Man Made CO2 and Global Warming Myth is exposed

[NoEcologyNoEconomy]

Before scientists predicted the effect, how many average fools would have believed that something smaller than a car could destroy hundreds of city blocks? The A-bomb is just another example of why this simpleminded demo lacks scientific context.

Scientists know many things that aren't "common sense" (meaning obvious to common people). That's why so few people even try to be scientists. They just can't think or plan at that level.

Look up this article: "Why Scientists are Seldom Republicans"

[NoEcologyNoEconomy]

The relative volume of CO2 is small, but you can die from several poisons in mere parts per million. This is a specious argument that defies a whole body of science on amateurish layman's terms. See "Dunning-Kruger Effect" for more on that.

As another example, the windows of a car make up a very small physical volume compared to the interior space, yet they can make the interior lethal. It's not about volume, it's about net effect over time. CO2 also amplifies the effects of water vapor, etc.

[tvswnet]

This is about far more than whether you want to pay carbon tax...it's about the health of our planet and indeed of us! Why should I or my family have to breath dirty air and drink contaminated water just because some company wants to pollute OUR planet (not their planet, not your planet, but OUR planet)?

[NoEcologyNoEconomy]

@tvswnet, about 45 million Americans still smoke cigarettes after five decades of official warnings and overwhelming evidence of the dangers.

If so many people are willing to commit slow suicide for seedy pleasures, there's nothing mysterious about AGW-denial. I see it as a shortfall in human brain evolution; the inability to assess risks intelligently.

Getting them to admit it is a major undertaking (pun intended).

[tvswnet]

@NoEcologyNoEconomy Yes, but as an ex-smoker, it's a tough addiction to kick. I personally think it has to do with the fact that we've artificially separated ourselves from our Selves, from other Selves, and from our gorgeous planet. Many people genuinely don't see the insane and utter self-defeating approach to "modern" life, even though they know they're unhappy and unhealthy. For me, I'm trying to BE the change, as Gandhi said--not always successful, but striving for sure.

[Razor95321]

We could have 5% of CO2 in our atmosphere...or 10%....or 50%....or 75%....and NOTHING would change!

the amount of CO2 is ridiculously small, but this is not even relevant. Relevant is that NO gases absorb or reflect any radiation, including IR.

Climate change has always been, but it took thousands of years to show consequences, and fact is: There is NO GHE and NO GREENHOUSE GASES!!!!

[followthefleet1]

If it's a "myth", why then do ALL the world's Academies of Sciences ALL agree that anthropogenic climate change is scientifically well supported, and very much TRUE. I know. They must be "secular humanist" idiots...and besides they believe evolution is fact as well. lol

[byronintegrated]

@followthefleet1 Why do the preachers of the "End of Times Co2 Gospel" and your prophet Al Gore never present the percentage of Man Made CO2? Just curious?

[followthefleet1]

@byronintegrated First: "preachers" is YOUR choice of religious nomenclature. I'm arguing on science not religion. Gore is a politician who has listened to the science. All the GOP politician candidates, except Huntsman, are politicians who have ignored science. They act as though the bible is a science textbook. It's not. For the precise answer to your question research James Hansen and Richard Alley. There is NO WAY that increases CO2 can be explained by only natural causes.

[byronintegrated]

@followthefleet1 Deniers aren't the ones with the belief system, we just choose not to believe! We don't care if its is true. Global Warming is not a problem period. Of all the world's problems this is not one to give a moments thought too! This is where a raging fundamentalist like yourself gets so mad, you think the works is going to end, it is just another End of the World Prediction. Join the Myans, that is more hip and credible than X-vice who only job he could get was teaching! :)

[followthefleet1]

@byronintegrated ..You got it right. Deniers is fact just don't care. Deniers of climate science will deny the nose on their own faces. Science will never sway their irrational faith based opinions. Science is NOT "predicting" "the end of the world'. That's a flat lie. The planet will continue. It will not be the relatively hospitable place it has been for human history. We have had other American generations of proud and amoral "know nothings". You carry it all on. lol

[byronintegrated]

@followthefleet1 SO, ANGRY!!! I guess if I thought the world was going to end and thought no one listen to me I might be too! I agree, scientists aren't saying the world is going to end! Its the wingnuts like yourself, that have been preaching "The End of Times CO2 Gospel"!

Unfortunately, since IPCC congreated in 1990, this is 22nd anniversary of the End of the World! That's why less and less believe and Gorical is now a complete joke, Mr. Cry Wolf! :)

[followthefleet1]

@byronintegrated "SO, ANGRY !!!"? Only in your imagination. One doesn't get angry at fools..even if they image themselves already saved. I hope the rapture comes soon, so the planet can get rid of ignorant jerks like yourself. Your fabrication of what goes though the minds of others is just smoke, even as you to deny reality. It's not only impolite but it goes against the right wing assertion of superior morality...as in" "Love your neighbor as yourself". Angry? lol.

[byronintegrated]

@followthefleet1 I think I will call you Mr. Angry ASSumption after all your making lots of assumptions if you believe in "End of Times Co2 Gospel". 2nd look at the assumptions you made about me, since I am denier, must be part of a religious right eh! After all only the Religious Right can deny the truth of your Gospel!

For the record, I am an Atheist Libertarian from Canada that is against extremes of both the far right and far left! Since both are religions relying on the gullible! :)

[followthefleet1]

@byronintegrated....What do you call a person, who revels in "not caring" about science, who calls attention to himself by SHOUTING his opinions, and who pisses on anyone who disagrees with him? I call such, a baby. This is you Byron: a baby....Baby Byron.

So Baby Byron, tell me specifically, which climate scientist has said that "the world is coming to an end"? Give us his name. Give us the name in fact, of just ONE climate scientist who makes this wild claim. Just ONE.

[followthefleet1]

@byronintegrated ....Your ignorance knows no bounds Baby Byron. But, that's how baby's are! I told you to do read Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Richard Alley. There is no way climate change can be described as a natural phenomenon ALONE.

AS I told you before. Read Hansen and Alley...both members of the US Academy of Science. Educate yourself! No one can do this by you.

Aside from being lazy, I know your problem Baby Byron....You haven't read them, because babies can't read!

[followthefleet1]

@byronintegrated So... Baby Byron: Libertarianism in YOUR gospel. You disagree with BOTH climate science AND the Bible...as well as, I ASSUME, the role of government in society. It seems to me like all babies, you Baby Byron have a problem with authority. Socialization is a skill that does not come easily to those who believe in the Gospel of Libertarianism. In fact, it IS a baby who lacks such skills. But a baby, at least has the excuse, Baby Byron, of BEING a baby. lol

[byronintegrated]

@followthefleet1 As a baby I was blessed with logic, deductive reasoning and to ask questions, things you seem to be lacking with all your angry assumptions. When you see a guy on a scissor lift pointing at a giant line graph stating were all going to be underwater! I just can't help but be a little skeptical. I found it ironic his quote though "Its not what we don't know that gets us into trouble, it what we know for sure that just ain't so" Practically, confessing he thinks its BS! :)

[followthefleet1]

@byronintegrated Baby Byron don't you know that NO babies are "blessed with logic and deductive reasoning"? Please show us the first baby you know with these qualities. Along with your usual ravings, babies like you, libertarian Baby Byron, don't know language, and are happiest with no rules. So unsurprisingly, you have failed to name even ONE climate scientist who predicts the "end of the world". As far as "BS", Baby Byron, it only proves, you haven't even been potty trained.

[tunderbar04]

Cyanide is not CO2.

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 "Cyanide is not CO2."

Pithy and wise, you always are!

And hey, guess what? A big tall flag isn't our atmosphere, either!

If we really want to learn about the forcing effect of CO2, we need to look at actual data. The problem merits serious scientific study on multiple fronts, not just silly comparisons with a tall flag.

[tunderbar04]

@TheHogTieChamp - go ahead, show us the physics of how trace amounts of CARBON DIOXIDE, 110 parts per million to be exact, can cause catastrophic global warming.

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 You say "110 ppm" to make it seem like we're not talking about much CO2. If we went from 280 ppm up to 390 ppm, then the "tiny little 110 ppm increase" is a change of nearly 40%. Do you think that increasing the concentration of CO2 by 40% can have no effect??

It is clear from your comments on this video that you have no interest in science or in the truth about climate change. But okay.. Physics: CO2 absorbs and emits infrared. A 40% change has a forcing effect on climate.

[tunderbar04]

@TheHogTieChamp - Do you think that by claiming a whopping 40% increase in minute trace amounts that somehow you can make the effect bigger? CO2 is still less than one half of one hundredth of one percent of the atmosphere. If you make $1 a year and I give you a 40% increase, are you really that much richer? Hardly. Math is straightforward and easy to understand. That is what I gave you. Statistics on the other hand, often is misused and abused for propaganda purposes. That is what you did.

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 Yes, a 40% increase in the CO2 levels quite plausibly could have an effect on heat retention. Certainly, it is worthy of scientific investigation. Certainly, you are not justified in assuming -- and then asserting -- that the 40% increase could not possibly have an effect. You wrote, "It simply can't. And it won't," without any justification for this claim and without *any* interest in finding the truth of the matter.

Whatever, man... Believe what you want.

[tunderbar04]

@TheHogTieChamp - It will not be any significant effect. That is the science of it, the physics of it. Plain and simple.

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 "It will not be any significant effect. That is the science of it, the physics of it. Plain and simple."

You have made your position clear: You believe -- without evidence or knowledge of any kind -- that CO2 has nothing to do with climate. You ask for proof, but you won't read one word of it, and you can't offer a single bit of support for your assertion. You have a belief and you call it "physics."

You think people are fools for doing science. You're an idiot.

[tunderbar04]

@TheHogTieChamp - Nope, I did not say "CO2 has nothing to do with climate". It is a greenhouse gas. I'm not a science "denier". LOL. You appear to be a science "denier". You claim you will not post any proof because I will not read it. Quite an assumption there. Do you make similar assumptions about science? Show us the physics or stfu.

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 You're the one making the bold claim that a 110 ppm increase in CO2 cannot POSSIBLY have "any significant effect" on climate. You have not (and cannot) provide the proof that makes you so certain. Second, I told you the physics behind the concern over C02 (infrared absorption/emission, radiative forcing) and guided you to a references list including hundreds of peer-reviewed papers. I also predicted you would read none of it.

You read none of it.

[tunderbar04]

@TheHogTieChamp - You guys are the ones asking for trillions of tax dollars to be given over to the United nations to "mitigate" the evil CO2. How exactly they plan to do that, they aren't saying. I don't need hundreds of peer-reviewed papers to convince me, and I will not read "hundreds" that might or might not address the issue. I just need the one that lays out the physics on how less than 110 parts per million of the life giving gas called CO2 can CATASTROPHICALLY alter the globes climate.

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 How about Hofmann, Butler et al (2006) Tellus B, 58, 614-619?

I pointed you (twice) to a source of over 100 empirical articles including both lab tests on CO2 and long-term studies of atmosphere and of ice. You read none of it. You won't read Hofman-Butler either.

You gave zero sources for your "gut feeling" that anthropogenic CO2 cannot POSSIBLY have ANY effect.

Stay stupid. We're done.

[tunderbar04]

@TheHogTieChamp - I read it. All it does is confirm that levels of CO2 have risen from approx. 180 ppm a50 years ago to the current approx. 380 ppm. It says nothing about that amount of CO2 being able to cause catastrophic global warming. You may be done, but you've failed to prove anything.

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 You've read it? You're lying. Tell us the author of the first paper listed in the References. If you read it, you have this information. If you're lying, you will skirt the issue. (Begin skirting.)

Do you have any idea how scientifically illiterate you sound? You're asking for "the ONE article that PROVES" something. There is no such "one article" for any concept in any field of science. Find me ONE article that PROVES gravity!

You still haven't offered proof for your claim, BTW.

[tunderbar04]

@TheHogTieChamp - Hofmann, Butler et al (2006) Tellus B, 58, 614-619, I read it. Did you?

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 You're lying and you just got caught lying. You didn't read the Hoffman-Butler paper. I asked you to provide the first source in the References section, and you just copy/pasted my citation of the Hoffman-Butler paper, character-for-character, exactly as I typed it. Hilarious!

Look... It's fine that you haven't read any peer-reviewed papers -- most people don't. It's also fine that you stick to your "gut-feeling" on the climate change issue. It's your right to be wrong. But why lie?

[tunderbar04]

@TheHogTieChamp - Nothing of the sort. I read it. You didn't. deal with it. You've wasted enough of my time.

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 Just to recap: (1) You couldn't provide one argument or paper to back up your claim about CO2 having no effect; (2) You never answered a direct yes/no question about whether CO2 affects infrared light; (3) You asked for sources, but never read them; (4) You claimed you read one paper, but were caught lying.

You're typical of those people who insist that there is NO REASON to even look at the possibility of climate change.

You seem like a "get the last word" kind of guy, so go ahead.

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 On an unrelated topic, I had to laugh at your embarrassing misunderstanding of "math" and "statistics." You appear to believe you know what these words mean, but you're utterly clueless. Anyone who took even a small amount of undergraduate level science can spot it.

Look.. You have your opinion on global warming. Every comment you post shows that you haven't reviewed any of the literature, you don't understand the basics of science and you're a close-minded blowhard. Enjoy...

[tunderbar04]

@TheHogTieChamp - feel free to cite your "forcing" effect. Show us the science.

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 "feel free to cite your "forcing" effect. Show us the science."

Google broken for you?

The volume of research on this issue is far beyond what can be typed in a 500-character comment. As a starting point, take a look at IPCC Third Assessment Report. It is a useful summary of the various research strategies and, more importantly, the references section will guide you to dozens of peer-reviewed articles.

Why do I already know that you won't read a word of any of it?

[tunderbar04]

@TheHogTieChamp - Nonsense. Your science is settled. One cite will shut me up. Cite it.

[LetUsChangeThings]

I'm flagging this for misleading titles. Everyone please do the same so we can get one of the antiglobal warming propaganda hubs off of this site.

[tunderbar04]

@LetUsChangeThings - You are an idiot.

[LetUsChangeThings]

@tunderbar04 Wow, that was soooooo origional

[BonzoAllStar]

Stock Music, making your bull shit sound plausible for over 75 years.

Now how about some science?

[aylesmerep]

The whole premise of this video is deceitful/stupid. O2 and N2 are not greenhouse gases so are irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. CO2 is about 30% of the greenhouse effect and water vapour is 70% but water vapour cannot act to force the climate so, in terms of what forces the climate to change, it's almost entirely CO2 (plus a bit from methane).

Natural CO2 absorption is larger than natural emissions so ALL the increase is down to us burning fossil fuels. This person is lying with statistics.

[nickschor1]

You'd be amazed at how little LSD you need before you go barking mad...or how little pure nicotene you need to die. Contrary to what Parecelcius may have believed....the dose does NOT necessarily fit the poison. In otherwords, adamscameron5 and akalronsight are right on. This "analysis" is silly.

[MrOTLChamp]

@nickschor1 Problem is..is that co2 is not a deadly gas. Therefore, no problem. Now if you tried to exist without Co2...That would be a problem.

[akaIronsight]

Yes, America may only use up the width of a paperclip, but that's on YOUR scale. Now imagine on a 1:1 scale.

[1965ace]

MMGW is a monster under a child's bed, all intelligent adults know it's not real and can discern when someone is full of sh#$, especially when they had to change the name to something as ambiguous as "climate change" because it's actually cooling.

[watercup123456]

You are a moron and do not understand simple chemistry. Please go back to school and stop making fallacious analogies ;-D

[augnkn93043]

A bullet is very small and the human body is much, much bigger. Therefore bullets can't kill humans.

[LetUsChangeThings]

@augnkn93043 You are being sarcastic right?

[zabzab007]

i like it! he is absolutely right!

[robhoneycutt]

OMG what a dolt. You're using a linear scale to evaluate a fluid state.

Here's a far more accurate representation of what 387 ppm means in solution.

watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA

[jbumble]

ARGON IS MY FAVORITE GAS

[sapientiamcarpe]

was that supposed to be an argument?

[Sybsop]

Ozone is 0.00006% of our atmosphere, therefore the claim that it keeps out UV radiation and makes life a lot easier on this planet is clearly bullshit. There is a CONSPIRACY against CFC'S!

[justintempler]

0.038% = Co2 in the atmosphere

0.08% = Blood Alcohol Content of a drunk driver

Are you going to prove drunk drivers don't exist, next?

[robhoneycutt]

@justintempler Perfect analogy! Nice. I'm going to remember that one.

[Isuckatpaintball2]

god is not real

there i just debunked religion

[Aaron518]

Haha. Is this serious?

[alexkidd3d]

this actually supports man made global warming. When you scale the entire earths atmosphere down to a 100ft then an 8th of an inch is ALOT!

[TheHogTieChamp]

All you have successfully argued here is that our planet has a LOT of atmosphere, and our contribution to it is relatively small.

But the questions remain: (1) Has the planet been warming?; and, (2) If yes, to what extend have we been causing it.

Your 100-ft flag doesn't address either of those questions.

[tunderbar04]

@TheHogTieChamp - yes it has warmed, ever since the last glaciation period, well before SUVs, it has warmed. Trace amounts of CO2 can only add trace amounts of warming. It really is that simple.

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 Right-o! And small amounts of cyanide can cause only small amounts of dying. "It really is that simple," as you say.

In truth, complex systems (ecological, biological, etc) don't always react in line with your uninformed intuitions. If we want to know the truth about the forcing effect of CO2, we need to look at actual data from multiple lines of research.

[tunderbar04]

@TheHogTieChamp - We are NOT talking about cyanide. we are specifically talking about CARBON DIOXIDE. Get it? Got it? Good. Now go and look at the actual data and the multiple lines of research and show us the physics of how trace amounts of CARBON DIOXIDE (110 ppm to be exact) can cause catastrophic global warming. It simply can't. And it won't.

[TheHogTieChamp]

@tunderbar04 "It simply can't. And it won't."

Your demands for an explanation of the physics of global warming show just how babyish your entire approach is. You are CERTAIN that climate change is a hoax and you will continue to believe so even when faced with actual evidence.

You're not going to learn much about physics from YouTube comments, mostly because you don't care to learn.

Do you insist that CO2 does NOT absorb and emit infrared light? Yes or no?

[adamscameron5]

Consider that a cyanide tablet is a minuscule size when compared to the rest the human body. Is that relatively tiny pill still deadly? This is a rhetorical question. Wait a second.... never mind. If you believe this video I should clarify that yes it is deadly. This video is useless. Consider the man-made contribution of carbon dioxide to be a poison if that helps. I can't believe he wasted his time and money creating a massive specious pie chart.

[order9066]

@adamscameron5 If you have proof that carbon dioxide increases the Earth's average temperature, provide it. This video is wonderful and I enjoyed it.

[songnotsong]

@adamscameron5

Yes very little. A homeopathic dose is healing, not poisoning.

Healing from deadly false believing in the smiling green skinned wolf-capitalism.

[byronintegrated]

@adamscameron5 CO2 is a poison now? His chart is basic and true, it neither confirms or denies Man Made Global Warming? How come Al Gore didn't get a Genie Boom to discuss this portion of Man Made Co2 to the earth's atmosphere. I am sure its because he was afraid it was to high, not that it make his argument less effective than his hockey stick scissor lift combo! :) How are the IPCC 1990 predictions going, weren't we suppose to be past the point of no return a decade ago! :)

[byronintegrated]

@adamscameron5 What does Cyanide have to do with the human body. It is a foreign element that is not natural. If I barbecue a steak and have it well done then you have the right correlation because I am introducing additional carbon to this carbon body. Luckily like the atmosphere it will be minimal amount having no effect on me! :)

Your so clever cutting and pasting that from the other video, at least give a foot note to Nighvision its his/her original thought, plagiarizer!

[adamscameron5]

@byronintegrated Plagiarizer? Send me a link of that alleged other video. I'd love to see it. I'm flattered that other's are using my work. You said that increased carbon (whether in the human body or in the atmosphere) will have "no effect" on you. None? Wow! This conversation is not even worth the time.

[Twick78]

I was wondering why they made the banner so big. It's because otherwise the pale green bit at the bottom wouldn't be big enough to show up on camera!

[parkborchert]

I hope you got your checks from the Koch Brothers, Massey, and Exxon. When I was a kid, "experts' who were paid by PhillipMorris said cigarettes causing cancer was a myth. But, your kids will die from your ignorance.

[adamscameron5]

Well said

[MDMusselman]

According to Encarta and other encyclopedias, water vapor is profoundly more prevalent by volume (over 40 times) as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Some of those who have stopped learning are stuck in their academic laziness; others believe the indoctrination from their high school teachers. I suggest that such people open their minds to the messages from Dr. Willie Soon of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Christain Monckton at the Cambridge Union.

[gr82bright]

CO2 levels are DIRECTLY affected by solar activity and man has ZERO effect. Science has also known for years that naturally occuring green house gases have always comprised over 99.7% of all emissions. That's oceans, decaying vegetation, etc. Man's total contribution is insignificant and the US contribution is nill. This global warming hoax is all about money grab and control. And if you disagree with me, you're probably a liberal hack.

[mecher3k]

"CO2 levels are DIRECTLY affected by solar activity and man has ZERO effect. "

Too bad the sun has zero control over CO2 levels, fucktard.

[bhstwo]

Hey whats up! I loved your channel!

Its cool. Check out mine! Stay in touch. Hope you got my friend request! Maybe you can sub

[paranoid090]

Your dumb...CO2 is the predominate greenhouse gas and that is what is being changed, if even in small quantities. This change is all it takes to change temperatures.

[GunClinger]

"Your dumb"? "It's "You're".

Thank you, please drive through.

The Earth's climate has changed constantly, and will eternally, with or without us. That is a fact. Bring -yours- next time, sheep.

[AnotherAlexChannel]

Yep, case closed. We cannot take the CO2 based global warming debate seriously. I read the hacked emails.

[plum26754]

Very well done!  Global Warming has finally been exposed via hacked email for the hoax it always was!