfortunately much of that Wikipedia article just seems to be climate alarmist propaganda, like the following: Quote Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have increased the atmospheric concentration of methane by over 150% and carbon dioxide by over 50%,[7][8] up to a level not seen in over 3 million years.[9] Carbon dioxide is causing about 3/4ths of global warming and can take thousands of years to be fully absorbed by the carbon cycle.[10][11] Methane causes most remaining warming and lasts in the atmosphere for an average of 12 years.[12] Average global surface temperature has risen by 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. If current emission rates continue then temperatures will surpass 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) sometime between 2040 and 2070, which is the level the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says is "dangerous".[13] Looking at the above chart, CO2 levels have been rising for the last 20 thousand years, long before humans started driving around in gas guzzling Mercedes. So how these people have the gall to claim that this is all 'human-caused' is beyond me, unless its all about pushing an otherwise unrelated agenda. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 49 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said: So how these people have the gall to claim that this is all 'human-caused' is beyond me, unless its all about pushing an otherwise unrelated agenda. I have thought about this for a long time and it seems to me there are two main objectives to the climate change rubbish 1 First and foremost is the subject of control with regards to the human population and all the different methods used to achieve this under the one banner of saving the planet. 2 As industry becomes more an more automated that means less and less jobs and as such a diminishing tax base and therefore a reduction in monies available to government but If you can tax everyone on their respective carbon footprint it doesn't matter if the person is employed or not. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 (edited) 3 hours ago, peter said: I have thought about this for a long time and it seems to me there are two main objectives to the climate change rubbish 1 First and foremost is the subject of control with regards to the human population and all the different methods used to achieve this under the one banner of saving the planet. 2 As industry becomes more an more automated that means less and less jobs and as such a diminishing tax base and therefore a reduction in monies available to government but If you can tax everyone on their respective carbon footprint it doesn't matter if the person is employed or not. PS. Personally I don't think the planet needs saving , when it's had enough of us it will shake us off like fleas on a dog, just like what has happened many times in the past How is a particular persons carbon footprint going to be calculated, will there be a mathematical formula applied evenly through all levels of society or will it be subjective, applied differently to certain groups eg the wealthy or charities etc etc, and who or what (AI) will be making that determination Edited April 17 by peter 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainlove Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 10 hours ago, peter said: PS. Personally I don't think the planet needs saving , when it's had enough of us it will shake us off like fleas on a dog, just like what has happened many times in the past How is a particular persons carbon footprint going to be calculated, will there be a mathematical formula applied evenly through all levels of society or will it be subjective, applied differently to certain groups eg the wealthy or charities etc etc, and who or what (AI) will be making that determination I agree with you. I expect as you say it will be some made up crap based on you BMI or lung capacity. Trust the science lol. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Captainlove said: I agree with you. I expect as you say it will be some made up crap based on you BMI or lung capacity. Trust the science lol. Most science these days is full of people and institutions with vested interests ,so who do you trust,certainly not Bill Nye the fuckwhit guy. I once listened to a CSIRO scientist when global warming just started, lamenting the fact if I was to put in an application for funding to study the sex life of a fruit fly I wouldn't stand a hope in hell. However if my application stated that I wish to study the sex life of a fruit fly with regards to global warming I would have so much money I wouldn't know what to do with it all. What would happen to all the people on international climate change panels and all the scientists and the infrastructure built up around this farce came out and said sorry we were wrong ,they would all be out of a bloody job that's what,so it isn't going to happen any time soon Edited April 18 by peter 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanityisgone Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 On 4/18/2023 at 12:26 AM, peter said: PS. Personally I don't think the planet needs saving , when it's had enough of us it will shake us off like fleas on a dog, just like what has happened many times in the past How is a particular persons carbon footprint going to be calculated, will there be a mathematical formula applied evenly through all levels of society or will it be subjective, applied differently to certain groups eg the wealthy or charities etc etc, and who or what (AI) will be making that determination The point is everything they are doing to "combat" climate change, and the A.I revolution they are pushing is going to increase our carbon footprint, not reduce it. You probably can't replace humans with robots and save energy even if you kill the humans you replace. Modern technology has a clear consequence, I think this is a binary universal law of nature, its way of protecting itself and bringing everything back to what is natural.. nature will consume technology one day. Imagine in 2000 years when people have realised the old ways were correct and they're digging up all the landfill and nuclear waste and god knows what else we've stuffed underneath the earth's beautiful face. What humans are doing is horrific and a horrific waste of our energy, going round in circles to serve other people who don't deserve the air they breathe. The only purpose left in this life must be surrounded in our own selfishness. We are blinded, our punishment is such 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webtrekker Posted May 22 Author Share Posted May 22 Another chart that shows we're nearing extinction, but not from too much CO2! ... 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oz93666 Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 22 minutes ago, webtrekker said: Another chart that shows we're nearing extinction, but not from too much CO2! ... Of course we need more CO2 .... Commertial green houses pomp in CO2 to get plants to grow well if we went any lower the biosphere would die ... But the public can't get their heads around this , that reducing CO2 is killing the planet Joseph Goebbels On the “Big Lie” “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it..." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sock muppet Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 29 minutes ago, webtrekker said: Another chart that shows we're nearing extinction, but not from too much CO2! ... Fuk it, if an extinction level event is taking place and there's a choice involved then we are going down the pub and you're buying, so fuk the CO2 and alcohol me two baby, to extinction or your wallet runs dry, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainlove Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 5 hours ago, webtrekker said: Another chart that shows we're nearing extinction, but not from too much CO2! ... Anyone know what happened in the Carboniferous to Premian time? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webtrekker Posted May 22 Author Share Posted May 22 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Captainlove said: Anyone know what happened in the Carboniferous to Premian time? Good question. Here is the response from the ChatGPT AI ... During the Carboniferous and Permian periods, which occurred approximately 358 to 299 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were indeed significantly lower compared to the present day. Several factors contributed to the low CO2 levels during these periods: Organic Carbon Burial: The Carboniferous and Permian periods were characterized by the extensive growth of forests and vegetation, leading to the accumulation of vast amounts of organic matter. As this organic matter decayed and was buried, it eventually transformed into fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. This process removed a substantial amount of carbon from the atmosphere, effectively reducing CO2 levels. Lack of Microbial Decomposition: During the Carboniferous and Permian periods, the rate of microbial decomposition was relatively slow. This was partly due to the lack of efficient decomposers and the limited availability of oxygen in some environments. As a result, organic matter was preserved and accumulated instead of being rapidly recycled back into the atmosphere as CO2. Weathering and Silicate Rock Formation: Weathering processes play a crucial role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere. During the Carboniferous and Permian periods, the Earth's climate was relatively warm and humid, which enhanced chemical weathering of rocks. Silicate rocks, when exposed to rainwater, undergo a process called silicate weathering. This chemical reaction consumes CO2 as it converts silicate minerals into carbonates, effectively sequestering carbon over geological timescales. Reduced Volcanic Activity: Volcanic eruptions are a significant natural source of CO2. During the Carboniferous and Permian periods, volcanic activity was relatively low, resulting in a reduced release of CO2 into the atmosphere. This contributed to the overall lower CO2 levels during that time. It's important to note that these factors were not operating in isolation but rather in combination, leading to the lower atmospheric CO2 levels observed during the Carboniferous and Permian periods. The subsequent release of carbon from fossil fuel burning and other human activities since the Industrial Revolution has disrupted this balance, leading to a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations in recent times. Note that utter bollox at the end of the explanation showing that the AI has inbuilt bias! (as that graph proves very well). Edited May 22 by webtrekker 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oz93666 Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 6 hours ago, webtrekker said: . The subsequent release of carbon from fossil fuel burning and other human activities since the Industrial Revolution has disrupted this balance, leading to a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations in recent times. Note that utter bollox at the end of the explanation showing that the AI has inbuilt bias! (as that graph proves very well). You've correctly drawn attention to ithe mportant part .. transparent Bollox . Significant Increase !??? It's an Insignificant increase hardly noticable on the graph ! Bottom line is CO2 has been massivly higher and all the time life has flourished , which shows global temperatures are relativly unafected by CO2 because all vegitation is very intollerant of high temperatures ... Photosythesis stops dead at 40C 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webtrekker Posted May 23 Author Share Posted May 23 5 hours ago, oz93666 said: You've correctly drawn attention to ithe mportant part .. transparent Bollox . Significant Increase !??? It's an Insignificant increase hardly noticable on the graph ! Bottom line is CO2 has been massivly higher and all the time life has flourished , which shows global temperatures are relativly unafected by CO2 because all vegitation is very intollerant of high temperatures ... Photosythesis stops dead at 40C That's another good graph to keep in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 15 hours ago, oz93666 said: You've correctly drawn attention to ithe mportant part .. transparent Bollox . Significant Increase !??? It's an Insignificant increase hardly noticable on the graph ! Bottom line is CO2 has been massivly higher and all the time life has flourished , which shows global temperatures are relativly unafected by CO2 because all vegitation is very intollerant of high temperatures ... Photosythesis stops dead at 40C That would mean photosynthesis must occur at night in many areas of Australia in the summer months, who would of thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Owl Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 3 hours ago, peter said: That would mean photosynthesis must occur at night in many areas of Australia in the summer months, who would of thought Photosynthesis only occurs during daylight. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonTV Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 (edited) CO2 is not the primary by product of incomplete combustion. It is carbon monoxide and particulate matter (carbon). That is why cars have catalytic converters, so that the exhaust which is CO and particulate matter, is reoxidised in to the much cleaner CO2, a great invention. The science around combustion has been completely taken over by lies, if you google search etc. I was looking in to complete combustion around 2005 and I found no patents for complete combustion. I did see some earlier papers discussing how to achieve complete combustion and that required adding in high amounts of oxygen in to the combustion process, so that the exhaust was over oxygenated. Your wood fire place in your house and your car is not making CO2. Edited May 23 by SimonTV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oz93666 Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 CO2 is produced when carbon products are completly burnt (oxidised ) .... CO is produced when only partially oxidised , ... and C (soot or black smoke ) when not at all oxidised .... 4 hours ago, SimonTV said: Your wood fire place in your house and your car is not making CO2. That's not quiet accurate Simon ..... The gasses from burning wood (and car) are overwhelmingly CO2 around 13% ... CO is produced in very low levels around 0.1% (1,000ppm) and that's just as well CO is extreemly dangerouse , low levels will kill you dead Gas products from wood burning (the 8% O2 is what is left from the original 20% in air ....N2 is the other 80% not shown in the table ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.