Gator

The following graph shows 600 million years of CO2. It also shows the mass extinction level of 150 ppvm. As you can see, we're at historically low levels. CO2 was 20 times the current ppmv over 500 million years ago.

Gregory Wrightstone The temperature rise we are witnessing today is neither unprecedented nor unusual. An inspection of the chart below compares CO2 and temperatures from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (link is on chart) of the last 12,000 years from the beginning of the current inter-glacial period to 1855 when the data starts. Several important take-aways from the chart: Preceding warm periods commonly reached significantly higher temperatures than we see now The one constant regarding temperature is that it is always changing We are about 11,600 years into the current inter-glacial warming period which typically last 10,000 to 15,000 years There is NO discernible correlation between CO2 and temperature during this time

You've not provided any logic in this thread and admit you're a climate dummy who "trusts the science". No problem. But I will supply evidence of why CO2 is not warming the planet "dangerously" or at all. And I've done so in over 100 posts in this thread. There are tens of thousands of scientists who refute the climate scare and plenty of organisations too. Naturally, they're labelled deniers, misinformers, etc. But you can do your own research on that.

Jara "Trust the science". “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” This quote from 2000 was made by Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

I remember why I put you on ignore.

I know you think you're on a winner, but It's a stupid question. If you're so interested do your own research. The science isn't settled, so your "trust the science" comment is a nonsense. If you don't do anything else google "science is never settled". Einstein said, "100 scientists can't prove me right, but one can prove me wrong". I don't blame you by the way, it's shoved down everyone's throat that man is dangerously warming the planet. Unfortunately, the models have been wrong, NASA alters data, and I could waste my time saying a host of other things that will fall on deaf ears. Also, Australia contributes 0.000018% of the climates CO2, which is nothing. But that doesn't trouble you either. You're happy to waste billions.

In 1989 the UN said we had until the year 2000 to save the planet. In 2008, NASA said we had until 2012 to save the planet. This clown show never ends 1. San Jose Mercury News (CA) - June 30, 1989 - 3F General News GRIM FORECAST A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human...

Who'd have thought it was solar activity ?

Plummeting temperatures could send the world into a 'mini ice age' in 2030 and could OVERRIDE global warming, claim mathematicians Temperatures will start dropping in 2021, according to a mathematical model This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' This was previously known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5215575/Plummeting-temperatures-cause-mini-ice-age-2030.html

Haha. This dolt is calling others a "nutcase" !! Given your background it's understandable.

Who is going to fund organisations to disprove man is warming the planet dangerously when governments all around the world are funding organisations to prove the opposite ? I suppose you think the fossil fuel industry is going to pay millions upon millions setting up science organisations ? There are countless eminent scientists who have written widely on why CO2 is either not dangerously warming the planet or not warming it at all. But you're not interested in doing research. You're only interested in parroting Leftist views. You don't even know why you believe it. You simply know you're told to. How moronic is that ?

You didn't answer the question. How much CO2 is naturally occurring and how much is man-made ? Let me help you out. 97% of CO2 occurs naturally and 3% is attributed to man. So in essence man-made CO2 is 0.0012%. We're spending trillions of dollars to reduce our 0.0012% emissions. Australia's contribution is 0.000018%. In other words, nothing. Future generations won't believe it. Jara, there are hundreds of scientists around the world, including ex NASA scientists that don't agree that the planet is warming dangerously and some don't believe CO2 is a driving force. There's also no such thing as a 97% consensus. As for your analogy about taipans and a further one about CFCs ? Please. We're talking about plant food. We're talking about a natural trace element gas we need just to survive. We're talking about human contributions of 0.0012%. We've even got a Leftist on here citing "big business". Have you ever heard of anything as funny ? You also need to understand that climate science is a very narrow field that not many specialise in, which is why plenty of scientists who don't buy the global warming hype can be ridiculed by people such as yourself as not a real climate scientist. How many do you think there are ? Sceptics, such as Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Dr Roy Spencer, Bjorn Lomborg, John Christy, Judith Curry, Ian Pilmer, Murry Salby, and others just have their reputations besmirched by the Left and anyone else who makes their living from this scare. Appalling things are said about these people, whose only crime isn't to buy the alarmism hook line and sinker. If you're a Leftist it's your duty to be a climate alarmist. Some on the right believe it too, but it's not part of their dogma. There are organisations who don't believe the alarmism, such as the Heartland Institute. They're not hard to google. But I can promise you that they will all be ridiculed as misinformers, deniers, or other such nouns. I've read and listened to as much as I can so as to be able to form by own views. I've read and heard enough to know that the scare is simply not reliable. The climate models have been wrong. NASA has altered data because the models were inconveniently wrong. You ? You just believe what you're fed. As for your final question... This is a very minor hobby for me. I'm a footy fan. I also have a small business. I have no interest in joining other forums to debate something where there will be no winners. A minor contribution on here read by nobody is enough to sate my minor appetite.

Boom. This trace element gas that is known as "the gas of life" represents a tiny element of the earth's atmosphere. It's 4 one hundredths of one percent. It's the equivalent of 4 cents in $10,000, yet it supposedly drives the planet's temperature if you believe the alarmists. Do you know what percentage of this 0.04% occurs naturally and what percentage is man-made ? Two more questions. Did you know CO2 was 10 times higher during an ice age ? How could that be if it is such a significant driver of temperature ? Did you know life on earth is unsustainable if CO2 falls below 150 parts per million volume ? Jara, it's an utter nonsense to claim that the best scientists in the world think the planet is warming "dangerously". Some scientists agree that CO2 contributes to warming, but many don't. My extensive reading, listening and watching over the last decade leads me to believe that CO2 plays zero part in the earth's rise and fall of temperatures and that the trillions spent is the greatest fraud in human history. The poor around the world should have access to cheap energy and they don't. Solar activity, cloud forcing and ocean circulation drives temperature, not an essential trace element gas that is a tiny 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere. Who'd have thought it was the sun, you know, that massive beast of solar activity in the sky, after all.

The question is what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 ? You're right in that CO2 is now approx. 400 parts per million volume., so what percentage of the atmosphere does that make it ? The second part of the question is what percentage of CO2 occurs naturally without any human involvement and what percentage is man-made ?

Well done. Baby steps. One of the questions is answered in the body of the text, but not the other. I'm not even convinced you know which is the answer

No.

Jara, What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 ? What percentage of CO2 is man-made and what percentage is natural ?

Bzzz. Wrong answer. I do know the answers. Anyone who has shown a predilection for the climate has learnt the basics. I know what proportion of the atmosphere is CO2 and I know what percentage is natural and what percentage is man-made. Your only contribution is as a fanboy for climate porn.

^^^ Lines 3 and 4 should read "What is not beyond doubt". This inability to edit or delete after a short time frame is horrible.

There's fear on a footy field, unless you're a little abnormal or a liar. Viney instills fear into the opposition due to his strength and ballistic approach to the footy. Viney has already hurt Ablett in a round 1 game. Ablett would be unusual if Viney didn't make him nervous. Ablett is an old man and when you're old in footy terms you like pain and injury even less. Dangerfield is the key. We have a point to prove and will be physically stronger in 2018. We'll be up to our necks in round 1. But either way, it's just one game and 4 points. Injury, as usual, will be key for us in 2018.

It's beyond doubt that man is increasing CO2. It's beyond doubt that the climate is changing and always will. What is beyond doubt is whether CO2 is driving temperature. What is beyond doubt is whether the earth is warning "dangerously". When CO2 was 10 times higher than what it is now we had an ice age, so how can CO2 be driving temperature ? Jara, do you know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 ? And do you know what percentage is natural and what percentage is man-made ? NASA alter there own graphs, because temperature hasn't risen as their models predicted. Because we're in a pause. Have you read the climate-gate emails ? Huge funding has been given to scientists around the world to link CO2 with global warming. It started with Thatcher, who didn't want to be beholden to the middle east and because she was at war with the coal miners. She said she'd pay them to find a link. Guess what ? They did. For various other political reasons the funding has continued. If you're a scientist who doesn't believe in AGW guess how much government funding you'll receive ? Zero, nada, zilch, nothing, not a zac. Solar activity (sun spots), cloud forcing, and ocean circulation dictates climate, not a trace element gas that is essential for our survival.

Rather than a lynching there's such a thing as due process where facts and testimony precede adjudication.

Interesting.