Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jaberwocky
His words are CO2 is a clourless, odourless and naturally occurring gas that is a benefice to life.
Jabberwocky, if you're going to gaze into your crystal ball and attempt to determine where I got the info from that Bob Carter relates CO2 not being harmful to being colourless and odourless, it would behove you to ask me first so that you don't come up with the wrong source, as you just have.
Opinion Piece, Bob Carter, October 5th 2011, The Daily Climate
"carbon dioxide is not toxic, nor a pollutant, but rather a colorless, odourless and tasteless gas essential for life on earth"
Ahhh now you are quoting him in full context........and it differs in its inference to that which you posted previously
. By the way a few subtle differences in words is acceptable, the ones I quoted were first hand, but hiw written words are almost identical. So stick to the full story shall we
As for crystal balls........mate your comments are all aligned with the references I used, just because you have not seen the "Inconvenient Lie" does not mean you are not preaching along party lines so to speak.
As for Oxygen toxicity, yeah sure for a short period, but for how long? No problem, but after a while that much larger concentration of a good thing is bad. But you go on to ask.....
Do you understand that something may be detrimental in some ways yet not in others? ..... Well that is the whole point. And a bit more CO2 is actually good. Agriculture has benefitted significantly over the last 50 or so years, it is a benefit.
They haven't "done the opposite". They have risen at a slower rate for a decade.
Ahhh you need to stop studying facts in isolation again.
Here are some graphs that need to be understood. Look at the temperature record for a "climate bink of an eye" or 30 years, just so happens that is also how long satellite data has been recorded.
Now lets take the stance of the AGW's for a minute use this raph and draw a line of best fit into it, CO2 has risen 15% over this time, and yes you could say....see the CO2 has caused the warming.
But remember, testing the Hypothesis is what science is about. So if we take the first 20 year roughly with a 10% increase in CO2 and there is no change. Take the ElNino cycle into account (Solar driven) and then look at the next ten years.....and bugger me if there is no change again
yet CO2 kept rising. Do you think the CO2 had one almight slam dunk hidden in a El Nino cycle?
And here are the lines of best fit, allowing for the El Nino, which climatologits regard as a step or 0.2 degree shift, but the trends either side of it are static. In fact if you best fit through the El Nimo you get a rise pre 98, and bugger me if you would not get a fall ever since.....ahh but Jaba, that shows a fall in averages if you do that, so yes lets take the climate scientists version of a peak event out of the graph so we can look at trends in the "modern era", which is after all what the greenies want to focus on, not thousands of years. So the trend is either STATIC as shown or if you include the El Nino of 98 it rose slightly and has been falling ever since.
Now you can't have your cake and eat it too, so where is the trend? it is either falling at a greater rate, or its static, but it is certainly NOT climbing at a lesser rate.
Some of the new emails are in fact identical (ie, exactly the same email, but renumbered to make it look as if they're new), but fake-sceptics, completely lacking any ability to critically examine them at all, think that they're new.
Ohhh really, so you have managed to crack the passwords on the second batch? I think you will find that there is in the words of The Kelpie....More to Follow