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

[juleswin]

Aha, this, boys and girls, is the classic conspiracy theorist response "Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't happen!"

I would understand if I didn't her him whine and complain how disappointed he is because congress hasn't brought a federal gun control bill for him to sign. I can pull up youtube videos for you to see what I am talking about. He really want to get something passed but he just hasn't been able to.

I do think he's either careless or somewhat interested. But I am willing to be wrong.

So you wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory to say that he has been itching to get the US military/NATO involved in the Syrian conflict and the whole chemical weapon attack might have been part of his game plan to get us there?

 

[PRB]

I would understand if I didn't her him whine and complain how disappointed he is because congress hasn't brought a federal gun control bill for him to sign. I can pull up youtube videos for you to see what I am talking about. He really want to get something passed but he just hasn't been able to.

Fair enough, please share.

So you wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory to say that he has been itching to get the US military/NATO involved in the Syrian conflict and the whole chemical weapon attack might have been part of his game plan to get us there?

I honestly, at this point, am not informed enough to say whether there's enough evidence to make it a plausible theory vs pure cynical speculation. But I am willing to see the information available.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

We can call this out on anybody yelling Obama is coming for your guns,..

The idea that anybody attaches the word conspiracy to gun control really demonstrates the grasping of the anti-conspiracy theorist. Gun control advocates are up front about their intentions, so the secrecy of a conspiracy is absent. Another component of conspiracies is lawfulness. Obama's introduction of orders and congressional proposals also fails this conspiracy criterion.

We can call this out on anybody yelling...NWO,

Bush Sr. unflinchingly used the term New World Order back in '91. Others have used it before him.

We can call this out on anybody yelling... 9/11 will happen again,

The people yelling this are government employees who want more funds to combat it.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Fair enough, please share.

Obama's stance on gun control is common knowledge for those who follow. Easy enough to find if you don't.

 

[PRB]

The idea that anybody attaches the word conspiracy to gun control really demonstrates the grasping of the anti-conspiracy theorist. Gun control advocates are up front about their intentions, so the secrecy of a conspiracy is absent. Another component of conspiracies is lawfulness. Obama's introduction of orders and congressional proposals also fails this conspiracy criterion.

Here, is where you caught me in a mistake, or poor use of words, and I admit I am wrong.

I was conflating alarmists/fearmongers/doomsdayers with conspiracy theorists (people who have alternative explanations for events that have already happened).

Obama's introduction of laws and proposals, would indeed be lacking conspiracy element, but who needs a CT when you have facts?

Bush Sr. unflinchingly used the term New World Order back in '91. Others have used it before him.

Did it mean what conspiracy theorists are using it to mean?

The people yelling this are government employees who want more funds to combat it.

Not if they predict it'll be the government false flagging, see Alex Jones.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

... but who needs a CT [conspiracy theory]?

The anti-conspiracy theorist and the cable TV show producer.

 

[PRB]

The anti-conspiracy theorist and the cable TV show producer.

so, rare, right?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

so, rare, right?

Not really. Or, guess it depends on the magnitude of the conspiracy and it's entertainment value.

Real conspiracies are discussed every day. They happen all the time. Maybe it's a half dozen or so guys at Tuesday's 10am meeting. Maybe it's just an impromptu meeting. Their importance is eclipsed in favor of more grandiose and entertaining propositions. Pretty much like a lot of other things in the world.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

can you quantify "a shitload" in scientific terms please?

Yes. It's PRB.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Item 1-3 on your list is something virtually all climate change skeptics agree on. Green house effect is proven, duh if not earth would be uninhabitable, CO2 is increasing 250ppm in the 80s to 400ppm now, check for number 3. But how any of that is evidence of a catastrophic climate change caused by man is beyond me. By predictions haven't been perfect you must mean, virtually all predictions from the alarmists have predicted exaggerated temperature readings due to CO2.

Right. They also forgot that CO2 levels used to be over 10 times what they are now, with temprature lower.

 

[PRB]

Right. They also forgot that CO2 levels used to be over 10 times what they are now, with temprature lower.

Source please?

If this is true, this would be in contradiction with the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Source please?

If this is true, this would be in contradiction with the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Not really. It will simply point out that there are factors a hundred times more powerfull in determining climate than CO2 lelvels.

 

[juleswin]

Source please?

If this is true, this would be in contradiction with the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

An argument used against the warming effect of carbon dioxide is that millions of years ago, CO2 levels were higher during periods where large glaciers formed over the Earth's poles. This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods. The combined effect of sun and CO2 show good correlation with climate (Royer 2006). The one period that until recently puzzled paleoclimatologists was the late Ordovician, around 444 million years ago. At this time, CO2 levels were very high, around 5600 parts per million (in contrast, current CO2 levels are 389 parts per million). However, glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician, it coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. How did glaciation occur with such high CO2 levels? Recent data has revealed CO2 levels at the time of the late Ordovician ice age were not that high after all.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm

Source is from an alarmist website so that may explain how they spun the info.

 

[PRB]

Not really. It will simply point out that there are factors a hundred times more powerfull in determining climate than CO2 lelvels.

same question : source please.

 

[PRB]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm

Source is from an alarmist website so that may explain how they spun the info.

This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Thanks, juleswin!

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods.

Did you also miss that the earth has experienced global dimming in the past 50 years? Less solar light reaches the surface because the atmosphere is darker.

This goes to show, AGAIN, that CO2 never was the driving and determining climate change factor. There are other factors hundred times more important, including the Sun (dah), and not the least of which is also water vapor green house gas, which accounts for about 98% of all green house gases in the atmosphere. I gave you the sources earlier. Be a doll, scroll up.

 

[PRB]

Did you also miss that the earth has experienced global dimming in the past 50 years?

Maybe. What do you mean by global dimming?

Less solar light reaches the surface because the atmosphere is darker.

Source?

This goes to show, AGAIN, that CO2 never was the driving and determining climate change factor.

No, it doesn't. You managed to find ONE example in the past 500 million years of one case where CO2 was higher, but temperatures were lower due to solar output allegedly being lower (I am open to being wrong on this)

There are other factors hundred times more important, not the least of which is water vapor green house gas

Other factors, nobody disputes, hundreds of times more important? back it up with evidence.

, which accounts for about 98% of all green house gases in the atmosphere. I gave you the sources earlier. Be a doll, scroll up.

You don't even know how 98% is measured and how the alleged abundance is the sole factor

 

[juleswin]

This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods.

But the sun doesn't matter, its all CO2 right?

 

[PRB]

But the sun doesn't matter, its all CO2 right?

Nobody said that, greenhouse effect specifically requires there to be sun light.