Posted on 05/30/2014 4:29:31 AM PDT by simka
Good stuff
Best Thwap EVER!
Wow, this is great. Do you have a source?
I knew it - "Bush's fault!
Good table talk but . . . source?
I would ask the same question in reverse. Where is the evidence that C02 is a greenhouse gas? The ice core data shows exactly the opposite. If you want to see a warmer’s head explode ask them to explain in molecular detail how the C02 molecule, at .035% of the total atmosphere, is able to trap infrared wavelengths of light in sufficient quantities to warm the planet, or even less plausible, the atmosphere. I’ve been asking this question for 20+ years and have yet to have anyone explain the mechanism to me with any clarity (and this includes several Phd’s.)
Source would help, although, the other side doesn’t really care what is presented since it is “settled science” and shall not be contradicted. Darn deniers. :>}
Atmospheric CO2 has always been recognized as a “lagging indicator” of increasing temperature.
The largest sequestration area (”sink”) of CO2 is water of which the surface of the earth is +/- 67%. When the water warms, CO2 is released...as it cools, CO2 is retained.
btt
One of the best-known examples of Plimer's errors is his view on the contribution of volcanoes to global warming. Plimer maintains that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human activity. However, the US Geological Survey (USGS) reports that humans are currently releasing about 100-300 times as much C02 per year than the estimated annual production from volcanoes. The US government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criticised Plimer's statement as having "no factual basis."
http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/ian-plimer/
Hmmm... (The blog where the above is published looks very much lefty-loony, though, going by the "about us" profiles.)
and this includes several Phds.)
Gotta mark this’n for sure .
Apparently the source is Plimer's book: "Heaven and Earth".
I agree with you; facts do not matter to the true believers. I ask about source because these kind of things are useful for people who are not ‘true believers’ and are getting more skeptical about the media blitz and propaganda. Those numbers are growing daily and this kind of thing is a bite-sized piece that all can understand and it pulls back the curtain.
At times, you can certainly use detailed scientific information to refute a belief but, in my experience, outside the lab, jargon and detail are more ofter used to obfuscate and bully. Not everyone did well in their science classes and it is the majority that needs convincing and ammo.
bttt
Thanks!
If leftists REALLY believed CO2 was evil, they should stop exhaling CO2 if they truly want to save the planet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.