Re: OT: Garbage Data Used to Support Climate Change Hoax

Billions of people in China and India and Africa want electricity, clean water, transport, air-conditioned schools and hospitals, all the stuff we have. And they will burn coal and oil and gas to get it. If we go all-electric and live off erratic wind and solar and eat millet instead of beef, we'll be basically in the noise.

CO2 is good stuff, and we'll get lots more.

It's just plant food. Anyone dumb enough to worry about it should press their government to plant more trees.

Earth has been above 6000 PPM CO2 in ages where life flourished.

I'm thinking 800 or so would be good.

So somebody can't decide if the Heartland Institute disputes a claim about smoking, or a claim about secondhand smoke. "Extremism" is the inability to make distinctions, and it's a word the left loves to use but doesn't understand.

Before 1990 we had a few hundred 'climate scientists.' Then federal funding increased 15x from 1990 to 1995 and more since. Now 'thousands of climate scientists all agree.'

No doubt those thousands include not only those who changed fields because there's more money in it, and those such as biologists of dubious reputation who couldn't get a grant to study diabetes unless they promised to sudy the 'connection between diabetes and climate change', but also the technicians who install weather stations and operate ice core drills. Meanwhile the actual scientists who actually did study the climate before seem to be split, but mass media only interviews those who are recommended in press releases.

Lefties also like to quote Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex, but like to forget his warning about "public funding of the academy." They seem to think there is something special about making weapons that drives corruption, as if billions in public money to make dishwashers would not result in manufacturers lobbying for more funding.

Even if it were possible to double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere it would quite quickly come down again of its own accord. It's been around 390ppm now for at least 150 years, despite all the monumental quantities of polution we've generated in that same time-frame.

How odd that it hasnt since the industrial revolution.

Bare faced lie

Irrelevant.

Oh no, not another lost argument!

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag with why Putin invaded the Ukraine.

The conspiracy is working.

Look at that curve, bend to our will.

We're in control, yes siree.

I'm feeling much warmer about this plan, already.

If there was an actual plan, wouldn't it be working better ??? Fucking thing is on autopilot by the looks of it.

"Whatever you're doing, keep doing it" OK. That's the plan then. OK.

Paul

This is good news.

However, what is the Tau time constant of your observation.

Say for example, you're incinerated in the heat in the first hundred years (greenhouse prompt response to the 6000PPM), and then fifty thousand years later, the CO2 drops to 390PPM.

Would that be handy ?

It's handy in some "glad I wasn't there" retrospective.

The thing is, some events that have happened, have been gradual things. The dynamics of each part of the response matter.

We are relatively quickly ramping the CO2 right now. We're not doing this on a geological time scale.

"Scientists are concerned that this trickle of greenhouse gases may represent the first cracks in a dam, as the arctic tundra stores an estimated 180 billion metric tons of carbon--about a third of the total in the Earth's atmosphere, says Kling."

When the peat in the tundra catches fire, the weather isn't cold enough to put it out.

"Scientists project that two-thirds of the Arctic’s near-surface permafrost could be gone by 2100."

And you just know that prediction is wrong. The Canada Beaver is moving into those lands, and building dams and pools of water collect on the surface. This changes the albedo and how much solar is captured, which speeds up how quickly some of the melting will take place. The beaver is able to move north, because the mean temperature is rising.

You may have noticed, we're not very good at predicting stuff.

Paul

I personally think so too. Its too cold and plants are weedy these days. A bit of subtropicality would be nice. I could grow bananas.

I dont think the main surge of CO2 happened until post WWII. But also there was a surge in air traffic. Its possible to make an equally plausible case for contrails stopping heat esacaping at night.

The problem is not that nobody really knows, its that policy is being prepared as if we did.

It was necessary so that the US EPA could be in charge of dealing with it and make laws about it.

You two should get a room. If you like CO2 that much, make sure it has

1 million ppm.

You are an imbecile.

uk.legal ceased being a serious legal group a few years ago. Nowadays it's a home for trolls, flamers and the like. The X-post was set up by the OP, aka "the imbecile". Take from that what you will.

She's another mentally-ill basket case that needs locking up.

I certainly wouldn't do that. I was referring to polution in general, which includes all sorts of nasties like smoke particulates, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and heavy metal oxides. Anyway, we're getting off the point. *IF* warming is happening *AND* it's due to man's activities, then the massive increase in RF broadcast emissions since about 1920 fits the data FAR better than some old crap about CO2.

Quite. So by selective hilghting of particular ranges on the x axis of the graph, a disingenuous person or organisation could easily make a compelling case for an alarming rise in CO2, thereby sending vulnerable individuals like Fred Bloggs into a frenzy of psychotic anxiety. Lies, damned lies and statistics, as they say.