eagleye13 Loc: Fl

This is the part you do not hear about c*****e c****e.

We are told that carbon dioxide which makes up .04% of our atmosphere is causing g****l w*****g. Doesn't it make more sense that explosions on the surface of the sun which send radiation into our atmosphere are causing the warming? We have been bamboozled many times before. Who is getting rich from this s**m? So far it's been a $300 million windfall for Al Gore who started it all.

https://scontent.ftpa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/297772488_2093702664149681_9211746915252992992_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=600G9STv5PYAX80U44z&_nc_ht=scontent.ftpa1-1.fna&oh=00_AT9rbrlHX6yNwvJUAhsFYcrPly_fuc1q-F5LU5e77840AA&oe=632D39B8


https://www.facebook.com/climatescienceinfo/?hoisted_unit_ids=339088733940326%2C1594000987455846&entry_point=cG9zdF9hdHRhY2htZW50&__cft__[0]=AZWd35Quedz8SVbeeSvenczMRnQmemeURfotr_F1rDwuw14RvW6PkqY9BbRNGtVK0ttk50Of4BW1ybha7_o3u1-71Ll5DFTxcX0oYA5cg0Sc3AiLb0h1pOppCW2xW-T83dgaXqIPLaDO6KhZhjJauPoj9H-Y_9htjU5idiF6OBn2Ig&__tn__=*W-R

BTW; Man Made C*****e C****e and G****l W*****g is not usually quantified.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Here is an analogy that gives perspective on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you have a football stadium that can seat 80,000 fans, each representing a molecule in the air, there will be only 32 CO2 molecules in the stadium.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

dtucker300; Math must not be your strong subject.

.01 = 1 in one hundred
.04 = 4 in one hundred

80,000 X .04 = 3,200 spectators out of 80,000 spectators.

Actually; the Earth could use a bit more CO2

Plants would take advantace of that, and more O2 (oxygen) would be produced.
Funny how God figured that out.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

No, Math is my strong suit. It is a very common mistake by inexperienced people who do not understand math (about 80% or 0.80 of the population suffers from innumerology) that when doing math calculations they drop the units being measured and focus only on the number. However, the number and units cited were 0.04%, not 0.04. 0.04% is one 1/10,000th because 1.0% is 1/100th. Something that is 100% is 1.00. A U.S Dollar is one dollar, 100% of a dollar or $1.00. A penny is 1/100th of a dollar or $0.01 which is 1.0% of a dollar. When you breathe in air you are getting approximately 21% oxygen, 79% nitrogen, and 0.04% CO2. When you exhale the composition of the air is 79% nitrogen, about 16% oxygen, and 4% CO2 along with trace amounts of methane and water vapor. You calculation accounts for only CO2 exhaled and ignores the rest of the respiration and t***spiration process of converting CO2 into O2 and the C is utilized by the plant and stored to make sugars and energy for the plant to grow.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Thanks for correcting me.
.04% = .0004
Two Zeros need to be added when referring to percentages.

BTW; I think we agree on the Man Made G****l W*****g h**x, used for various agendas.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

We do!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

elledee

Stop it, your giving me a co2 headache but i agree the actual scientific facts don't justify this green scheme.

MidnightRider

Of course it makes sense and they don't EVER mention the fbi and cia's weather modification. Stopping that would get rid of California's wildfires. Plus, the Paris Accord is a slush fund source Phillippe one of the original scientists. But the libs don't want to hear that or that their Fed is a h**x, it isn't operating that and the irs just print money if they need it from thin air. source: Becerra and Jim Stevens.

Wonttakeitanymore

Never does! That’s why the lefty’s push common core math!!

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Fortunately, there's a book by Mark Steyn that helps sort out the t***h from the fiction. It's called A Disgrace to the Profession and features short essays and articles by scientists who speak out against the g****l w*****g / c*****e c****e h**x being perpetrated on the world.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052317_climate_change_scientific_consensus_fraudulent_science_survey.html#ixzz4JLQI0Rxa The '97% consensus' of scientists on c*****e c****e is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD
****************************************************************
https://realclimatescience.com/61-f**e-data