Advice Look at the FACTS

[Common Sense aka Science]

Hey everyone,
As a disclaimer, I did NOT join this forum as an environmentalist, but rather as an ANTI-environmentalist seeing what reaction from "environmentalists is to the facts.
I will now post the facts about the "climate crisis" and see how you react.

1. This is by far the most mind boggling fact that many environmentalists overlook about global warming.
Our atmosphere is about 78% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen, 1% Argon, and... 0.54% Carbon Dioxide. Not 54%. Not 5.4%. 0.54%. Now, human input of this 0.54% is about 1/1000, and therefore, 0.00054% of our atmosphere. Divide this by the 6.5 billion people of Earth and you get... about 0.000000000000008% of the atmosphere per human. So if you switched from one cheaper source of energy to another more expensive "environmentally friendly" kind, here's some news: YOU DON'T MATTER.

2. There is one problem with the argument that CO2 causes global warming, and that is... that it causes global cooling. Dust particles caused by CO2 help block out sunlight, and therefore cause regional global cooling. A great example of this is China, the smoggiest place on Earth.

So, while these are the main disproving points for the "humans are killing off the polar bears!" argument, there are many more which I was to lazy to post.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

Hey everyone,
As a disclaimer, I did NOT join this forum as an environmentalist, but rather as an ANTI-environmentalist seeing what reaction from "environmentalists is to the facts.

Considering the fact that all aspects of our economy are based on the harnessing, acquisition, transformation, and use of natural resources (from the Earth's environment), anybody who claims to be an anti-environmentalist is by their own definition, anti-development.

So what is it that you hate about development so much, "Common Sense aka Science"?

If it was not for the development you so detest, Mr. anti-environmentalist, you would not even be able to post these messages using a computer!

Anyway, the point you seen to be missing is that by your own assertion (of being an anti-environmentalist), you have defined yourself as one aspiring to be a tree-hugging caveman...

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

I will now post the facts about the "climate crisis" and see how you react.

1. This is by far the most mind boggling fact that many environmentalists overlook about global warming.
Our atmosphere is about 78% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen, 1% Argon, and... 0.54% Carbon Dioxide. Not 54%. Not 5.4%. 0.54%. Now, human input of this 0.54% is about 1/1000, and therefore, 0.00054% of our atmosphere. Divide this by the 6.5 billion people of Earth and you get... about 0.000000000000008% of the atmosphere per human. So if you switched from one cheaper source of energy to another more expensive "environmentally friendly" kind, here's some news: YOU DON'T MATTER.

2. There is one problem with the argument that CO2 causes global warming, and that is... that it causes global cooling. Dust particles caused by CO2 help block out sunlight, and therefore cause regional global cooling. A great example of this is China, the smoggiest place on Earth.

So, while these are the main disproving points for the "humans are killing off the polar bears!" argument, there are many more which I was to lazy to post.

blah, blah, , ...

Mr. Treehugging Anti-development (aka "Common Sense aka Science"), based on the above, it is obvious that you have not read any of the earlier posts in this forum...

So please read the existing discussions here, instead of rambling on about having proof that "guns don't kill polar bears" or whatever eco-tinfoil-hat conspiracy you are trying to sell...

[Common Sense aka Science]

Originally Posted by Karl

Considering the fact that all aspects of our economy are based on the harnessing, acquisition, transformation, and use of natural resources (from the Earth's environment), anybody who claims to be an anti-environmentalist is by their own definition, anti-development.

So what is it that you hate about development so much, "Common Sense aka Science"?

If it was not for the development you so detest, Mr. anti-environmentalist, you would not even be able to post these messages using a computer!

Anyway, the point you seen to be missing is that by your own assertion (of being an anti-environmentalist), you have defined yourself as one aspiring to be a tree-hugging caveman...


Mr. Treehugging Anti-development (aka "Common Sense aka Science"), based on the above, it is obvious that you have not read any of the earlier posts in this forum...

So please read the existing discussions here, instead of rambling on about having proof that "guns don't kill polar bears" or whatever eco-tinfoil-hat conspiracy you are trying to sell...

1. By anti environmentalist I do not mean against the environment, rather anti-environmentalist fanatics.

2. When I said "Humans are killing the polar bears!" I did not mean with guns, I mean people think we are destroying their habitat, while in fact we are NOT. Hardly anyone hunts polar bears with weaponary.

3. It is a full out lie to say that "all aspects of our economy are based on the harnessing, acquisition, transformation, and use of natural resources (from the Earth's environment)", because last time I checked there were no Natural Resources being exchanged on the stock market.

4. I AM NOT A TREEHUGGER!

It is kind of pathetic that even a kid like me can disprove the fundemental principles of the climate change "theory".

Glad I could help

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

Hey everyone,
As a disclaimer, I did NOT join this forum as an environmentalist, but rather as an ANTI-environmentalist seeing what reaction from "environmentalists is to the facts.
I will now post the facts about the "climate crisis" and see how you react.

1. This is by far the most mind boggling fact that many environmentalists overlook about global warming.
Our atmosphere is about 78% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen, 1% Argon,

Close. 21% Nitrogen is closer.

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

and... 0.54% Carbon Dioxide. Not 54%. Not 5.4%. 0.54%.

Not close. Currently about 380ppm, or 0.038%.
The natural level is about 280ppm or 0.028%.

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

Now, human input of this 0.54% is about 1/1000, and therefore, 0.00054% of our atmosphere.

Again, not close. The human in put is about 1/4 of the current level, or 1/3 of the natural level. And climbing.


(Click on the thumbnail for a bigger graph)

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

Divide this by the 6.5 billion people of Earth and you get... about 0.000000000000008% of the atmosphere per human. So if you switched from one cheaper source of energy to another more expensive "environmentally friendly" kind, here's some news: YOU DON'T MATTER.

The technologies that we use as a species for power generation, transport, heating and agriculture do matter. The combustion of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO2 to 30% above it's natural maximum level.

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

2. There is one problem with the argument that CO2 causes global warming, and that is... that it causes global cooling.

No, greenhouse gasses make it warmer. Look up "greenhouse effect".

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

Dust particles caused by CO2 help block out sunlight, and therefore cause regional global cooling. A great example of this is China, the smoggiest place on Earth.

CO2 is a gas made of once carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. It does not cause dust.

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

So, while these are the main disproving points for the "humans are killing off the polar bears!" argument, there are many more which I was to lazy to post.

The recent rapid decline in the Northern Summer Sea Ice is tragic for polar bears, and the many pinnipeds that use the ice to breed. To say nothing of Inuit communities.
And people studying alpine subarctic and subantarctic biological communities are devastated by the recent destruction in these ecological systems as climate change pushes the range of species off the top of mountains or off the edge of the world, and as temperate species invade the communities.

However the big problem for policy makers is not biodiversity, which, alas is not much of a vote winner. The current human and economic devastation is the talking point.

Pacific nations are disappearing under the rising oceans, floods and droughts are destroying homes and crops, especially in the subcontinent, south east Asia, and North Africa. Fresh water availability is decreasing, mostly in the same areas, Dengue and Malaria are marching Northwards, and heatwaves such as the 2003 one come accompanied by large mortalities by CVD.

The reason that reducing emissions is a good idea is inclusively that in helps maintain biodiversity, but the human cost of not acting is about five to twenty times the human cost of acting.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

3. It is a full out lie to say that "all aspects of our economy are based on the harnessing, acquisition, transformation, and use of natural resources (from the Earth's environment)", because last time I checked there were no Natural Resources being exchanged on the stock market.

More trolling...

Humans do not actually create anything through industry, everything, including things which do not occur naturally (like plastics) are manufactured from materials originate in the environment (whether from direct geological materials or those from interactions with solar radiation).

So, we do not create anything, we just make use of materials available from the Earth. The stock market is still based (no matter how indirectly) on materials removed from the Earth (and therefore the environment).

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

4. I AM NOT A TREEHUGGER!

It is kind of pathetic that even a kid like me can disprove the fundemental principles of the climate change "theory".

Glad I could help

You have not proven anything, mr(s). treehugger-in-denial.

I hope you really are a "kid" which would explain your lack of experience in holding civil discussions...

But even your age would be a poor excuse for a lack of understanding of the knowledge-base you ought to have internalised by now.

The fact that you do not seem to grasp the basic fundamental principles of reality, far less science or "common sense" is quite alarming indeed.

So, rather than throwing tantrums on the forum, you would be well advised to at least try to educate yourself (even just a little bit) on the topics you wish to discuss...

[Windguy]

Obviously they've shown you are incredibly ignorant upon the facts already, and I don't like kicking someone when they're down but;

2. There is one problem with the argument that CO2 causes global warming, and that is... that it causes global cooling. Dust particles caused by CO2 help block out sunlight, and therefore cause regional global cooling. A great example of this is China, the smoggiest place on Earth.

Sulphur is a reflective aerosol, but carbon soot from coal plants and diesel vehicles contribute to global warming more than half as much as CO2. Carbon soot is equal to 0.9W/m^2 and CO2 at 380ppm from 290ppm is contributing 1.66W/m^2. So china's smog is perhaps contributing more than relieving climate change.

Aerosols current level is contributing to -0.18W/m^2 which is really throwing a sausage down a hallway in considering global dimming is relieving Global Warming.

[Common Sense aka Science]

I've decided to stop trying to convince you "environmentalists" that you've got it all wrong, because I see nothing I say will change your mind. On the other hand, you can watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle", a documentary which aired on BBC, and I hope the numerous qualified scientists will help prove my point.

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

Close. 21% Nitrogen is closer.


Not close. Currently about 380ppm, or 0.038%.
The natural level is about 280ppm or 0.028%.


Again, not close. The human in put is about 1/4 of the current level, or 1/3 of the natural level. And climbing.


(Click on the thumbnail for a bigger graph)



The technologies that we use as a species for power generation, transport, heating and agriculture do matter. The combustion of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO2 to 30% above it's natural maximum level.


No, greenhouse gasses make it warmer. Look up "greenhouse effect".

CO2 is a gas made of once carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. It does not cause dust.


The recent rapid decline in the Northern Summer Sea Ice is tragic for polar bears, and the many pinnipeds that use the ice to breed. To say nothing of Inuit communities.
And people studying alpine subarctic and subantarctic biological communities are devastated by the recent destruction in these ecological systems as climate change pushes the range of species off the top of mountains or off the edge of the world, and as temperate species invade the communities.

However the big problem for policy makers is not biodiversity, which, alas is not much of a vote winner. The current human and economic devastation is the talking point.

Pacific nations are disappearing under the rising oceans, floods and droughts are destroying homes and crops, especially in the subcontinent, south east Asia, and North Africa. Fresh water availability is decreasing, mostly in the same areas, Dengue and Malaria are marching Northwards, and heatwaves such as the 2003 one come accompanied by large mortalities by CVD.

The reason that reducing emissions is a good idea is inclusively that in helps maintain biodiversity, but the human cost of not acting is about five to twenty times the human cost of acting.

1. The atmosphere is not 21% nitrogen. That's what's not close.

2. You just admitted CO2 levels are even LOWER than what I said... although what you said is not true.

3. Even volcanoes put out more CO2 than we do, animals EXHALING put out more than we do... a lot less than 1/3 or 1/4 or even 1/100.

4. We have ACTUALLY raised CO2 by about 0.1%.

5. Nice job using Wikipedia to prove your point! By dust I meant smog particles which block sunlight.

6. WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT POLAR BEARS? If you saved them, and asked for a thank you, they'd gladly rip your head off your shoulders! What's the point of trying to save something we can't eat and will kill us?

7. Pacific nations are not being flooded do to human intervention! Global Warming supporters feed on humans' need to seem inmportant, even in a bad way.

[spot1234]

The 'documentary' or more accurately hatchet job; "The Great Global Warming Swindle" aired on Channel Four not the BBC and many scientists appearing on it were very upset that their statements were taken out of context.

Do you do any research at all before you post?

[Windguy]

Great Climate Change Swindle, who is trying to swindle who?

This should be enough information about an insult for a documentary.

[Common Sense aka Science]

Originally Posted by spot1234

The 'documentary' or more accurately hatchet job; "The Great Global Warming Swindle" aired on Channel Four not the BBC and many scientists appearing on it were very upset that their statements were taken out of context.

Do you do any research at all before you post?

Yes, I do, like actually watching the movie. Did you?