CO2 increase

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > CO2 increase > Page 3

Page 3 of 3

16-08-2019 11:35
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:However, this definition happens to be a valid one. It does not use the word 'bigfoot' to define 'bigfoot'. I'd argue the definition applies to people I've met, who are not in fact Bigfoot, so it's a bit indefinite. I would suggest augmenting your challenge and objection by pointing out, if I've got this, that someone is failing to define it because the definition is "Indefinite". YES it can mean this but sadly it could also mean that so no good. It's very confusing to think there is a communication problem based on the individual words used. Edited on 16-08-2019 11:36
16-08-2019 16:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:What has been maddening is thinking you wanted the words defined: Global/Earth Warming/Temperature So we are now apparently clear, the request is for the terms to be defined: "Global Warming" "Global Climate" "Greenhouse Effect" "Climate Change" ... but I am specifically requesting that they be unambiguously defined and not violate physics. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:However, this definition happens to be a valid one. It does not use the word 'bigfoot' to define 'bigfoot'. I'd argue the definition applies to people I've met, who are not in fact Bigfoot, so it's a bit indefinite. You are confusing "class" with "membership in the class." My definition of a table, e.g. a piece of furniture with a flat surface, defines a class. Just because you can think of many members of that class does not invalidate the definition. tmiddles wrote: It's very confusing to think there is a communication problem based on the individual words used. I have to call you on your EVASION. The problem was never about individual words. The problem was never anything other than the terms. "Global Warming" "Global Climate" "Greenhouse Effect" "Climate Change" . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-08-2019 17:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: For example: If I wanted to talk about a fizzbat and it's real, I must first define what a 'fizzbat' is, wouldn't I? OK! I think I'm FINALLY getting the objection. Also add "Bigfoot" in with fizzbat from our other discussion. What has been maddening is thinking you wanted the words defined: Global/Earth Warming/Temperature But I get it, you mean a definition of what someone is actually referring too. Let me take a stab at it: Uncertainty and being indefinite can be shown by giving multiple, mutually exclusive examples of something Example 1: Due to some crazy science stuff the thermosphere cools 300C while the ground level surface of the Earth heats up by 5C. The net total change of the "surface" of the Earth is a drop in average temperature but where humans try to go jogging it's super hot. This is Global Warming. Example 2: The thermosphere gets so thermy and increases by 200C due to sciencey things, this is only slightly offset by a 5C drop in temperature at ground level. The average temperature of the total "surface" of the Earth has gone up, but it's really cold at the park. This is Global Warming. Am I grasping the objection a bit better? No. Warming from when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time NOT significant? How are you measuring the temperature of the surface, where we live? What is the margin of error? What instrumentation is used? Who collected the data and when? How is bias removed while collecting? What is the source of variance used? You are still defining 'global warming' as 'global warming'. 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
16-08-2019 18:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote: No. Warming from when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time NOT significant? How are you measuring the temperature of the surface, where we live? What is the margin of error? What instrumentation is used? Who collected the data and when? How is bias removed while collecting? What is the source of variance used? You are still defining 'global warming' as 'global warming'. Maybe the answer is a simple one. Perhaps tmiddles knows of some place in the world that is at the average global temperature and we can just go there whenever we need to verify the temperature? Shall we ask him? ... and if the answer is that there is no such place, we can ask "why not?" It sounds pretty straightforward to me. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-08-2019 04:06
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: My definition of a table, e.g. a piece of furniture with a flat surface, defines a class. Just because you can think of many members of that class does not invalidate the definition. No but the definitions lacks definition : D Like defining a marxist as a biped and stopping there. Into the Night wrote: You are still defining 'global warming' as 'global warming'. IBdaMann wrote: Shall we ask him? ... and if the answer is that there is no such place, we can ask "why not?" It sounds pretty straightforward to me. . Sigh. I was trying to do your job for you. Being coherent. I was asking if you objected to the lack of a definition because it could mean multiple things, including stupid things. You have kind of confirmed that though you seem to have missed the intention of my effort. Those are made up hypothetical definitions that could exist. Ironically you've both been and continue to be indefinite if your objection to the lack of a definition. I've seen so many times in past threads where people are having this back and forth with you about whether or not you need a dictionary. I'm trying to make progress with you! Edited on 17-08-2019 04:07

17-08-2019 05:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: Ironically you've both been and continue to be indefinite if your objection to the lack of a definition. I don't see how you don't get it. You recognize the lack of a definition. You need to decide if you want to discuss those topics. If you do, you need to define them. If you can't define them, you should be asking yourself why not. Of course, if you ask yourself why not, you might be forced to realize that you are waist-deep in a religion that was sold to you as "settled science." I don't mind giving you a nudge. Why do you think you are finding it absolutely impossible to define the fundamental terms of your beliefs beyond what any religion does for its unfalsifiable concepts? Thoughts? tmiddles wrote: I've seen so many times in past threads where people are having this back and forth with you about whether or not you need a dictionary. Exactly. You are, by no means, the first gullible dude to be hornswoggled into this Marxist religion. None of those others could define those terms either. The result is always the same, i.e. blame Into the Night and me. Look, I'm here to work you through this. Don't hesitate with any questions. I'll be your personal one-man Global Warming 12-Step program ... and I really only need eight steps, and you've gone through four already. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-08-2019 06:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:You are, by no means, the first gullible dude to be hornswoggled into this Marxist religion. Three things: I don't happen to be a devotee or believer in the the Global Warming Crisis (I'll use my own title) I don't think it matters whether or not I am for the purposes of discussion And in my own words I'm hear to learn about and understand things and so far it's going well. Thank you for you help. So those 3 things said. It has in my opinion been a thoroughly non-productive discussion in the past when you and ITN constantly ask people to "Define it" because they (I can personally attest to this) didn't know what your issue was. How do you like this as a clarification to "Define Global Warming": Do so because the definition of "Global Warming" is unclear and indefinite. While something getting warmer is clear enough that describes a change over time. What time frame? What do you actually mean when you say "Global"? Do you include the molten core of the earth? the thermosphere far out near space? Are you under the impression you actually know what the temperature for any moment in time for the totality of what you call "Global"? If you do think that what margin of error do you have? Is there more too it like a theory or belief in some cause of the "warming"? As you can see it is not at all definite what you mean when you say those two words together. The trouble with only repeating "Define Global Warming" is it degenerates most of the time into a discussion with links to Dictionary.com
17-08-2019 06:53
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	tmiddles wrote: The trouble with only repeating "Define Global Warming" is it degenerates most of the time into a discussion with links to Dictionary.com What's wrong with dictionary.com? Heat-noun 1. the state of a body perceived as having or generating a relatively high degree of warmth. 2. the condition or quality of being hot: the heat of an oven. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 17-08-2019 06:54
17-08-2019 10:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: My definition of a table, e.g. a piece of furniture with a flat surface, defines a class. Just because you can think of many members of that class does not invalidate the definition. No but the definitions lacks definition : D Like defining a marxist as a biped and stopping there. Into the Night wrote: You are still defining 'global warming' as 'global warming'. IBdaMann wrote: Shall we ask him? ... and if the answer is that there is no such place, we can ask "why not?" It sounds pretty straightforward to me. . Sigh. I was trying to do your job for you. Being coherent. I was asking if you objected to the lack of a definition because it could mean multiple things, including stupid things. You have kind of confirmed that though you seem to have missed the intention of my effort. Those are made up hypothetical definitions that could exist. Ironically you've both been and continue to be indefinite if your objection to the lack of a definition. I've seen so many times in past threads where people are having this back and forth with you about whether or not you need a dictionary. Dictionaries don't define words. That is not their purpose. They standardize spelling and pronunciation of words and give some examples of their use, but no dictionary owns any word. tmiddles wrote: I'm trying to make progress with you! Then you must discard the idea that dictionaries are authoritative for any word. Words are defined by people. They may define jargon; or specialist words used in a particular hobby, religion,or industry (such as 'byte'); define them ad hoc (such as 'hobbit'); define them using philosophy (how the words 'religion' and 'science' are defined) 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
17-08-2019 10:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:You are, by no means, the first gullible dude to be hornswoggled into this Marxist religion. Three things: I don't happen to be a devotee or believer in the the Global Warming Crisis (I'll use my own title) I don't think it matters whether or not I am for the purposes of discussion And in my own words I'm hear to learn about and understand things and so far it's going well. Thank you for you help. So those 3 things said. It has in my opinion been a thoroughly non-productive discussion in the past when you and ITN constantly ask people to "Define it" because they (I can personally attest to this) didn't know what your issue was. The issue is that the phrase is undefined. It doesn't mean anything. It's a meaningless buzzword. Using it as a declaration of any kind is to make a void argument fallacy. I have already told you this multiple times. You need to pay attention. tmiddles wrote: How do you like this as a clarification to "Define Global Warming": Do so because the definition of "Global Warming" is unclear and indefinite. While something getting warmer is clear enough that describes a change over time. What time frame? What do you actually mean when you say "Global"? Do you include the molten core of the earth? the thermosphere far out near space? Are you under the impression you actually know what the temperature for any moment in time for the totality of what you call "Global"? If you do think that what margin of error do you have? Is there more too it like a theory or belief in some cause of the "warming"? As you can see it is not at all definite what you mean when you say those two words together. I have already said this multiple times. tmiddles wrote: The trouble with only repeating "Define Global Warming" is it degenerates most of the time into a discussion with links to Dictionary.com At which point I point out that no dictionary defines any word. 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
17-08-2019 11:15
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Dictionaries don't define words. You keep making my point as you point out I don't get it! That's what I'm saying!!! Don't just tell someone "Define _____ ______" because for most of us a definition is what you find in the dictionary. Asking and giving a definition is usually simply a matter of establishing a common description. So two people are working with the same description of what a word means, even if it's vague and nonsensical. I have been trying to convey that I NOW finally get that you have been objecting to something be indefinite! That is a different and higher standard. GasGuzzler wrote: What's wrong with dictionary.com? Nothing but plenty of definitions there are indefinite : ) thing·y /ˈTHiNGē/ noun INFORMAL a person or thing whose name one has forgotten, does not know, or does not wish to mention. Trust me ITN, you have been unclear on the point of why you constantly ask for things to be defined. I believe I FINALLY get it even if I'm somehow not being clear on that point.
17-08-2019 17:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:I don't happen to be a devotee or believer in the the Global Warming Crisis (I'll use my own title) This tells me that you nonetheless believe in Global Warming, the religion with the physics-violating dogma. This, in turn, tells me that you have a purpose, i.e. to find a way around the physics violations and maintain your beliefs. This is fine, but I'll warn you in advance that your future holds one of two options: 1. The unlikely option is that you abandon your faith. This is not likely because science is not as important to you as your solidarity with Progressives and your political affiliations. 2. The likely option is frustration on your end as you fail to get around physics and fail to legitimize your beliefs. Plan on ultimately blaming me for this. tmiddles wrote:I don't think it matters whether or not I am for the purposes of discussion You know for a fact that this is the driver for all of your questions. tmiddles wrote:And in my own words I'm hear to learn about and understand things and so far it's going well. Thank you for you help. You are certainly to be commended for having grasped the principles you have. Keep it up. tmiddles wrote:It has in my opinion been a thoroughly non-productive discussion in the past when you and ITN constantly ask people to "Define it" because they (I can personally attest to this) didn't know what your issue was. Irrelevant. If you want to discuss something with me you need to define everything I ask you to define. Since the Global Warming religion is involved, it's easy to see why you EVADE defining the unfalsifiable terms of your dogma. So let's put this whole "Define What?" topic to rest. Everything you have been asked to define, everything you have found impossible to define, is accurately defined in The MANUAL. Start a new thread to discuss how you think The MANUAL is inaccurate. You must be specific. Whatever you do not dispute will be the definition that is presumed. Silence is agreement. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-08-2019 04:38
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Start a new thread to discuss how you think The MANUAL is inaccurate. You must be specific. Whatever you do not dispute will be the definition that is presumed. Silence is agreement. No I actually think it makes more sense to be definite. Why try to fix or salvage "Global Warming" or "Greenhouse effect" as useful terms in a discussion? I will just use different and more definite terms. If I mean temperature, I'll use temperature. If the Earths's temperature isn't something that can reliably charted, then we can talk about bodies in space abstractly. I totally get that indefinite terms should not have the pretense of being definite or everyone wastes their time. So not problem there as I see it. WHEN I talk about "global warming" or the "Greenhouse effect" I will be talking bout the titles themselves. Like: "When people discuss global warming in most High School classrooms there is little discussion of the ice age" Now I would certainly follow that up with my own clarifications and specifics if I had an argument to make or something to present.
18-08-2019 04:39
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: 1. The unlikely option is that you abandon your faith. This is not likely because science is not as important to you as your solidarity with Progressives and your political affiliations. This argument against any individual changing their mind about a hot topic applies to all of us including you. IBdaMann: ITN I have a confession ITN: What is it my friend? IBdaMann: I think global warming might be real ITN: Define global warming IBdaMann: (sobbing) Edited on 18-08-2019 04:41
18-08-2019 07:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:No I actually think it makes more sense to be definite. As I anticipated, you don't find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL. Great! That effectively closes out that whole "Define What?" issue. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

18-08-2019 07:57
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:No I actually think it makes more sense to be definite. As I anticipated, you don't find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL. Great! That effectively closes out that whole "Define What?" issue. . Close it out! It think it's important to point out what is indefinite and immediately move on to what is.
18-08-2019 09:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:Close it out! Done! tmiddles wrote: It think it's important to point out what is indefinite and immediately move on to what is. How does one pray to Climate? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-08-2019 10:00
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Close it out! Done! tmiddles wrote: It think it's important to point out what is indefinite and immediately move on to what is. How does one pray to Climate? blood sacrifice
19-08-2019 00:04
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	We can get a pretty good idea of how much fossil fuel is burned each year and from that it is not difficult to figure how much CO2 is produced. You don't have to measure it in the air. You do have to figure out how much went into the ocean and under the tectonic plates though. If your calculations from total amount of fossil fuels produced comes close to matching atmospheric CO2 measurements you can have some confidence in increases in atmospheric CO2 increases.
19-08-2019 01:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	keepit wrote: We can get a pretty good idea of how much fossil fuel is burned each year and from that it is not difficult to figure how much CO2 is produced. Why would anyone invest the time, effort and resources into ascertaining that figure? Sheer curiosity? I can think of an endless list of more useful information we should be pursuing first. keepit wrote: You don't have to measure it in the air. Let's keep in mind that we don't have to measure it at all. What's the premise for measuring CO2 in the first place? keepit wrote: You do have to figure out how much went into the ocean and under the tectonic plates though. Wait, let me check ... Nope. I don't have to figure that out either. Who told you that I do? keepit wrote: If your calculations from total amount of fossil fuels produced comes close to matching atmospheric CO2 measurements you can have some confidence in increases in atmospheric CO2 increases. Are you under the mistaken impression that fossils burn? Do you believe that there exist any fossils that serve as fuel? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-08-2019 09:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	keepit wrote: We can get a pretty good idea of how much fossil fuel is burned each year Zero. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. keepit wrote: and from that it is not difficult to figure how much CO2 is produced. You can't burn fossils, so they produce no CO2. keepit wrote: You don't have to measure it in the air. You can't anyway. keepit wrote: You do have to figure out how much went into the ocean Not possible. keepit wrote: and under the tectonic plates though. Not possible. keepit wrote: If your calculations from total amount of fossil fuels produced No one produces fossils fuels. Fossils don't burn. keepit wrote: comes close to matching atmospheric CO2 measurements you can have some confidence in increases in atmospheric CO2 increases. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. 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

Page 3 of 3

Join the debate CO2 increase:

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
Limited Time Special Book: How To Increase Longevity, Live To 600+ Year More	9	04-04-2023 13:49
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2	533	30-01-2023 07:22
CO2 Is Helping the Ozone Layer to Recover	1	13-08-2022 05:54