Quote Originally Posted by Rainfall View Post
Quote Originally Posted by pseudolus View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Rainfall View Post
You are the moron. You are likely to suffer from allergies or cancers all that pollution is causing as well, and it's so deserved. Maybe the big cities account for 1% of the area only, but 83% of all land is influenced by humans, and 22% is occupied by agriculture. 100% of the oceans are overfished, and overpolluted too.

Human "Footprint" Seen on 83 Percent of Earth's Land
I don't know anyone who has an allergy to Co2

lets not forget this thread is about climate scam, not pollution.

There is no debate on pollution, it is a bad thing. There is no debate that the earth is in a warming cycle, warming up following the last mini ice age.

What there is debate about is the Gore Fan club and those banging on about it all the time is that they claim the 7% of Co2 in the air that comes from man is more potent Co2 or something like than the other 93% natural Co2 in the air and there fore they think it is justified to tax the shit out of everyone and allow the bankers to make more and more money from this.

Blind fools.
Almost 40% of the CO2 in the air comes from human activity. The pre-industrial level was 280ppm, now approaching 400ppm, higher than at any point for one million years. It's simple experiments to determine how much infrared radiation is trapped by varying CO2 levels in the air, at 300ppm, 400ppm, 500ppm etc, or in other words, how much stronger the greenhouse effect becomes.
I really do relish the conviction exhibited by the fanatic. Either they are driven by the immaturity of youth or just simply stupid. Most of the worlds's unhappiness can be attributed to this phenomena at one stage or other but the one, ever present constant is that every generation throws up more meat for the grinder that produces most of mankind's contribution which is really very little.

The glibness with which they spray their regurgitated beliefs is really quite astonishing given the absurdity of the entire premise.

Take the way the way he bandies what purports to be an accepted fact, almost as zealously as a hottentot might do when he configures the movement of the planets with his third wife's menstrual cycle. The pre - Industrial Age was 280 ppppppm per whotsit and now it is nearly 400.

By whose measurement? When was it taken? At what times of the day, at what temperature, at what elevation, in what season, by which instrument under what calibration, during what barometric pressured cycle of fronts, in which continent, by which team, under what parameters, during what range of humidity, during which cycle of precipitation, during what lunar cycle, adjacent to what geographical influence of perturbation, in between which measurable fluctuation of the magnetic field, during what aftermath of which ever cycle of the solar influence that may have prevailed?

Nevertheless we have come up with the figure of 400. Not 389, 422, 364, or indeed any other figure within reasonable proximity. And was there any rounding down or up in the parameter sets fixing the mean? What was the sample set? Did they repeat selection at the same point, in the precisely same set of circumstances in 10 locations, 50, 1000, 100,000 or 1 million?

Gosh, it's a big job. But what the heck, get the figure out there anyway and keep repeating it, eh?

And what is the comparison making that figure significant. Well, pre- Industrial Age of course, silly. Umm....so, essentially that earlier measurement of 200 odd wot sits is applicable to the entire past 60 million years? Look shaddup, won't you, we're talking about lots of experts here and you know nothing.


Of course.