politics

Here is our atmosphere laid out as if on a grid of 2500 individual parts. Of those 2,500 parts....CO2 makes up just 1 single part. The climate change lunatics would like us to believe that just 1/2500 (that single minuscule red square) which accounts for CO2....is causing climate change. But wait...it gets worse! Of that single microscopic red square that is 1 part of 2500 parts ....to that 1 part, mankind contributes only 3% of Earth's CO2. The other 97% is all naturally occurring from Mother Earth!

CO2 in the atmosphere: 0.04%
Of that humans make: 3%
Of that 3%....the US contributes 16%
If the US did the impossible and stopped all of its CO2 emissions, 99.999808% of the atmosphere would be unaffected.

The thing is that's per year, the 97% nature emits is absorbed by trees and things. The 3% will add up one day

This series of responses that I will make are the only one that I will make to you but this is a fair observation on your part!
The 3% of CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere by man is no different from the 97% emitted by nature, in structure....Mother Nature does not see any difference and treats them as the same! All are absorbed (recycled) equally at the same rate....it is rather a repeating cycle of Mother Nature at work! Studies have shown that individual CO2 molecules remain in the air for about 5 years.....before mostly being absorbed by the ocean. Sure more is being added to replace the amount lost to the atmosphere but the point is that there is no "build-up" of CO2 that was emitted 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 years ago as those have already been absorbed (although yes! The CO2 concentration may, or will be higher from man emitting higher and higher amounts for a specific period).
Look! One of Iceland's super volcanoes or maybe even the super-volcano at Yellowstone National park could explode tomorrow and in one week emit several BILLION times more CO2 in one day than humans have in all of their existence!
Another factor is that the human population is showing signs of stabilizing (that will likely be between 10-11 billion....but maybe even lower) and so the amount of CO2 released into the air by humans will stabilize and then drop....because it is also projected that the human population will also start to drop (resulting in another crisis of a lack of human capital to do what is necessary...but that is another topic).

Another factor is that most of the world's population is rural.....a great majority if not most of them are burning massively CO2 creating fuel sources such as wood, animal dung, and locally produced charcoal that is made by burning their own forests.....to cook their food and for warmth. But once modernization takes place and these people start to have access to cleaner CO2 burning sources such as gas, oil, and even "cleaner' coal-burning plants....then CO2 will be reduced in the atmosphere. It should be noted that modernization will NEVER take place in these rural communities without cheap fuels....of which for these poor countries and people, there is only one source: fossil fuels! These countries (such as Africa, India, Indonesia, Some South American countries, and such, have clearly stated that they will NEVER give up fossil fuel and see it as a plot by Western countries to ensure that they do not modernize and remain poverty-stricken forever! The point being is that even if the West was to commit economic suicide and get rid of all of their fossil fuels….THE REST OF THE WORLD WILL NOT! Not China, not India, not Indonesia, not the rest of Asia, not Africa! NO ONE ELSE WILL! And these are the countries whose populations are growing massively and whose use of fossil fuels will dramatically increase over the next few decades! They will easily swallow up and surpass the slack left by the Western World by many times over!

Finally! Who said that the CO2 was high? Historically over the eons the levels that we have right now are rather low. Not mentioned by any of these scientists is that a CO2 below 150 PPM…..will spell death for most, if not all of living life! We are not far from that in relative terms and we were almost there sometime during the last 2 million years when it had dropped to about 180….and that was in the Glaciation Period of our current Ice Age (and YES! We are currently in an Ice Age! We are in an Interglacial Period of an Ice Age that had started about 30 million years ago....In an Interglacial Period the Earth naturally warms up and the effects of this warming was heightened by the end of an abnormal cooling period {within the interglacial Period} which is known as the Little Ice Age that had ended for the Western Hemisphere around 1850….and for the Arctic in the 1920s). These so-called scientists (really paid for their views, or outright political activists) who claim that the CO2 is dramatically increasing have no idea what they are talking about or are deliberately withholding information that would put a this bit of data into its correct perspective.
And the use that catchphrase "CO2 is at the highest that it has ever been in the last 2 million years and it is all because of man.' But why only the last 2 million….why not 3 Million, or 10 million, or 100 million years? Well! That is because it is convenient for then as that was the low point of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last several million years…..before then it was as high as 8000 PPM….and life got along pretty well with animals 80 times the size of man lumbering around happily.
And then there is that other silly observation in response to this "But man was not here and he "may" not survive in a higher CO2 atmosphere." And there we have the point "FEAR"….fear for their own selfish lives….this is all about them! Sure! Man might not have been on Earth but his ancestors were and they got along quite well!
And who says that man cannot live in a higher CO2 level? Submariners do quite well with a CO2 of up to 11,000 PPM for months at a time (average of 3,500 - 5,000)….and many do this for decades! And these are the guys who have their fingers on those nuclear button!

what about all the science and other greenhouse gasses such as methane?

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

The only global warming I believe in is Spring/Summer. Climate change on the other hand, is a general term used to describe the change of seasons. Any questions? *Greta Thunberg screeching noises in the background*

There's more to it than just that. Historically speaking the earth is in a major CO2 deficit. We used to have a lot more naturally occurring CO2 in our atmosphere. And, surprise, the planet did not burn up back then. I guess that is because there were fewer farting cows. Hmmm but there were a whole lot more farting bison back then.

Has any of the climate change promoters gone outside on a bright sunny day and felt the warmth of that big glowy thing in the sky and ever wondered how much affect it plays on the temperature of the planet? I've never felts the warmth of CO2 but I can certainly feel the warmth of solar radiation.

Yes! It is likely that we are in a deficit and need to get back up to around 1000 PPM, or more! I do not know what the average is historically, or even since the ancestor of man was around, but I do know that it has been higher than 8000 PPM in the past....And that below 150 PPM, it is likely that life could not exist!

Niii

You’re right! Global warming is a hoax. Often supported by these idiots:

okay but everything from mother earth just goes back into the trees so your argument is false however good try, and i hope you learn from this.

Hahahahaha.....SHRUG! Apart from that being an argument that is circular in nature, absolutely breathtaking, and staggering in its childishness....never mind its non-informative temperament....
No! Absolutely NOT!
At a global scale, approximately 69% of forest carbon is stored in the soil....including at the bottom of oceans, with just 31% stored in the biomass of the trees (IPCC 2000).
I am sure that over a billion years or so every molecule of CO2 will eventually pass through some tree....but so would every molecule of practically everything else including water, O2, copper, magnesium, and what will eventually become you before you are born....and what is left of you after you are gone. You are really NOT saying anything at all!

Yes. That's accurate. A total of 0.04% of our atmosphere is carbon dioxide. 412 parts per million (ppm). That means for every million molecules in the atmosphere, 412 are CO².

The reason this has such an impact on our planet is because, back a century and a half ago, it was at 280 ppm. And even in 2000, it was at 370 ppm. Keep in mind this is the same CO² that contributes to the entire carbon cycle, allows every plant on Earth to undergo photosynthesis, and is a significant part of our atmosphere.

Atmospheric content is important down to individual ppm. For example, some chemicals can be lethal at as low as 20ppm. One in every fifty thousand squares. Or 5% of this square.

And CO² isn't the only greenhouse gas. Similarly to carbon dioxide, methane, another very common gas, has doubled. We also used heavy amounts of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were breaking apart O³, or Ozone, in the atmosphere. They've since been banned, fortunately, but it's things like this that are hurting the environment.

Yes, it looks small, but wildlife on the planet relies on stable cycles of nutrients. Carbon, nitrogen, water, oxygen, all of them are molecules that are used heavily in biological systems, and all of them are cyclic in nature. When that cycle is disrupted and we have an overflow or drought of a certain part of the cycle, it creates an imbalance in other patterns across the planet. Climate, food webs, currents, and chemical contents change all across the planet.

That's not to say large changes over time are abnormal. But they usually happen over millions of years. Species and cycles had plenty of time to adapt and evolve to those changes. It's *rapid* change that causes significant damage to biodiversity and ecological systems. Take the KT event, for example. A giant meteor impacting the surface of the Earth is plenty enough to disrupt biological systems around the planet. And the Earth lost massive amounts of biodiversity then. Now we're doing the same thing.

It's not a matter of if life or Earth will survive. Both will. But *Humanity*'s survival is what we're worried about. That and biodiversity. And if there's a rapid change in ecological systems, it tips scales that then cause extinctions. We've known about this since we studied the KT event. It's just a matter of applying the same principles to today's changes.

Oh WOW! about 0.01% more additional CO2 since the Industrial revolution is making all of that difference....oh WOW! Here is the thing, nobody knows that....nobody can know that....We are getting those "thoughts" and they are only "thoughts"....nothing more....from computer models....which have been wrong for the past 30 years. My response to that is "shit....in by programmers.....and you will only get shit out"!
Here is the thing, do you not realize that in the past....the CO2 in the atmosphere was greater than 6000 PPM.....and beasts 80 times the size of man were walking around and doing quite well? Apart from that....the earth has been greening rapidly from the minuscule bit of additional CO2....Because CO2 is nothing but PLANT FOOD....and plants are very thankful for it. Our boreal forest are advancing rapidly....and where there are glaciers today....just over the last 10,000 years were vast forests!
Nothing to see her just more liberal bullshit!

I addressed this. As I said, large changes in CO² levels aren't abnormal. But rapid changes therein are, and can lead to the destabilization of

You do not know that....No one can know whether just around 0.01% of CO2 change over the last 200 years is rapid. One massive volcano can emit 100 times more CO2 than that in a few days. You have shown ZERO original thoughts of your own....You are just parroting the mainstream media propaganda! Most of what you have said is NOT backed by science but by really bad conjectures and fearmongering.

Crap, I hit enter.

...can lead to the destabilization of ecosystems. Current animals have evolved to live in atmospheres with CO² contents of about that 280 ppm mark. Just like the animals back then were evolved and perfectly suited to live in atmospheres past the 6,000 ppm mark.
It's not that life can't take it. It's that *abundant* life won't be able to. And some of that will negatively affect humans.

Shrug...."CAN LEAD" and not "WILL LEAD" (that is just meaningless and unintelligent mumbo-jumbo....fear-mongering for brainless sheep who wish to be led by their noses to slaughter)!
Look! If humans can survive your CO2 mildly rising from 280 to the present 420 over 200 years (roughly a 0.01% rise as part of the atmosphere), without even noticing it except that the earth is vastly greener! (and that the annoying emotional shrill shrieking by climate change lunatics have grown louder)....then they will survive vastly higher CO2 concentrations. And we know that they will because tens of thousands of submariners from around the world for the past 100 years have managed to be underwater with CO2 concentrations as high as 10,000 PPM (the average is around 3,500 PPM)....for months at a time with absolutely no ill-effect....and some of these have been doing this for decades!
Your points are mute and irrelevant I find this and you extraordinarily boring....You are without an original thought of your own! You should stick to arguing with your fellow liberal climate change lunatics....or argue with an 8-year-old, and you may have an impact there!

Yes! Of course humans can! That's been proven time and time again. We're pretty resilient. What I'm saying is that ecosystems around the world, some of which current society relies on, cannot. Some of them are very sensitive to changes because the micro or, sometimes, even macroorganisms they rely on are as well.

Can you name specific biomes or creatures that would be affected?

I reiterate with oceanic ecosystems. The increase in carbonic acid content from the increase in CO² will be high enough that, considering it's only happening in a period of less than 3 centuries, anything that has a thin calcified shell will be severely weakened. This results in a slew of adverse effects, such as increased susceptibility to disease, nutrient deficiency, and overpredation, which in turn leads to those species being at very high risk for, again, mass die-offs, which would disrupt oceanic food webs and put other species higher up on the food chain at risk.

So then you can't name a specific biome and you can't name any actual tests that were done, just speculation.

I have literally performed a CO²+water carbonic acid experiment using pH indicators myself. The rest is simple cross-referencing with acid vs calcium carbonate integrity.

And there was a survey of reefs in 2020 tracking bleaching progress. I believe the other surveys in the program were in 2017, 2012, and some other year, if I recall correctly.

Oceans *are* a biome. And there are tons of creatures, such as snails, diatoms, and clams, that both have a calcium carbonate shell and are essential for aquatic ecosystems. Coral is also essential to some ecosystems, has a low acidity tolerance, and and is very obviously bleaching.

Shrug! If we can adapt from your 280 PPM to 420PPM today.....without even noticing it at all except that the world is vastly greener (and that the climate change lunatics shrieking has gotten shriller and louder)....Then we will continue to do what mankind has always done....ADAPT!
We will shrug off CO2 as high as 10,000....and how do I know that....because our submariners have endured CO2 concentrations as high as 10,000 PPM for months and have absolutely no ill effect!

The oceans have increased in acidity enough to where half the Great Barrier Reef is bleached, and we're going through extinctions faster than a Karen goes through boyfriends. Countless species rely on that reef for protection and food. And that's just one example.
Yes, humans can shrug it off very easily. But the sweeping ecological effects it has when the entire atmosphere looks like that are blatantly present.

No most of the great barrier reef has recovered very nicely.....and we have photos from the 1800s which show the very same bleaching.....
Nothing to see here...BORING! Just repeating others' BULLCRAP! Do you actually have an original thought of your own?

Bearing in mind the oft-repeated statement that 99.999% of all life that had ever existed on earth is now extinct! Things will cease to exist and other lifeforms will take their place. That is the way of nature.

Yes, but that's typically through speciation and evolution, not mass die-offs. That's a mass extinction, not typical natural progression.

Keep in mind evolution was disproven a few years ago.

No! That study did not disprove it but rather added a new twist to evolution. Concentrating on humans alone the real mystery would be how and why the human population needed to restart at all, seeing that the last event extinction event occurred over 65 million years ago, during the time of the dinosaurs. The twist is that it opens us up to the idea that maybe humans are built to periodically “reboot”, meaning dying out, then starting again from scratch.
The study’s conclusions are not so clear-cut. And Stoeckle and Thaler themselves point out: “Many aspects of speciation are complex.”
One should note that when it comes to mitochondrial DNA (which was used by Stoeckle and Thale), that it comprises a very small percentage of our genetic material, and so it can give misleading ideas. One example of this is that when Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA was sequenced, it didn’t show any evidence of the interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans. But the proof that interbreeding had occurred between the homo species of Humans and the Neanderthal was uncovered in our nuclear genome. Meaning that we are part Neanderthal and not pure Homo Sapiens

Additionally, Stoeckle and Thaler’s time window of “between 100,000 to 200,000 years ago is so vague as to be meaningless.” Because with a time span that wide, there’s no real reason to assume there was just one catastrophic event that decimated the population, leaving one solitary Adam and Eve. Because any founding pair would have been part of a larger population, and it was their offspring who had some genetic advantage that had spread throughout humanity.

Most extant species are relatively new, having evolved over the last 200,000 years or so. It’s NOT KNOWN how long any one species usually survives, but it’s been estimated that, on average, species can last for anywhere from 500,000 to 10 million years. Given that huge range, it makes perfect sense that there would be a rise of new species since the time period the scientists examined.

Also, Stoeckle and Thaler’s study is not consistent with our archaeological record. Fossils proven to be of our species were uncovered in Morocco in 2017 and were dated as being more than 300,000 years old.

The fossil record shows that we split from the Neanderthals 500,000 years ago, so you could argue that the human species is that old. However, it is difficult to pinpoint the moment when a species is different enough to be called a new species.

Catarina Pinho. Pinho is a Researcher at the CIBIO-InBio at the University of Porto, Portugal. Pinho works on speciation, the process by which new species arise, a theme central to Darwin’s work.
“I guess there is nothing that I can say about Darwin that has not been said before: how ground-breaking his views were; how amazing it is the way he imagined the processes of evolution even not knowing how heredity worked; how some of his considerations on the nature of species are still shared by many evolutionists today.”
“I am particularly amused how [Darwin] points out that there is not a big distinction between varieties and species, because I face these uncertainties (which are part of what has been called “the species problem”) in my everyday work. I work mostly with a group of lizards that include many closely related forms, and in some cases, this involves trying to decide whether or not these different forms are true species. This is a really difficult question because we are trying to impose discrete boundaries on the outcomes of a continuous process, and Darwin was quite aware and vocal about this difficulty.

Even if you would accept that 100,00 - 200,000 range then a question would arise.....what could cause a sudden rise in a large number of species?
Well! Environmental trauma is one possibility, and then there are the viruses, ice ages, successful new competitors, and loss of prey (just to name a few).....and these may cause periods when the population of an animal drops sharply.

Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University.....noted on these points "In these periods, it is easier for a genetic innovation to sweep the population and contribute to the emergence of a new species."

Stoeckle seems to agree when he noted "It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently." In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.....something that Darwin would have agreed with.

There is one unexpected finding from that study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. Thaler had noted on this point "If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."

Thaler had also noted that this absence of "in-between" species is something that had also perplexed Darwin.

Isabel Gordo. Isabel Gordo is a principal investigator at the Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência in Oeiras, Portugal. She graduated in Physics from the Technical University in Lisbon (IST) and received a Ph.D. in Evolutionary Genetics from the University of Edinburgh in 2002.

"I am sure that some of the original ideas that the founding fathers of evolutionary genetics made will need some update in the face of increasing data provided by the new sequencing capacity. But I seriously doubt that the pervasiveness of natural selection, and in the particular purifying selection, [the type which eliminates variants with deleterious effects] that Darwin so clearly exposed, will ever change."

Now that study was in 2018....Let us see what some scientists, who are intimately aware of the study that was done by Mark Stoeckle and David Thaler of the University of Basel, think about Darwin's Theory on June 27, 2021, and how it has held up over time! For this, I will use scientists who work in genetics!
Harmit Malik is a professor of Evolutionary Genetics at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. He studies molecular evolution, the study of the changes that happen throughout generations at the level of DNA, RNA, and protein molecules, and is mostly focused on conflicts caused by the “interests” of different genetic elements of the genome to increase their frequency.
"Reading Darwin even today, one is struck by how effortlessly he ‘filled the blanks’ of what must be the mode and mechanism of inheritance, despite the fact that these were not even discovered by science by then. This is truly the hallmark of a genius.
"I think Darwin’s work is foundational to all ensuing fields of evolution, even molecular evolution. It provided a framework, a guiding principle to examine the role that natural selection plays in shaping genes and genomes."

No! This is not a start of an argument and I will not respond anymore to this.....but evolution has NEVER been disproven. It had stood the test of time over the past 150 years! It is the best that we have.....and basically it simply says that species will adapt to their changing environment....or die out! That is it really in a nutshell!

Actually you don't have to respond because you won't change your mind, but for anyone else reading this: First off species adapting to their environment or dying off isn't evolution. That's called survival of the fittest and is proven. Evolution is when one creature changes enough to be an entirely different creature. Evolution was disproven in a gene study by Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland.
They found that all the way back to the beginning of all the creatures that have had their DNA sequenced (and there's a lot of them) 9 out of 10 of them did not have common ancestors. They estimated that it goes back 200,000 years.

NO! Absolutely not! Most were through mass die-off! Either through an asteroid, Ice-Ages, or other events thought by scientists to be caused by such things as continuous volcanoes, or supervolcanoes.
Anyways, it has been a blast....an adequate conversation. Bye!

Flood.

No! most, if not all of these die-offs were due to such things as a changing environment, an asteroid strike, and such things as supervolcano throwing up enough ash to blanket the earth's atmosphere and preventing light from entering....and ice ages.
Anyways....I have wasted enough time on this....BYE!

Flood.

Ah! So you are likely religious and are looking at this from a religious perspective. Ok!
Sure floods can cause deaths.....but it is impossible for floods to be as worldwide as described in the bible: SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE for them to reach as high as mountains....there is just not enough water on earth to cover the top of mountains by 15 cubits of water (as per Genesis 7:20) as that would take 1,085,166,768 miles³ of water....or simply put, 250% times the water that we have on the earth right now, which is just 332,500,000 miles³.
Much is made about the water in the glaciers but the glaciers themselves contain only about 2.1% of all of Earth's water: THAT IS IT!
97.2% of all water is already found in the oceans and our inland seas. Those biblical floods were likely just small local affairs but would seem for the well-traveled ancients, whose world had likely only spanned as far they could walk in a few days, and to the less well-traveled whose world was only as far as their eyes could see, as worldwide and utterly catastrophic!
Nope! This would NEVER cause life worldwide extinction, not even local extinction!
And as for floods (the myth is in the amount of water and its extent worldwide), almost every civilization around the world has a flood myth. I am sure that even people in the desert regions would have some story to tell about a great flood that was passed down from their ancient ancestors...myths hazy over the vast space of time, that grows greater with each telling and with each generation! But they also had devastating storms, tornadoes, volcanoes etc.
Now! The biblical floods were nothing new....the Jews has just borrowed them from the Sumerians (Abraham after all was from Sumer, and would have brought over their ancient tales from there). We know it was "BORROWED" from the "Epic of Gilgamesh" which was written around 2,100 BCE...."The god Enki warns Ziudsura to build a large boat due to the coming destruction of the earth. After a flood lasting seven days, Ziudsura sacrifices to the gods..'
And even this epic was borrowed from the Eridu Genesis, composed in circa 2,300 BCE & considered the EARLIEST account of the great flood. “…By the wall I will say a word to you, Take my word, Give ear to my instructions: By our…a flood will sweep over the cult- enters; To destroy the seed of mankind…, Is the decision, the word of the assembly of the gods. By the word commanded by Anu and Enlil…, Its kingship, its rule will be put to an end…”

So what's the new date we're al supposed to die this time? 2025? 2035? 2050?

It's so much more complicated than that. It's not like we're gonna drop dead from atmospheric content. It's the collapse of biomes, climate patterns, and ecosystems that's the problem. Theoretically, humans could survive it, but modern conveniences and comfort would end up completely unviable. We have a limited window to find a way to live without hurting the environment before doing so bites us in the back when, for example, crop failures ravage the agriculture industry because of their pollinators dying off. Or the lumber industry not having enough inventoty because of all the forest fires. It's not that having more of X, Y, or Z in the atmosphere is in and of itself deadly. It's what that does to other systems.

There's no big doomsday date because it's a fluid thing with innumerable moving parts that change on the whims of people.

"It's so much more complicated than that."

No, it actually isn't. The left threaten us with death and despair and we're just supposed to go right along with it. And anyone who has questions about it, are ridiculed. It's quite simple, actually.

What they're doing is trying to warn people, and then because it's such a slow process, people don't listen or don't care.

If you have questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.

When you keep moving the goal posts it becomes more and more ridiculous. It's a scam.

Well some of the stuff they've been saying would happen is actually happening now. It's not "Things will change in this year", it's "things are going to have changed by this year"
And they've been right.
Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is receding, the great barrier reef is recovering, but that recovery is unlikely to last, and bleaching progress over time has gone forward, not backward. And, again, we're losing species by the day.

The thing is, people normalize the things that were warned about and then say "nothing's changed" because it's gradual.

There's no doomsday. There never has been. Because that's not what it's about. It's about damaging ecological systems.

Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is receding because of underground lava flows. This explains why parts of the Arctic and Antarctic have been getting bigger and a few small parts have gotten smaller.

Have you seen orbital imagery of the arctic over the past couple decades? That's very obviously receding.
And a massive chunk of the Antarctic ice shelf broke off last year.

I think it is 2030....but never mind they always shamelessly push it forward another 10 years when the projected 10 years is up!