"Well, yeah. It's even higher than eleven!"
and I still need to post a Nascar race thread. talk about a disaster in the making. ;-]
Last I heard the “tippping point” was going to come in 2008. Since its too late now anyhow maybe these chicken littles will please just shut up an go away.
We are all gona' die!!!
Air bubbles in Cretaceous amber show that CO2 levels then were around 3,200 ppm.
Hey, pal......I’ve got your CO2 home removal kit right here. Don’t crowd...plenty to go around.
Is something carrying CO2 to the arctic, but not to the antarctic? Or failing to absorb it in one locale but not the other? Le Chatelier’s [sp?] principle would suggest that, like chilling a fizzy Coke, you’d absorb more carbon dioxide in the water in the arctic (so long as there was open liquid water available to do so). So there should be less of the stuff in the arctic, not more.
” - - - carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.”
WRONG!
There is no known cause and effect between a change in the CO2 content in the atmosphere and a change in the temperature of the atmosphere.
LOL! Who wrote this, an eighth grader?
IOW.....we’re perpetuating the concocted MYTH....so those RICH countries will forgive those POOR countries their debt and shift $$$$ to them through a ‘Robin Hood Tax’ (i.e. ‘Carbon Exchange’).
I believe I read or heard a few days ago that a construction project of some kind on Alaska’s north slope had to be postponed due to uncommonly thick ice.
????????????????
Do these idiots not realize how close .04% is to zero?
As an agent necessary to plant growth, it's an alarmingly low level, especially when compared to 78% for Nitrogen
F-in Yahoo is aptly named. They are also heavily invested in the global warming scam or just plain stupid enviro idiots who just jumped off a Whale War boat.
No, it isn't. It is just a number from an arbitrary numbering system, measuring in arbitrary units. The number has no natural, intrinsic significance whatsoever. However, it does help "sell" the AGW agenda to make it sound "significant."
Some carbon dioxide is natural...
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "some." To me, I might go with "an overwhelming majority of" instead. You see, as I understand it, 97% of the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. Yes, 97%, not a typo. We contribute just under 3%... 97%, yeah, that's "some" from natural sources...
It’s all those factories, cars, and CO2 exhaling humans in the ARCTIC causing the levels to rise there. Must be, because that is what they say is the cause of all this, humans.
"Well, yeah. It's even higher than eleven!"
Obama must have been giving another speech. Someone shut this man up or the planet will die! LOL.
I wish I could make up complete BS and get paid handsomely.
Errr....that would be water vapor.
...I thought all the ice at the arctic was supposed to be gone by now....
CO2 is NOT a pollutant and is essential for all life on earth. That minute amounts of CO2 can alter the global climate is pure BS. In Australia a group of scientists have formed the Galileo Movement to oppose the Labour governments CO2 tax. This Galileo Movement video puts the whole CO2 as pollutant argument to rest. Grain of Rice Video
All that number means is that there are 999,605 parts per million of other gases.