 
     |
| Carbon dioxide hysteria (Page 39/170) |
|
rinselberg
|
APR 01, 10:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Fitz301:
He's probably searching frantically to find quotes from "climate scientists" to parrot.
People like him have no thoughts of thier own, they exist in a "hive mind" (like the Borg), he must post your questions to the "collective" and wait for an appropriate response. |
|
I guess "Fitz" is the first person to have ever said "I don't believe in the urgency, or even the priority for the world as a whole, including national governments, to take steps that are intended to reign in greenhouse gas-driven global warming." The first person to have said that, in those or similar words. Because "Fitz" is a man who truly has thoughts of his own. He couldn't possibly have been influenced by anyone else's revealed words on this topic.
Maybe he's been conducting his own research. Reviewing various meteorological records, and monitoring a small weather station that he's installed outdoors, next to his abode.
|
|
|
|
Fitz301
|
APR 01, 10:39 PM
|
|
Told you he was a mindless tool... ^^^
|
|
|
|
Patrick
|
APR 01, 10:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
APR 01, 11:11 PM
|
|
1st of all, Patrick.
Thats a Ford. Yes it can be a fun ride, but just like the 2nd cousin dont let dad catch ya doing it !! 
and second...
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 04-01-2023).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 02, 09:27 AM
|
|
Why is CO2 or carbon dioxide such a "big deal", when it comes to the planet-warming greenhouse effect?
"How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?"
MIT Climate Portal; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; February 19, 2021.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask...trap-heat-atmosphere
This is a brief article—just a few paragraphs. If you've been active on this forum in any of these "climate change" or "global warming" conversations, this "one" is definitely for you!
I learned something from this article that I didn't know about, before.
Greenhouse gases "by the number"
If you assign the number "1" to carbon dioxide for its greenhouse effect, on the basis of a single molecule, methane is a "25", which means that a single methane molecule has 25 times more "greenhouse" than a single carbon dioxide molecule. Nitrous oxide is "298". The fluorinated greenhouse gases are even higher... sulfur hexafluoride is "22,800".
The reason that carbon dioxide is so important, compared to these other greenhouse gases, is its abundance in the atmosphere; its persistence in the atmosphere; and the fact that humans cause many times more carbon dioxide emissions, on a per molecule basis, than any of the other greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere from human activities and processes.
"Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and the Greenhouse Effect"
https://climatechange.lta.o...e-greenhouse-effect/
Two more easy (and concise) primers on the subject.
"Basics of the Carbon Cycle and the Greenhouse Effect"
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/carbon_toolkit/
"Explained: Greenhouse gases"
David L. Chandler for the MIT News Office; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; January 30, 2017.
https://news.mit.edu/2017/e...reenhouse-gases-0130
Don't be this meme. Don't be the "guy" who doesn't know the difference between an iceberg and a glacier.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-02-2023).]
|
|
|
|
Fitz301
|
APR 02, 07:55 PM
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
APR 04, 10:02 AM
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fitz301:
https://www.americanthinker...ols_the_climate.html[/QUOTE ]
rinselberg's critical thinking skills are not very good. Because he doesn't want to challenge what he's been told. He believes what they told him to believe reading articles which claim his beliefs are true.
Logic is not his long suit. He will never read something which challenges his views.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 04, 10:31 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Logic is not his long suit. He will never read something which challenges his views. |
|
That's "rich".
Maybe I scrolled through it. Maybe I have some thoughts or questions about it. Maybe it's in the back of my mind to "drill down" on one or more points that were raised in this article.
Maybe it just doesn't seem important for me (as judged by me) to do or say anything more about it right now.
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
APR 04, 10:51 AM
|
|
Maybe ? Probably not.
There is a lot in the article which should convince you your thoughts have been wrong.
|
|
|
cliffw
|
APR 04, 11:15 AM
|
|
Government policies should be based on factual data, not predictions especially since the dire predictions from the last 100 years have been completely wrong.
First they called it Global Warming. It was easy for the sheep to believe their wild claims as most people have seen an ice cube melt. Why did they change Global Warming to Climate Change ?
All of the Climate Change's wild claims have been predicted for the sheeple, without one shred of factual data to explain how it can happen. Not one of those wild claims have been proven to be true.
Again, (you will need to use logic) how is two degrees going to make a rat's azz ? The temperature varies that much between Bandera and San Antonio, 40 miles. The temperature varies 10 to 30 degrees between Texas and Michigan. No one is dying. Crops are growing.[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-04-2023).]
|
|
|
|
I honestly don't know why rinselberg wastes his time trying to educate some of you guys. It's like trying to warn the dinosaurs of an upcoming end-times asteroid impact.
