Let's debunk what CO2 does. Let's also explain what it does not do.

I have tried in my mind, since you refuse to disclose, why you have such an intense personal interest in a topic that you refuse to watch experts speak on. What if I refused to so much as reply to you based on the fact you can totally be wrong, have been guilty of typos and so forth? I was going to show you the video done by Dr. Tim Ball who accurately points out the corruption of global climate chance but you tell me no thanks. I post them for others who do thank me.

Peer reviewed eh? What about the terms of reference instructions given to those?
See, you pretend to want to stick to science yet base your commentary on the politics of this.

Science does not fear challenges.

 

I want you to give me a straight up answer then.

Why doesn't the evidence prove you are correct?

As I pointed out, we can see using the desert to prove you are wrong. We can easily locate deserts with both cloud events and non cloud events. Meaning either cloudy or not cloudy. The temperature cloudy is higher at night. A day with clouds is cooler.

But Carbon Dioxide is constant and makes no difference.

 

Certainly so here is an excellent peer reviewed report on Carbon Dioxide. You promised to read it, so please do.

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/127co2~1.pdf

 

Let me stop you right there

None of the YouTube offerings have been "experts". So far you have offered only two climatologists Linzden and Curry - all the others including Ball are not climatologists

I listen to experts - I have read the IPCC. I have read extensively on the subject and have been debating this for over 15 years

Now why are you so interested in a subject you seem to know so little about?

 

1986?????

You are JOKING right?

You do know that in academia anything older than five years is considered out of date?

Now in this paper he does not say that CO2 is not affecting the global temperature but that other feedbacks may be stronger

Since this is such an old paper the basic theory should have been tested and reviewed to see if it is still pertaining to climate models - has that happened?

 

First you smirk at the date. Has Carbon Dioxide gas suddenly became a mystery? And you sneer at Dr. Lindzen and include him as a non expert.

Remember this was done with no terms of reference. If you have become an expert, you know what that means.

 

Terms of reference:

Lindzen attended Harvard University where he studied physics and applied mathematics. His PhD is in applied mathematics.​

Richard S. Lindzen is a distinguished senior fellow in the Center for the Study of Science [at the Cato Institute].


The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.[nb 1]​

 

Well. CO2 doesn't burn.

 

Terms of reference means something else.
Dr. Lindzen was head of Sloan department of meterology

Notice when you use a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher, the gas settles down, not up.

It is excellent for fire fighting.

Notice too, as of today, CO2 fire extinguishers are not banned nor does it seem they shall be.

Can any poster name even one country that has banned carbon dioxide gas fire extinguishers?

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

 

This is what CO2 does:

 

I have not sneered at Lindzen - I merely have stated he is one dissenting voice among thousands of assenting voices

And mate - do you not think that there has been more research on the topic in the last 30 years?

 

The amount of CO2 in a fire extinguisher is minimal

You know there has to be a limit to stupid comments posted on this site. I am wearing out the little roll eyes smiley

 

Look, were it nearly as dangerous to the earth as you keep alleging, even that small amount would be banned. Dry ice is not banned. Soft drinks and other beverages with Carbon Dioxide are not banned. Seems what your side seeks is not reduction of carbon dioxide, but monitory rewards. There has to be a limit to your taunting and insulting comments.

 

This happens to be my topic and I was on point. But now that I was heavily censored, nobody knows what My comments were. I never got a courtesy notice.

 

I have big fires to help my tomato plats grow, yours too, you are welcome..

 

Robert, don't worry about nobodies. A nobody is nothing more than a nobody. Somebody for sure knows. Thoughts cannot be censored, if they are worth of anything.

 

As opposed to people who are heads of Departments of Climatology. I note that you also ignore who his employer is.

AGW deniers often make comments about how supporters must toe the line or they are refused grant money. The personal gain from grant money is way less than a denier gets from organizations like the Cato Institute.

 

Lindzen is retired from academia. MIT has their own name. Meteorology is accurate.

So far, you make claims yet show no proof.

I have asked Dr. Lindzen to explain his working for oil firms. He said his paycheck was from MIT. Maybe MIT, since he worked for them had a project that he got assigned to. But he told me he has never got a paycheck from oil companies. Somebody lied to you. He did not comment on grants since I did not ask him. My first question was his view of global average temperatures. They get misused. There is no such thing.

It reminds me of asking a poster how large his immediate family is and counting up his entire neighborhood and talking as if those are part of his family by using averages.

For instance, climate in the South regions of Earth do not match the North. Trying to average such things is crazy. Alarmists do things like that.

 

When a university hires professors, they agree by contract to do this or that. Alarmists pretend they get paid all over the place. But sadly they do not proffer proof of their claims.

 

Climatology, Cosmetology, Astrology, Tossology, Cosmology and all similar Departments as opposed to one, just one single law of Thermodynamics. I am so excited to see what will happen. Let me get my popcorn.

 

96 MILLION barrels of oil burnt per day

And you think a little dry ice is going to upset someone?

Really????

 

Do yourself a favour - ask Lindzen about global averages and give him your thoughts on why they should not include parts of the globe.

While you are at it - explain your theory of higher CO2 in forests

 

who he??

 

96 MILLION barrels?That's all? Such a miniscule, negligible number in relation to all other numbers of the Earth?