Climate Change? (Bonus: George Carlin Comments) lol


In the South, the North however is shrinking. It’s why Alaska has consistent access to the Northwest passage now for shipping.

Warming doesn’t preclude record cold. Rather, you should ask the question, which sorts of records are we seeing more of?

Are we seeing more record droughts than rains or snows?
Are we seeing more record heat waves than cold snaps?

And the answer is yes; the first categories are more than double the rate of the latter.

Which means we are warming, and that Gore is simply using worst case scenario to be an alarmist.

This *selectively" forgets that most large creatures who exist on the earth, are animals we’ve domesticated.

97% of animals are either us, our pets, or our cattle. Only 3% of animals live in nature.

Also again, the composition of CO2 isotopes. We are seeing a higher and higher % of CO2-12 (which get there by burning mummified plant matter), when the kind that exists naturally in the atmosphere is CO2-13.

This isn’t really a talking point, as we haven’t had equipment in lower parts of these planets atmosphere to detect anything either way.

For Neptune, it was simply a change in seasons (it has very long seasons), for Jupiter, it was simply a prediction based on storms on its surface combining.

The Sun’s activity has been going down regardless, so it can’t explain what’s going on, even if planets were warming.

And Again, if solar activity was to blame for our warming; why are our lower atmospheric layers warming first?

No tiny, the real hoax, is the idea that this is a “bigger crisis than anything humanity faces” (it’s not), or that we would get a better result by submitting everything to central planning or widespread energy-conversion plans (we won’t.)

This is politics hijacking science to assert more control, in alliance with neurotic environmentalists, in the throes of asceticism, insisting that humanity must repent for its “crimes against nature”.

These things are happening, it just doesn’t constitute the excuse for their plans they insist it is.


BS, AS. The weight of the combined number of ANTS outweigh the combined weight of humans on this planet and the combined weight of termites nearly do, too. THEY both emit CO2 as do every insect on the planet.


Oh no - the contradictions continue. You are such a flip flopper.

Quite recently you said:

If we don’t know that CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas, how can you claim with certainty:
“Raising the CO2 would have NO EFFECT on life [except more food]”

Would you say, you are a person that claims all sorts of things with certainty although they are not certain at all – and therefore a person that shouldn’t be trusted in general?

The more contradictions you produce to more you credibility will sink. What does it mean if you claim this or that or call this a fact or that a fact? Nothing. Since its known that you use the word fact very arbitrary and make assertions that are refuted by your own words few days later: What sense does it make to discuss?

One more question. You say:

So we KNOW that vapor is a greenhouse gasses, but if we talk about CO2 we know nothing but are just GUESSING?
You rely on science if it supports your position but you reject every kind of data that does not support your position. Isn’t this self-righteous?

I give you an advice… no I give you three:
(1) stop flip flopping
(2) stop being self-righteous
(3) stop displaying assumptions as facts


525 million dogs, 600 million cats, 1.4 billion cattle.

Name me one other animal that is comparable in size to them, and numbers even just 50 million in the wild.

Sorry Dave, but we humans account, by ourselves, for 60% of methane emissions, and termites produce far more of that, than they do CO2.


I’M not the one being self-righteous here. YOU are. The only reason we believe CO2 to be a “greenhouse gas” is because the greenies and their sycophants SAY so. If it is, then we SHOULD be able to fill a greenhouse with the stuff and keep it warm in winter AND feed green, growing plants which we DO know feed on it. If it ISN’T really a “greenhouse gas” filling that greenhouse with the stuff won’t be any warmer, but it WILL feed the growing plants inside. It simply isn’t POSSIBLE to raise the CO2 content of the atmosphere by as much as a single percentage point. Why? Because green stuff–including oceanic plankton–acts as a SINK for CO2.

I doubt you’d know a “fact” if one jumped up and bit your posterior. FACT: IF CO2 is a “greenhouse gas,” why has no one tried flooding CO2 into greenhouses to (1) enhance warming in cold weather and stave off freezing and (2) feeding those plants because: FACT: Green plants USE CO2 in the process of photosynthesis. WHERE are your so-called “contradictions?” I haven’t changed my thoughts about this issue one iota.


Without reading through the entire thread, has anybody answered the question of just what might have started the ending of the current ice age we are in?


Why? What did I say that was self-righteous? If you reproach, bring up why you are making these accusations. You can not just claim something without evidence.

I said you are self-righteous because you rely on science if it supports your position but you reject every kind of data that does not support your position. I quoted your relevant statements. So there was an explanation. Why do you say: “I’M not … self-righteous”, isn’t exactly this explanation sufficient?

The CO2 layer in the atmosphere is much thicker than the height of every greenhouse. So the effect would be not very high. I already said this two times. You are repeating the same questions.

Same here: A already answered this!


Do you understand what I am trying to say?
If yes: Why are you circulating around the same old questions again and again?

When I write something and you disagree (or if you can’t follow) you should explain why you think that I am wrong (resp. you should mention that you can’t follow). But we very often had the scenario that you asked something, I answered, you didn’t respond, and then: a week later you ask the same questing again. This makes a discussion very exhausting.

Additional to the three advices in my last post I give you three more:
(4) Stop accusing others of saying things they never said
(5) If you reproach, bring up why you are making these accusations.
(6) Don’t be circular. Don’t repeat the same old questions. Don’t repeat the same old arguments which you already mentioned several times, especially if you neglected the counterarguments.

You really should work on your discussion skills. They are not good.


Only a knucklehead believes this. The plant doesn’t “store” CO2. Photosynthesis USES the carbon atom for food and expels the oxygen atoms into the atmosphere. It’s why we HAVE oxygen in our atmosphere.
Lord! PLEASE get a clue.


One more example of your tendency to miss the point.

Yes! I said: The plant stores CO2.

Indeed a plant stores only the C of CO2 and releases the O2 back to the atmosphere. I expressed it like above just because I didn’t want to make it too complicated. I thought you will get the point anyway. Sadly you didn’t.

The point is:

So I ask you again: Do you understand it now (at least the last sentence)?

It is really ironic that exactly you of all people – who makes one error after the other and who permanently misses the point – say such things.
When I put a complex issue in simplified terms: Is it fair when you call me a knucklehead?

I gave you six suggestions to improve your discussion style. Two more:
(7) Try to understand what the CORE of a statement is. Don’t focus on picking out every howsoever tiny error – but try to find out what the other person WANTS to say.
(8) Stop unjustly displaying others as idiots.

These are eight points now and I think each of them has a solid basis. If you disagree I can anytime reason why I think so. Let’s see if we get ten. So you really should work on your discussion skills. They are not good.


Just watched the video, had me laughing. Good one @silliessis!

“Save the planet, we can’t even save ourselves” :vb-rofl:


Where did I call YOU a knucklehead? I didn’t. I just said that “only a knucklehead” would believe that plants “store” CO2. Then again, if the shoe fits…
The same thing applies to (8) above.
Nobody on this forum is prescient. We CAN’T read anyone else’s mind. SAY what you mean, if you can. If you can’t, then don’t say anything at all. You’ll get along much better that way.


The “C” of the CO2 is not CO2. It is just C.


I expressed it that way because I didn’t want to make it too complicated.
My point was that plants do not reduce CO2.

Yes, but I think I wasn’t so hard to get, that the point was that plants do not reduce CO2.

You said plants are constantly reducing CO2 and I countered plants do not reduce CO2 below the line. I explained this by (incorrectly) saying plants take up/emit CO2 instead of saying plants take up/emit C-Atoms. Is this a tiny little slip that leaves the CORE of the argument still understandable or had the error any relevance regarding content in the given context?

The point was that plants do not reduce CO2. You do not need to be a clairvoyant to get that.



I tell you a story
Recently I discussed with a friend about currency devaluation. And I said something like: “…the Chinese do not devaluate their Yen just because…”.
Yes, you heard correctly!
I said: Yen. China’s actual currency isn’t Yen but Yuan (or Renminbi). But my core argument was solid and guess how he reacted.

He said something like:
“Yes, I see this and than… ”. What I want to say is that some people have the ability to figure out what the CORE of a statement is. They do not focus on tiny little slips that are totally irrelevant in a given context, but are motivated to comprehend what the other person’s point is.
How would you have reacted?

Your reaction would have been:
No, no, no Philipp, you are so stupid! China’s currency isn’t Yen but Yuan. Where did you go to school? You are such a naive knucklehead. Oh Jesus, please get a clue!!!

Do you see the difference?
When I talk to other students I know I can make some shortcuts in discussion, simplify this or that, use certain words as space filler (Yuan/Yen, CO2/C-Atoms) – as long as the core argument stays undistorted. I know I can do this, because I know they are sophisticated enough to get the point anyway. I know they are motivated to figure out what I really want to say at the core.


I haven’t been following this debate closely, but I do think this is incorrect. Plants do give off oxygen; and if it isn’t coming from the carbon dioxide (thus, leaving just carbon behind), then where?


But only when they grow. Plants do give off carbon rsp. CO2 when they rot.
I wrote more about it above.


Wrong again. Plants give off METHANE when they “rot”. Few do, by the way, at least in the sense that you seem to mean it. Most simply decompose and become COMPOST. That’s why you should keep your compost pile slightly moist and constantly turn it. The end result is that plants DO NOT “STORE” CO2. I realize you’ll probably never get this, but they DON’T. They store CARBON and emit oxygen for as long as they are green–whether “growing” or not.


Fossilized plants have deposits of CO2-12. As we burn more fossil fuels, the content of CO2-12 in the atmosphere rises, vs the isotope CO2-13, which it usually has more of:

Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4)


Uh. Mauna Loa is an active VOLCANO. Volcanos emit CO2. Duh!


No… Volcanoes release CO2-13. Not CO2-12.

Plants use CO2-12, because it’s lighter. That’s why you find it in deposits of oil, methane, and other fossilized plant matter.