No B.C. Fruit This Year

[jazz]

So how does the last 30 years look?

So back to the 1979 baseline again. What did the past 300,000 yrs look like. Got any peer reviewed science about that.

[chuckChuck]

There is ice core CO2 data going back 800,000 years. And lots of peer reviewed science on past climates.

And none of these papers or scientists would suggest that recent relatively rapid human caused climate change is not a serious concern or problem.

Which credible scientific organization is saying human caused climate change is not real?

A5 has been searching for one for several years and comes up empty handed every time.

And then he runs away from the question like a puppy with his tail between his legs!

[cropgrower]

What is credible ? only the ones that you agree with you ?

[chuckChuck]

Then provide any scientific organization if you are stuck on credible. We are waiting!

[cropgrower]

you will be waiting a very long time because we know what response will be regardless what i post , flat earth etc , pure childish garbage

[fjlip]

What we must do is think and reason, NOT swallow some theory that's not even provable.

This applies to Canada almost 100%.

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1726935239384043963

If the 3% of 0.04% of the air is causing catastrophic climate changes....WTF does the other 97% natural C02 do? That's the problem!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What we must do is think and reason, NOT swallow some theory that's not even provable.

This applies to Canada almost 100%.

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1726935239384043963

If the 3% of 0.04% of the air is causing catastrophic climate changes....WTF does the other 97% natural C02 do? That's the problem!

That question actually has a valid answer. CO2 effectiveness as a greenhouse gas is not linear. It declines exponentially. Doubling it from 50 to 100 PPM has a measurable effect. By the time it reached 400 ppm, the emissions spectrum was fully saturated, and any further additions have virtually no effect. We could double it and double it again and the only effect will be healthier more drought tolerant faster growing plants covering increasingly large areas of the Earth.
This of course is why all of the models have been so drastically wrong.

[chuckChuck]

The science that proves increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause the greenhouse effect is not disputed by any credible scientist.

If it is, show us the link Einstein! Start running away now from that question Jethro!

No doubt A5, the anti science climate change denier will tell us more CO2 is good for us! And that we will run out of CO2 if we don't keep burning fossil fuels!

He doesn't even seem to know there is a carbon cycle!

[redleaf]

Not here for any name calling and I am not actually a scientist myself. To be honest I’m not very good at math even, however by my calculations saying the level of CO2 is .04% is wrong. .04% X 1,000,000 = 40,000 PPM. If the actual content of earths atmosphere is 427 Parts per million the percentage works out to be 427 / 1,000,000 = .000427% not .0427%.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Redleaf, you need to multiply your answer by 100 to get percent. Cent being 100. Per 100. Your answer is per one