Global warming pollution increases 3 percent

CO2 is plant food. It is not pollution.

Did you know that if CO2 ppm drops below 150 all plant life will die?

Co2 is considered to be the main driver of climate change.If thats propagated good, its considered true.

Mikiwud ,temperatures are going up.

Gir is freaking cool.

Vellanarris, i dont think you have proven anything yet to counter my arguments.

Tell me how the conspiracy works again.

If you dont like propaganda dont propagate.

CO2 is plant food. It is not pollution.

Did you know that if CO2 ppm drops below 150 all plant life will die?

Co2 is considered to be the main driver of climate change.If thats propagated good, its considered true.

Mikiwud ,temperatures are going up.

Gir is freaking cool.

Vellanarris, i dont think you have proven anything yet to counter my arguments.

Tell me how the conspiracy works again.

If you dont like propaganda dont propagate.

Nice, very nice.

CO2 isn't a main driver of climate change. That is clearly outlined here:http://www.junksc...enhouse/

Please read.

If CO2 ("the main gas that causes global warming")has gone up 3%,why has the temperature gone down?!!!
Baby Polar Bear, "mummy if global warming is killing us,why am I so f---ing cold!"

CO2 is plant food. It is not pollution.

Did you know that if CO2 ppm drops below 150 all plant life will die?

Did you know that CO2, in the 7-10% range, is an asphyxiant?

CO2 is plant food. It is not pollution.

Did you know that if CO2 ppm drops below 150 all plant life will die?

Irrelevant.

The point is that ANY compound can have various effects; simply picking a particular one that seems to support your cause is dishonest.

Shame on your & those of your kind.
Did you know that CO2, in the 7-10% range, is an asphyxiant?

Yeah that's about 7000 ppm far outside of the range of human contribution.

Excalibur:-
I go on recorded and reported MEASURED temperatures NOT Playstation predictions.
The rest is just to egg-on Warmists with no sense of humour.

CO2 is plant food. It is not pollution.

Did you know that if CO2 ppm drops below 150 all plant life will die?

Irrelevant.

The point is that ANY compound can have various effects; simply picking a particular one that seems to support your cause is dishonest.

Shame on your & those of your kind.
Did you know that CO2, in the 7-10% range, is an asphyxiant?

Yeah that's about 7000 ppm far outside of the range of human contribution.

Interestingly, not even on ArXiv.org, which is an impartial and not peer reviewed, but highly regarded research paper server, can you easily find anything disputing AGW (I searched for a while but did not see anything). Why would that be?

Velanarris: ArXiv is more aimed at other topics but there are several papers on this issue, if they touch physical causes or computer model related questions. I just saw that if you type in "climate change", the second paper found (Padget and Dunning-Davies) is something you would probably welcome. Thats good, at least you can associate names and affiliation with their research.

Numerical models for simulation and prediction of atmospheric flows are subject to deterministic chaos and give unrealistic solutions. Deterministic chaos is a direct consequence of round-off error growth in iterative computations.

If we stop countering silly articles, they'll all get 5'ed then other less informed readers will start picking up the gospel of AGW and CO2. Stay the course.

Velanarris: ArXiv is more aimed at other topics but there are several papers on this issue, if they touch physical causes or computer model related questions. I just saw that if you type in "climate change", the second paper found (Padget and Dunning-Davies) is something you would probably welcome. Thats good, at least you can associate names and affiliation with their research.

CO2 is plant food. It is not pollution.

Did you know that if CO2 ppm drops below 150 all plant life will die?

Irrelevant.

The point is that ANY compound can have various effects; simply picking a particular one that seems to support your cause is dishonest.

Shame on your & those of your kind.
Did you know that CO2, in the 7-10% range, is an asphyxiant?

Yeah that's about 7000 ppm far outside of the range of human contribution.

Deepsand I don't see your reply, I do see you gave me a 1, and I'm curious as to why?

So effectively you've handed the non-AGW group on this server another good resource, our thanks.

Almost any dissenting view can be created,but that doesnt make it at all convincing.Altough there are many unknowing people who dont know how to differentiate between good and bad information will believe in it.

Any dissenting view that doesnt fit in with the majority of information available are suspect and should be treated that way, only if it can fit in a coherent manner it has any potential to become convincing.

If this is not true we might as well believe in fairies, Nessie or The Flying Spagetti Monster.

The point is that ANY compound can have various effects; simply picking a particular one that seems to support your cause is dishonest.

If this is not true we might as well believe in fairies, Nessie or The Flying Spagetti Monster.

Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say regardless of AGW this is a significant problem that needs to be addressed.

The large increase from developing nations is predominately coal. Coal emmisions include a lot of heavy metals that later deposit in oceans and on land not neccisarily in the country of origin.

While personally I don't buy the whole CO2 will kill us stuff, Mercury and H2S might give us a run for our money.

I guess in light of the Global Warming Law trivial theories like "lead causes brain damage" and "H2S causes acidic rain" are unimportant since they are unproven...

For all the AGW gang, This is what I mean when I tell you that you don't have to prove AGW to reduce pollution. Use proven consequences. Especially if you want to see quick reactions. I'm all for reducing pollution to reduce H2S, Mercury and Lead emmisions.