Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!

[HVACTech]

Truth, usually, doesn't need paid trolls to sow doubt to promote its righteousness. To me, the fact that one has to continually troll is a sign that the endeavor is dishonest, and serves something other than truth.

Even if one was simple minded, they could draw the conclusion that if a corrupt government, ruled by oligarchs, is promoting/spewing the righteousness of man made global warming, that alone - is enough to fathom that it is a crock of $#@!.

technically, the earth does not really produce very much heat itself. (unless of course you think that it is on fire) (like I do)
the heat comes from that shiny thing up there. and is delivered radiantly.
it is very fun and interesting to learn about the thermodynamic properties of water.

I am a cooling specialist who lives in the south. I write that as a warning to the trolls.
that we are not in an ice age, is proof enough that "global warming" has occurred.
that we were responsible for it, is probably BS.

AND, IF we are aggravating it.... shouldn't oxygen levels be getting lower?

[liberty2897]

technically, the earth does not really produce very much heat itself.

Actually, according to these guys it does produce quite a bit of heat...

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...of-earths-heat

About 50% of the heat given off by the Earth is generated by the radioactive decay of elements such as uranium and thorium, and their decay products. That is the conclusion of an international team of physicists that has used the KamLAND detector in Japan to measure the flux of antineutrinos emanating from deep within the Earth. The result, which agrees with previous calculations of the radioactive heating, should help physicists to improve models of how heat is generated in the Earth.

More at link.

[PRB]

AND, IF we are aggravating it.... shouldn't oxygen levels be getting lower?

what do you mean? that production of CO2 reduces O2 to begin with?

[HVACTech]

Actually, according to these guys it does produce quite a bit of heat...

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...of-earths-heat



More at link.

yes, I believe the earth is on fire. not just cooling off. it is obviously very old, covered in water...
and it is still spewing out molten lava.
I acknowledged that the earth does generate SOME heat.

personally, I like the idea, that plasma is what is heating it.

but that amount is minuscule. the earth is heated by the sun.

radiantly. radiant heat transfer... is not easy to understand.

[HVACTech]

what do you mean? that production of CO2 reduces O2 to begin with?

that is how the process works. combustion and metabolism both require oxygen.
or the co2 could not be produced.
if one is increasing... should not the other decrease?

[PRB]

that is how the process works. combustion and metabolism both require oxygen.
or the co2 could not be produced.
if one is increasing... should not the other decrease?

you assume
1. CO2 can only be produced by burning carbon and consuming oxygen in the air
2. CO2 increase in the atmosphere is only newly produced CO2 (rather than released from deposits such as oceans and stones)

Also, are you sure oxygen concentrations haven't decreased?

[HVACTech]

you assume
1. CO2 can only be produced by burning carbon and consuming oxygen in the air
2. CO2 increase in the atmosphere is only newly produced CO2 (rather than released from deposits such as oceans and stones)

Also, are you sure oxygen concentrations haven't decreased?

I assume nothing friend.
I have discovered, that I have been lied to.
therefore, I question everything.

my preposition makes sense.
that does not mean that it is correct.
peace.

[PRB]

I assume nothing friend.
I have discovered, that I have been lied to.
therefore, I question everything.

my preposition makes sense.
that does not mean that it is correct.
peace.

You are right, it may not be correct.

Does what I say ring a bell to you at all?

Ever heard of CO2 being released from limestones and oceans without consuming oxygen?
Ever heard of CO2 concentration increasing without "producing new" CO2?

[HVACTech]

You are right, it may not be correct.

Does what I say ring a bell to you at all?

Ever heard of CO2 being released from limestones and oceans without consuming oxygen?
Ever heard of CO2 concentration increasing without "producing new" CO2?

you seem to be asking me, if there are natural sources of stored CO2.
yes, there are.
I am not a chemist.
methinks the climate has always been changing. if you are near the La brea tar pits. you should check it out.
I don't need any proof that the climate is, or has been changing. situation normal.
and yes, if we are going to purport that man made CO2, s the culprit.
then it follows that O2 levels should also be dropping.

I jumped into this thread to promote understanding of heat transfer and thermodynamics.

[PRB]

you seem to be asking me, if there are natural sources of stored CO2.
yes, there are.
I am not a chemist.
methinks the climate has always been changing. if you are near the La brea tar pits. you should check it out.
I don't need any proof that the climate is, or has been changing. situation normal.

climate always changing means that either no change will ever surprise you, or some changes are out of the predicted norm. So which is your view?

People always die, does that mean a person dying at 99 years old is as normal as a person dying at 9 years old? Is any person dying at any age in any situation ever not normal and worthy of suspicion?

and yes, if we are going to purport that man made CO2, s the culprit.
then it follows that O2 levels should also be dropping.

I jumped into this thread to promote understanding of heat transfer and thermodynamics.

Again, are you sure O2 hasn't dropped?

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

The human caused global warming scam has Satanic origins in the Club of Rome:

Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming.


“It occurred to me…” Academic gowns show universities are medieval institutions being dragged kicking and screaming into the 17th century.

Global Warming was just one issue The Club of Rome (TCOR) targeted in its campaign to reduce world population. In 1993 the Club’s co-founder, Alexander King with Bertrand Schneider wrote The First Global Revolution stating,

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Read more: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/d...verpopulation/

[PRB]

The human caused global warming scam has Satanic origins in the Club of Rome:

Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming.


“It occurred to me…” Academic gowns show universities are medieval institutions being dragged kicking and screaming into the 17th century.

Global Warming was just one issue The Club of Rome (TCOR) targeted in its campaign to reduce world population. In 1993 the Club’s co-founder, Alexander King with Bertrand Schneider wrote The First Global Revolution stating,

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Read more: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/d...verpopulation/

I'll keep asking, does Tim Ball have better predictions than IPCC? It's easy to say somebody's wrong, much harder to be better at it.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I'll keep asking, does Tim Ball have better predictions than IPCC? It's easy to say somebody's wrong, much harder to be better at it.

In either case it does not justify aggression of taxation. That is the point of this thread.

[PRB]

In either case it does not justify aggression of taxation. That is the point of this thread.

When the hell did I ever say anything justifies taxation? EVER? Why do you keep saying that as if I disagree with you?

How about you answer my question now? Or admit you don't know?

[Anti-Neocon]

In either case it does not justify aggression of taxation. That is the point of this thread.

So now after countless posts saying that it's a hoax, you seem ready to give up the entire premise of it being one?

[PRB]

So now after countless posts saying that it's a hoax, you seem ready to give up the entire premise of it being one?

he wants to cover his bases both ways, it's a hoax, but even if it's not a hoax, it still doesn't justify taxation.

he can't settle for it's not a hoax but it doesn't justify taxation or, if it's not a hoax, then it would justify taxation. The NWO has to make up a hoax and then try to convince people it justifies taxation, LOL.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

When the hell did I ever say anything justifies taxation? EVER? Why do you keep saying that as if I disagree with you?

Because I think you work in tandem with Mr. "I <3 Carbon Tax." You see, your task is to make human-CO2-caused global warming scam seem reasonable, and his task is to push the tax based on the scam. And even though you publicly fain opposition to taxation, I think in reality it is a ploy to pacify people on this forum while setting up human-produced-CO2 excuses for Mr. "I <3 Carbon Tax" who is your most ardent supporter.

In fact I think you are both paid to troll here and to work in tandem. And I think you are both liars.

Does that answer your question?

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

So now after countless posts saying that it's a hoax, you seem ready to give up the entire premise of it being one?

I did no such thing. Learn to read at least. I always said that human-produced-CO2 caused global warming, is a hoax to push global taxation. In other words it is a lie used to "justify" injustice, and the whole thing is a Rothchild's fraud of a high order.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

he wants to cover his bases both ways, it's a hoax, but even if it's not a hoax, it still doesn't justify taxation.

he can't settle for it's not a hoax but it doesn't justify taxation or, if it's not a hoax, then it would justify taxation. The NWO has to make up a hoax and then try to convince people it justifies taxation, LOL.

Let me spell it for you one more time. It is both:

A) A hoax, and it is also
B) does NOT justify taxation.

In summary, it is a lie used to "justify" the injustice of plunder. And you are covertly supporting it.

[PRB]

Let me spell it for you one more time. It is both:

A) A hoax, and it is also
B) does NOT justify taxation.

In summary, it is a lie used to "justify" the injustice of plunder. And you are covertly supporting it.

Your conspiracy theory alleges that the NWO is so busy at work they need to pull off not one, but TWO loads of work. Why not just take something that's true and say it justifies taxation? Why not just take something that justifies taxation and hoax that?

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Your conspiracy theory alleges that the NWO is so busy at work they need to pull off not one, but TWO loads of work. Why not just take something that's true and say it justifies taxation? Why not just take something that justifies taxation and hoax that?

Nothing justifies taxation, just like nothing justifies plunder. It is wrong by definition.

Why do they double down on their fraud? Because the more fraud they can cram in, they consider the better, because they are evil. They hope at least one fraud sticks in the end. They are wrong. But you are supporting their fraud.

[PRB]

Nothing justifies taxation, just like nothing justifies plunder. It is wrong by definition.

Agreed, which is why I don't care if global warming is a fraud, and it's not, by the way.

Why do they double down on their fraud? Because the more fraud they can cram in, they consider the better, because they are evil.

There's no point in cramming in 2 scams if one was suffice. They can't do more harm when 2 scams have to add up for the same goal, it's not like one would be less likely to pull off (quite the opposite)

They hope at least one fraud sticks in the end. They are wrong. But you are supporting their fraud.

They don't need fraud if they can grab on something that's true and indisputable and use it to justify taxation, do you not get this? or are you so smart you can read their minds?

I am not supporting anybody's fraud, I said all along I oppose taxation.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Agreed, which is why I don't care if global warming is a fraud, and it's not, by the way.

There's no point in cramming in 2 scams if one was suffice. They can't do more harm when 2 scams have to add up for the same goal, it's not like one would be less likely to pull off (quite the opposite)

They don't need fraud if they can grab on something that's true and indisputable and use it to justify taxation, do you not get this? or are you so smart you can read their minds?

I am not supporting anybody's fraud, I said all along I oppose taxation.

One fraud reinforces the other. They need an excuse to "justify" their plunder. That excuse is a fraud of human CO2 caused global warming, which human produced CO2 is less than 1% of all greenhouse gasses, 97% of which is natural water vapor.

And yes, you pretend to oppose taxation, but secretly work to "justify" it via human-produced-CO2 causes global warming scam. That's what you get paid for.

[PRB]

One fraud reinforces the other.

No it doesn't. If nothing justifies taxes, no fraud would do it.

[PRB]

That excuse is a fraud of human CO2 caused global warming, which human produced CO2 is less than 1% of all greenhouse gasses, 97% of which is natural water vapor.

You keep repeating this alleged factoid, but it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Again, what is this % measured by? volume? concentration? mass?

Then, does each water vapor molecule contribute equally, or more, or less than its CO2 counterpart?

Then, if water vapor is "natural" and not human increased, how does it, if at all, explain increase in global warming and greenhouse effect?

Until you answer these questions, your numbers mean nothing.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I see you still seek to maximize your pay by breaking up your responses into multiple posts, even when responding to a single post of mine. Does your employer know that you are skimming him like that, since you are obviously get paid by the post, troll?

[PRB]

I see you still seek to maximize your pay by breaking up your responses into multiple posts, even when responding to a single post of mine. Does your employer know that you are skimming him like that, since you are obviously get paid by the post, troll?

My employer is smarter than you think, he doesn't pay me by post count, that would incentivize spamming. He pays by substance and quality, which you clearly have none, which is why debunking your nonsense gets me nothing. It would be nice if you posted something other than your cliche, and I'd actually earn something worthy. You are helping nobody by reposting your old broken record. I split up posts sometimes when you make such a small (and obvious) one-liner that warrants a ridicule on its own (and I prefer to reply to it without the remaining post burying the essence).

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

My employer is smarter than you think, he doesn't pay me by post count, that would incentivize spamming. He pays by substance and quality, which you clearly have none, which is why debunking your nonsense gets me nothing. It would be nice if you posted something other than your cliche, and I'd actually earn something worthy. You are helping nobody by reposting your old broken record. I split up posts sometimes when you make such a small (and obvious) one-liner that warrants a ridicule on its own (and I prefer to reply to it without the remaining post burying the essence).

Well, at least you admitted you are a paid troll. That's a start.

[PRB]

Well, at least you admitted you are a paid troll. That's a start.

Dude, either you're too stupid to tell I was sarcastic, or I am that you are. And I hope you are. Playing along with your ridiculous accusation is not an admission, but I suppose if I was a conspiracy theorist who thinks the powers that be need to first invent a hoax and then use it to justify what I don't believe justifies taxes, that's not a far stretch.

You're the same kind of person who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, but instead of blowing up buildings and blaming THAT on Muslims, or Iraq, they had to hire planes, blow up buildings, blame it on bin Laden, bomb Afghanistan, over a year later, make up another hoax that Iraq was behind 9/11, then attack Iraq. Some inside job!

[pcosmar]

Dude, either you're too stupid to tell I was sarcastic,

No. you were being trollish.
It is all you have done since you started here..
So you are either being paid to troll or you do it for some perverse pleasure.

Either way,, No one here takes you seriously.. They just use you as a ridiculous example and an excuse to post the tons of refuting evidence.

How does it feel to be a ridiculous joke?