So what if CO2 reaches 450 ppm which is CO2e 600 ppm? It's not like sea will rise.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > So what if CO2 reaches 450 ppm which is CO2e 600 ppm? It's not like sea will rise.

So what if CO2 reaches 450 ppm which is CO2e 600 ppm? It's not like sea will rise.09-02-2019 15:26
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Or temperature will change. Or hurricanes will increase.
11-02-2019 00:12
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: Or temperature will change. Or hurricanes will increase. Virtually all of science is a wild guess. Theories built upon theories really are getting out of control. By the 40th level of "If this is actually true than wouldn't this be as well" you can't accept any of it. For instance - evolution is fully accepted now. But what if it is incorrect. No matter what we've attempted to do, we have NEVER seen any natural selection cause an entirely new species. What we have seen is refinement inside of a single species and accept that as proof that it all started from a single lifeform and that the only reason we have not managed to find even one example is only because we haven't looked hard enough or long enough to find one. Time us used as an excuse instead of actual evidence. There is something altogether different going on with the so-called "climate science". In the 40's and 50's we had a significant cooling which was used as a basis for the "coming ice age" predictions. After the same chaotic patterns turned around the other way we had the same dire predictions of "the coming meltdown" or fireball Earth predictions. Obviously since not one of the predictions have even gotten in the same neighborhood as the actual temperature record none of these models is worth the paper they're printed on. Other than NASA and NOAA real scientists are puzzled about the climate and the silly claims about it. NASA and NOAA are milking these dire predictions for every penny they can get out of it. And that is a serious problem. It actually appears that NASA has been modifying their RAW data to meet their own predictions in order to keep the money train rolling. This is criminal and should be prosecuted. Let's have a NASA scientist on a witness stand under oath explain why the warm Dust Bowl years have now been significantly cooled in the data and why the significant cooling of the 40's and 50's have disappeared from their data. And reminding him consistently that lying under oath is a felony with prison sentences and the entire removal of all of his government benefits permanently. It would be very interesting to see where such a prosecution would lead.
11-02-2019 00:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Wake wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: Or temperature will change. Or hurricanes will increase. Virtually all of science is a wild guess. A falsifiable theory is not a guess, Wake. Wake wrote: Theories built upon theories really are getting out of control. Not at all. If a theory is falsified that other theories depend on, they are falsified with it. Wake wrote: By the 40th level of "If this is actually true than wouldn't this be as well" you can't accept any of it. Sure you can. Theories of science can be accepted until they are falsified. Wake wrote: For instance - evolution is fully accepted now. Evolution is not a theory of science, Wake. It never was. It is a religion. It is older than Christianity. Wake wrote: But what if it is incorrect. It is not falsifiable. We'll never know, will we? There's no way to determine if the event actually happened. Wake wrote: No matter what we've attempted to do, we have NEVER seen any natural selection cause an entirely new species. Even if we do, it does not prove anything. We still don't know what actually happened. Wake wrote: What we have seen is refinement inside of a single species and accept that as proof that it all started from a single lifeform Not a proof. It is simply supporting evidence. Pretty worthless. It's about as useful as saying the presence of the daily sunlight is supporting evidence that a god carries the thing across the sky every day. Wake wrote: and that the only reason we have not managed to find even one example is only because we haven't looked hard enough or long enough to find one. Time us used as an excuse instead of actual evidence. Science is only interested in conflicting evidence, it does not use supporting evidence at all. Only religions do that. Wake wrote: There is something altogether different going on with the so-called "climate science". None. It is the same thing, just a different religion. Wake wrote: In the 40's and 50's we had a significant cooling which was used as a basis for the "coming ice age" predictions. A religious statement. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: After the same chaotic patterns turned around the other way we had the same dire predictions of "the coming meltdown" or fireball Earth predictions. A religious statement. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: Obviously since not one of the predictions have even gotten in the same neighborhood as the actual temperature record none of these models is worth the paper they're printed on. There is no record of the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: Other than NASA and NOAA real scientists Neither NASA nor NOAA are scientists. They are government agencies. Wake wrote: are puzzled about the climate Climate simply is. What's to puzzle about it? There is no such thing as a global climate, since there is no such thing as a global weather. There is nothing to puzzle about that, either. Wake wrote: and the silly claims about it. The biggest silly claim is using a meaningless buzzword to describe 'impending doom'. Wake wrote: NASA and NOAA are milking these dire predictions for every penny they can get out of it. [quote]Wake wrote: And that is a serious problem. That is not the problem. The large number of illiterate people are the problem. These same people are buying into the promised Utopia that Marxism promises, never realizing the horror that awaits them. Wake wrote: It actually appears that NASA has been modifying their RAW data to meet their own predictions in order to keep the money train rolling. They don't have any raw data. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: This is criminal and should be prosecuted. Modifying random numbers is not a crime, Wake. Neither is calling it 'data'. Wake wrote: Let's have a NASA scientist on a witness stand under oath explain why the warm Dust Bowl years have now been significantly cooled in the data and why the significant cooling of the 40's and 50's have disappeared from their data. And reminding him consistently that lying under oath is a felony with prison sentences and the entire removal of all of his government benefits permanently. There is no data, so he wouldn't be lying. Wake wrote: It would be very interesting to see where such a prosecution would lead. A witch hunt, just like the others. Interesting? No, I would avoid any more witch hunts if I could, Wake. If a civil war comes, it will be people like you that start it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-02-2019 01:13
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: [quote]Tai Hai Chen wrote: Or temperature will change. Or hurricanes will increase. Virtually all of science is a wild guess. A falsifiable theory is not a guess, Wake. Wake wrote: Theories built upon theories really are getting out of control. Not at all. If a theory is falsified that other theories depend on, they are falsified with it. Wake wrote: By the 40th level of "If this is actually true than wouldn't this be as well" you can't accept any of it. Sure you can. Theories of science can be accepted until they are falsified. Wake wrote: For instance - evolution is fully accepted now. Evolution is not a theory of science, Wake. It never was. It is a religion. It is older than Christianity. Wake wrote: But what if it is incorrect. It is not falsifiable. We'll never know, will we? There's no way to determine if the event actually happened. Wake wrote: No matter what we've attempted to do, we have NEVER seen any natural selection cause an entirely new species. Even if we do, it does not prove anything. We still don't know what actually happened. Wake wrote: What we have seen is refinement inside of a single species and accept that as proof that it all started from a single lifeform Not a proof. It is simply supporting evidence. Pretty worthless. It's about as useful as saying the presence of the daily sunlight is supporting evidence that a god carries the thing across the sky every day. Wake wrote: and that the only reason we have not managed to find even one example is only because we haven't looked hard enough or long enough to find one. Time us used as an excuse instead of actual evidence. Science is only interested in conflicting evidence, it does not use supporting evidence at all. Only religions do that. Wake wrote: There is something altogether different going on with the so-called "climate science". None. It is the same thing, just a different religion. Wake wrote: In the 40's and 50's we had a significant cooling which was used as a basis for the "coming ice age" predictions. A religious statement. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: After the same chaotic patterns turned around the other way we had the same dire predictions of "the coming meltdown" or fireball Earth predictions. A religious statement. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: Obviously since not one of the predictions have even gotten in the same neighborhood as the actual temperature record none of these models is worth the paper they're printed on. There is no record of the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: Other than NASA and NOAA real scientists Neither NASA nor NOAA are scientists. They are government agencies. Wake wrote: are puzzled about the climate Climate simply is. What's to puzzle about it? There is no such thing as a global climate, since there is no such thing as a global weather. There is nothing to puzzle about that, either. Wake wrote: and the silly claims about it. The biggest silly claim is using a meaningless buzzword to describe 'impending doom'. Wake wrote: NASA and NOAA are milking these dire predictions for every penny they can get out of it. Wake wrote: And that is a serious problem. That is not the problem. The large number of illiterate people are the problem. These same people are buying into the promised Utopia that Marxism promises, never realizing the horror that awaits them. Wake wrote: It actually appears that NASA has been modifying their RAW data to meet their own predictions in order to keep the money train rolling. They don't have any raw data. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: This is criminal and should be prosecuted. Modifying random numbers is not a crime, Wake. Neither is calling it 'data'. Wake wrote: Let's have a NASA scientist on a witness stand under oath explain why the warm Dust Bowl years have now been significantly cooled in the data and why the significant cooling of the 40's and 50's have disappeared from their data. And reminding him consistently that lying under oath is a felony with prison sentences and the entire removal of all of his government benefits permanently. There is no data, so he wouldn't be lying. Wake wrote: It would be very interesting to see where such a prosecution would lead. A witch hunt, just like the others. Interesting? No, I would avoid any more witch hunts if I could, Wake. If a civil war comes, it will be people like you that start it. And with any luck it will be people like you that suffer the most.
11-02-2019 01:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: A witch hunt, just like the others. Interesting? No, I would avoid any more witch hunts if I could, Wake. If a civil war comes, it will be people like you that start it. And with any luck it will be people like you that suffer the most.[/quote] You anger is really a problem, Wake. You really want to start a war, don't you? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

11-02-2019 01:59
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: A witch hunt, just like the others. Interesting? No, I would avoid any more witch hunts if I could, Wake. If a civil war comes, it will be people like you that start it. And with any luck it will be people like you that suffer the most. You anger is really a problem, Wake. You really want to start a war, don't you?[/quote] I know what war is and you know what being a sissy is. So, no, I don't want to see another war but neither do I want to see this country being run by stupid mindless idiots like you. So if there is a war I can still hit a target from 150 yards with a .30 caliber rifle and a man at 10 yards dead center 8 out of 10 times.
12-02-2019 01:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: A witch hunt, just like the others. Interesting? No, I would avoid any more witch hunts if I could, Wake. If a civil war comes, it will be people like you that start it. And with any luck it will be people like you that suffer the most. You anger is really a problem, Wake. You really want to start a war, don't you? I know what war is No, you don't. Wake wrote: and you know what being a sissy is. No, you don't. Wake wrote: So, no, I don't want to see another war Yes you do. Don't lie, Wake. Wake wrote: but neither do I want to see this country being run by stupid mindless idiots like you. I don't run the country, Wake. I just run a business. Wake wrote: So if there is a war I can still hit a target from 150 yards with a .30 caliber rifle and a man at 10 yards dead center 8 out of 10 times. I don't believe you. Your big talk tells me you want a war. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate So what if CO2 reaches 450 ppm which is CO2e 600 ppm? It's not like sea will rise.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity	2	13-07-2023 15:50
FASTER GLACIER MELTING MECHANISM COULD CAUSE HUGE SEA LEVEL RISES	4	20-05-2023 19:54
Methane big part of 'alarming' rise in planet-warming gases	1	06-04-2023 21:46