Problem solved , you're welcome

Her college education at work. 😁

The real issue is carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and has been at many times the current levels with no issues.

While you may have a source for CO2 not being a greenhouse gas, I suspect this will be pretty controversial. A quick search returned many sources describing CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

For clarity, my position is that climate change is happening and human activity is likely to be involved, but much of what we are told we *must* do about it are politically and economically motivated lies. Thunberg may be a nice person, but as an advocate she is a naive little scat who doesn't know how the world works.

AOC should demand a refund for her "education."

"AOC should demand a refund for her "education."

Actually, the college should demand she quit listing them on her resume.

Are you using google or another search engine that has been altered to skew its results to the left? You might want to try a more neutral engine.

I usually use DuckDuckGo, but I may have used google for this. You know that the link you provide identifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas, right?

Sure, but it also shows it was much higher in the pat than it is today and the temperature didn't go up like they say its going up today.

Non Sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.

The solar radiation doesn't cause the clouds. In fact the high albedo means all but about 10% of the solar radiation it receives never reaches the surface. CO2 is not only a greenhouse gas, it is the one that contributes the most to climate change.

That doesn't we all have to buy Teslas, or cannonize Greta the Goofball.

That isn't 240% more gets there and bounces off, that is 240% more is received.
And you haven't accounted for 256,00 times more CO2 in your Venus analogy.
Additionally, on CO2 ...

You, ... ARE DEAD WRONG.

Water Vapor accounts for over 95% of all Greenhouse gas warming.

https://www.universetoday.com/22577/venus-greenhouse-effect/

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2475/nasa-climate-modeling-suggests-venus-may-have-been-habitable/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Venus

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=366

I won't do your homework for you, but here are a few places you might try since you have apparently missed them.

https://www.universetoday.com/22577/venus-greenhouse-effect/
Proves everything I said, not what you said.
=
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2475/nasa-climate-modeling-suggests-venus-may-have-been-habitable/
Again you idiot, doen't disprove anything I said, nor back your claims. You're not really good at this sourcing thing.
=
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Venus
Close but no cigar, I wasn't saying Water Vapor is responsible for 95% of Greenhouse gas contribution on VENUS, but on EARTH.
=
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=366
Not even addressing this Leftarded cesspool site of Libtard misinformation.

You FAIL.
I've forgotten more about science than you'll ever know.

Proving you didn't read any of it.

Yes, receives Venus more solar radiation by virtue of being closer to the sun - almost all of it reflected or absorbed by the upper atmosphere. Only about 10% reaches the surface.

"Runaway greenhouse effect" is littered throughout the links, and should be self-explanatory.

Your memory must be full to capacity with all the science you haven't forgotten, because there apparently is no room left for you remember to provide anything that actually supports your claims. I wasn't intending to document a thesis, merely offerring you the results of a quick search, all of which dispute your claims. Don't bother to post them now, unless it is for the benefit of others.

Your name-calling suggests you are either a noob or incapable of civil discussion. This is boring.

I read it all, and your replies prove you don't understand it.

"Yes, receives Venus more solar radiation by virtue of being closer to the sun - almost all of it reflected or absorbed by the upper atmosphere. Only about 10% reaches the surface."

We're not talking about surface temps, but atmospheric mechanics, note the word ABSORBED.
-
"Runaway greenhouse effect" is littered throughout the links, and should be self-explanatory."
Note that 256,000 times the CO2 with no carbon sequestering plate tectonics will do that.

Everything in there supports my claim that you are comparing apples to Volvos. Everything in those articles stresses how different the conditions on Venus are than Earth, so you fail, fail and fail again.

Furthermore, I didn't call you any name. Unless you are suggesting "fail" is a name.
And noob your ass, you've been on here 4 months longer than I.

Neither one of you proved your point, or even stated it clearly. Deadboxprime did at least try to provide some kind of evidence. Meme-osis didn't back up anything he said.

He tried and failed, I didn't need to post links because his links proved MY point, that the Earth and Venus have such vastly different conditions, it's comparing apples to Volvos.

If you ned me to outline post by post why what I said was proven, and what he said was not I can, but I'm hoping you can now see your error.

Really? I hadn’t heard this before. Do you have a source?

https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

There's a trwist on the cow farts trope...

Contrary to your assertion your link identifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Not that I want to get into a big argument about it, because I don't think we disagree that much. The climate change doomerz are just marketing products and services for crooks thst won't change a damn thing.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go charge my (imaginary) electric car with coal fired electricity so I can take my recycling to the recycling center for them to send to a landfill in Asia so I can help save the planet for a bunch of hyper-entitled, ungrateful brats who eat Tide Pods and bitch about pollution.

Thanks. It’s very interesting. Of course the climate change disciples would just say something like “well, look what happened to the dinosaurs. . . “

Like depriving HER brain of oxygen is going to have any effect at all.

Nice one!

Probably not. The carbon dioxide we exhale comes basically from biofuel anyway - at some point in the food chain, a plant took the same amount of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to make food. The problem is more when we burn fuel that wasn't particularly removing carbon dioxide out of the air first - at least not recently.

then she needs to find 'that' plant and Apologize