re: Carbon-14 dating shows only 12% of atmospheric CO2 added since 1750 is manmade

The climate change cult almost never talks about deforestation. You’re conflating the present day climate cult with the environmentalists from Richard Nixon’s time.

quote:

---

Wouldn’t eating cows be the best way to reduce the world’s cow population? I’ve never understood why the people who complain about cow farts also complain about us killing and eating cows.

---

Well dumbass, this would be the case if we were just hunting wild naturally-occurring cows, but that's not what we do. We breed and feed and medicate and everything else required to produce as much beef as we demand.

So try to understand how fricking simple-minded you have to be to make the comment you did, and then ask yourself if you are right about anything ever.

And I don't have a problem whatsoever with beef, I eat it damn near every day of my life. I also don't have a problem with using fossil fuels, I use those every day of my life too. I just think it's wise to use as little as possible, same goes for all our resources.

quote:

---

the details are far beyond the scope of my knowledge

---

Probably not saying much

quote:

---

Probably not saying much

---

quote:

---

A more detailed description of the chart for the physics aficionados is provided here by Dr. William Happer:

“The blue curve shows how the thermal radiation flux Z(C) from Earth to space changes with the concentration C of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This example is for a temperate, summertime latitude. C is measured in parts per million (ppm) of all atmospheric molecules. At the current value of the CO2 concentration, about C = 400 ppm, the flux is Z(400 ppm) = 277 Watts per square meter (W/m^2). If all the CO2 could be removed from Earth’s atmosphere, so C = 0, but there were no changes in the concentrations of the remaining greenhouse gases (water vapor, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide) and no changes in the atmospheric temperature profile, the flux would be larger, Z(0 ppm)= 307 Watts (W/m^2), shown by the blue dot on the vertical axis of the graph. Adding the greenhouse gas CO2 diminishes the flux to space, very rapidly for the first few parts per million of CO2, as one can see from the blue curve. But as more CO2 is added a law of diminishing returns comes into play. The blue curve is almost flat for current concentrations of CO2, so the greenhouse effect is very insensitive to changes in CO2 concentrations. In the jargon of radiative transfer the greenhouse effect is said to be “saturated.”

---

Bottom line, the addition of CO2 at the point of 400 ppm where we are currently will have very little impact on the atmosphere's ability to radiate energy back into space.

I’m curious about this. What is going on in the Amazon? I didn’t realize there was a lot of urbanization and development going on there.

quote:

---

You don’t honestly believe the mainstream media will report on anything that doesn’t align with the Democrat Party propaganda narrative do you?

---

in some counties, almost this one, being a climate change denier is actually illegal.

Any news outlet publishing such runs the risk of running afoul of the law no matter where it was initially published in those countries. Our State Dept would not hesitate to assist a foreign legal system if it served the gods of climate change or abortion.

quote:

---

I’m curious about this. What is going on in the Amazon? I didn’t realize there was a lot of urbanization and development going on there.

---

Nature article

It is not for urbanization, but mostly for cattle farming- so hitting a daily double, though this is at least better than feedlots as far as methane production is concerned.

There has always been so much evil and corruption associated with the discovery and then the exploitation of this area. If you really want to know how damn awful humanity can be, just do some reading on the history of Amazonia. It can get nauseating pretty quickly.

There is also a pretty good read, The Prophet and the Wizard, about the history of environmentalism and how it has entered into the cultural conscious, but also how humanity deals with the problems.

I find it funny when people seem to think this is a win vs lose contest with Nature. We are all a part of Nature, and Nature is going to nature. All we can do is manipulate how long we can sustain the current societal norms. Maybe we can; maybe we can't. Maybe a massive supervolcano or asteroid wipes us out regardless.

quote:

---

Dr. William Happer

---

Do you have a link to all the climate denying bs artists out there?

What are your thoughts on wetlands as methane emitters? As detestable as cattle?