You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

There is a big difference between not believing left wing ideas will help climate change and being an arrogant idiot.

---

there is a big difference between actually solving climate change and what the left is doing

---

Thats true, however it's a generalization. The right generally denies the science of climate change, so i can't blame the lefties when they are defacto slightly ahead. Neither side doing much good but at least one side doesn't put its head in a plastic bag when the dreaded phrase is uttered.

---

It's not about "putting your head in a plastic bag" - it's about facing reality. The climate is going to do what the climate does and human kind simply doesn't have the power or the ability to alter it or change it to any material degree no matter how many $$trillions we throw at it and no matter what we do with curbing CO2 emissions. We could literally go back to living in the Stone Age and it wouldn't alter the climate to any material degree as again humans just don't have the ability to change the climate - for good or for bad. Period.

---

How are you this ignorant? We already had a climate crisis that we then fixed. Do you know about the ozone layer? Also this know-it-all attitude of "7bn people couldn't alter the climate if they tried" is just so ignorant I don't know where to begin. I don't know what to call it anymore, because willful ignorance is something much less.

Maybe if you made yourself a rule, read a book for every Tucker Carlson segment you watch, but what a joke.

---

90% of lead removed from air, smog much reduced, water ways recovering.
There has been some good

---

What you're alluding to is about being environmentally responsible - which is an entirely different subject, and anyone in their right mind is in favor of it. And yes, in that regard, there is quite a bit of good news regarding the progress that has been made over the last 50 years - especially in the USA. On the other hand, the asinine, idiotic belief that us humans can alter the climate to any meaningful degree is a whole other topic that sadly millions have been brainwashed to believe like Poteroso - whom I bet was one of the chicken littles 30 years ago whining about the end of the world coming by 1999.

---

CO2 has risen to twice the maximum levels in in 1950 and twice the highest levels in the last 800,000 years. How do you explain? Are you curious? Does this worry you at all?

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

---

Who was measuring CO2 800,000 or 200 years ago? What technology was used?

---

That's what I meant in my post. The activists Oso referenced are using computer models, simulations based on subjective and untested assumptions.

In sum, as I said, hysterics.

---

There is no way this could be true. There is no way people would base global-changing policy and authoritarianism without real data and just man-made models by scientists funded by climate fascists.

---

The CO2 measurement in 1950 & 2022 is a fact.

---

Would you contend that the pertinent technology in and before 1950 was the same as now?

---

I would contend that there was no relevant difference and that, if asked to cite such a difference, you would be 1) unable and 2) uncivil.

Looks like I wasn't far off.

---

Sam is quite the spokesman for Vaporphobia, I see.

And no Sam, that's not 'uncivil'. What's 'uncivil' is destroying Industry and insulting rational people for simply noting CO2 is an inert gas which causes no known diseases, has not been proven to cause any disasters, and which has been blown well out of proportion by people aiming to gain personally and politically.

I would contend you are ducking the truth and attacking me out of a sense of guilt.

At least Oso has not stopped to that level.

---

I don't have a strong opinion about climate change. I just know a bluff when I see it.

---

Not in this case you don't. The matter of whether technology has changed in 72 years is salient to the discussion, although not nearly as vital as whether or not carbon dioxide is even a real threat.

You do a lot of shuffling Sam, but those points won't go away just because you try to dance around them.

---

He hasn't always gone by Sam

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

I'm posting links to NASA and NOAA while you post your opinion.

Again, I have made no posts on the effects.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

I appreciate that but also relies on a lot of assumptions. Not enough actual science to institute global authoritarianism.

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

I appreciate that but also relies on a lot of assumptions. Not enough actual science to institute global authoritarianism.

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

What would be the appropriate amount of actual science to institute global authoritarianism?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

I'm posting links to NASA and NOAA while you post your opinion.

Again, I have made no posts on the effects.

---

Daffy Oso still ducking everything posted on the topic in the last half-day.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

I'm posting links to NASA and NOAA while you post your opinion.

Again, I have made no posts on the effects.

---

Daffy Oso still ducking everything posted on the topic in the last half-day.

---

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/117998/replies/3051716

Ah. Sam's most credentialed source to quote is ... Sam being petulant.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ah. Sam's most credentialed source to quote is ... Sam being petulant.

---

What source are you citing again?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ah. Sam's most credentialed source to quote is ... Sam being petulant.

---

What source are you citing again?

---

I was talking about you and your favorite source, which - according to your last post before this one - is you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

I'm posting links to NASA and NOAA while you post your opinion.

Again, I have made no posts on the effects.

---

Daffy Oso still ducking everything posted on the topic in the last half-day.

---

No information?

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

Golem said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

There is a big difference between not believing left wing ideas will help climate change and being an arrogant idiot.

---

there is a big difference between actually solving climate change and what the left is doing

---

Thats true, however it's a generalization. The right generally denies the science of climate change, so i can't blame the lefties when they are defacto slightly ahead. Neither side doing much good but at least one side doesn't put its head in a plastic bag when the dreaded phrase is uttered.

---

Computer models (particularly those producing predictions which are 97% incorrect) are not science. Consensus is not science. Science requires that a hypothesis be testable and the outcome repeatable. What's more, science requires an actual null hypothesis, of which there isn't one to be found. Climate 'science' is nothing more than political propaganda using bad data run through even worse models to achieve a political end….more government control of the populace.

---

politics ALWAYS seeks to control capital. climate change is just the latest narrative to build moral urgency for taxation and regulation of economic activity.

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

Better Homes and Gardens did.

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

I believe you could do with a nap.

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

you seem to think it is a significant issue that CO2 levels have doubled since 1950.

Is it?

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

you seem to think it is a significant issue that CO2 levels have doubled since 1950.

Is it?

---

They're still quite low. Nurseries buy CO2 to saturate the air in their greenhouses to get max plant growth.

The war on carbon is one of the most ironic aspects of climate hysteria. We are far closer to "too little" carbon than "too much."

Pretty good examples of how "follow the science" is just code for "follow my political decree or else".

https://rumble.com/v20xews-the-covid-redemption-with-tim-robbins-048-stay-free-with-russell-brand.html

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

That seems to be pretty important. If one is going to argue for taking a particular action, one should understand the benefits and risks of said action. If anyone is going to advocate that we should reduce carbon emissions, there should be a pretty good, data-driven "why" and a quantifiable results if all these actions occur.

I prefer Occam's Razor:
- the same people telling us we were going to be in an ice age 50 years ago now are telling us all the ice will melt
- the people that told us polar bears would be extinct don't realize the population of polar bears has been growing
- the people that told us the world would end by 1990. 2000. 2020, are still making up new hysterics
- the same people that advocate cutting domestic oil production are just buying billions from Putin, Iran, Venezuela, and other bad Middle East actors
- the same people worried about "carbon footprints" fly private jets and live in mansions
- the same people that tell us the sea levels will flood American live on the water

At some point common sense just lets one realize you're being manipulated and lied to.

The

ShooterTX said:

---

Pretty good examples of how "follow the science" is just code for "follow my political decree or else".

https://rumble.com/v20xews-the-covid-redemption-with-tim-robbins-048-stay-free-with-russell-brand.html

---

It's pretty crazy when some of the craziest extremists start to wake up.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Pretty good examples of how "follow the science" is just code for "follow my political decree or else".

https://rumble.com/v20xews-the-covid-redemption-with-tim-robbins-048-stay-free-with-russell-brand.html

---

It's pretty crazy when some of the craziest extremists start to wake up.

---

There's a lesson there. Probably not the one you're thinking, but there's definitely a lesson.

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

you seem to think it is a significant issue that CO2 levels have doubled since 1950.

Is it?

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since 5he 50s? If CO2 rates aren't going up (despite reports from NOAA & NASA), then what difference does my opinion make? It would seem there is nothing to discuss

Oldbear83 said:

---

I believe you could do with a nap.

---

So, no information?

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You are not addressing the main point., It doesn't matter worth a fart what happens with CO2 unless CO2 is proven to be dangerous.

And if you are contending that scientists in 1950 considered carbon dioxide a threat, they sure hid it well, because I cannot find a single meterological journal claiming so before 1975, and zero experimental evidence anywhere to back up the claim.

As for whether there is more or less carbon dioxide now than in 1950, that depends on how, where and when scientists measured. Given that there is zero evidence it was considered a danger in 1950, I'd submit common sense drives less effort to find or track it in 1950, and ergo there is less evidence of it.

The only thing you have proven is you've got the Vapors, son.

---

Correct. There can be selective measurements of CO2 but nye impossible to measure the entire atmosphere ... much like how the location of temperature stations can impact temperature readings.

But still trying to understand how we have CO2 measurements from 100, 200, or 800K years ago.

---

Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years.

---

If we stopped all man-made carbon emissions today, how much would that reduce the global temperature in 100 years?

---

Are you saying that CO2 has not doubled since the 50s? I believe NOAA and NASA. Those are actual measurements, not assumptions.

I have said nothing about the effects of the doubling of CO2. I have no idea on what happens to the global temperature with your hypothetical. What do you think?

---

Follow the science.. plant a tree

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

---

If CO2 isn't rising, as your colleagues here claim, why bother?

---

they are pretty to look at.. provide shade to nap under.. provide food

---

I agree, which is why my family has planted approximately 100 acres of various species
However, Scientific American didn't mention shade, food, or esthetics

---

that was a quick shift of gears.. you asked a specific question and I gave a simple valid answer of why you should bother.. thanks for planting all those trees!

---

Do you believe CO2 levels have doubled since the 50s?

---

do you believe this is an catastrophic issue?

We know the Earth has had periods with both higher and lower CO2 than current levels.. Earth still here.

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

---

you seem to think it is a significant issue that CO2 levels have doubled since 1950.

Is it?

---

They're still quite low. Nurseries buy CO2 to saturate the air in their greenhouses to get max plant growth.

The war on carbon is one of the most ironic aspects of climate hysteria. We are far closer to "too little" carbon than "too much."

---

Do you believe CO2 levels are double what they were in the 50s?

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I believe you could do with a nap.

---

So, no information?

---

Plenty, just nothing to support the paranoia against carbon dioxide.