CO2 alarmism is not logical by kilo54

The CO2 greenhouse effect is LOGARITHMIC, which means that even DOUBLING CO2 levels would only increase forcing by 0.3% or less. So there is NO panic/emergency. Cloud cover has decreased 6.8% 1986 to 2009 (John D,Maclean’s PhD, james Cook uni, Oz). London air today 15 counts; 200 in 1950; 600 in 1900. Clouds NEED aerosols to nucleate on. See YouTube, “No particles, no fog.” AND Synodic Resonance making more Sunspots, more shielding of the Earth from cosmic rays which also help clouds form.

Climate scientists have accounted for the logarithmic rate of saturation for >50 years.

This is just another version of discounting the urgency for decreasing CO2 output. IOW another ploy to encourage the continued abuse to our world by massive use of fossil fuels. This particular bogus argument has been around about the past 10 years, it looks like.



Let’s see, should I just take the word of pretty much every climate scientist everywhere or entertain the pseudoscientific ramblings of some Internet rando? Wow, that’s a tough one there.

That is a tough one Widdershins.

But if you look closely, you’ll see it only makes sense to believe his pseudoscientific conclusions. I mean, who else but a misunderstood genius would type some words in all capital letters, needlessly capitalize other words, and used excessive and random numbers of spaces between sentences?

Actually I do feel sympathy over the confusion felt by most climate change deniers. They see mountains of contradictory data and information all over the internet, so without any overwhelming reason to go one way or the other, feel free to choose whichever side they like.

The second you feel doubt about what the scientists say, you are at the mercy of the deniers, because they sound so much less hysterical over changes you likely can’t see or feel in everyday life.

Yes, we are obviously in the presence of an intellect the likes of which his mom’s basement has never seen before. And I imagine the walls of that basement to be covered in guns. There are boxes of rations stacked against one of those walls and a bugout bag in the corner. And a desk with a single lamp, strewn with articles printed off the Internet bout the deep state and the Democrats plans to indoctrinate your kids.

Scientists have “accounted for”? What is that? They try and claim “positive feedback”, but if so, the oceans would all have evaporated long ago. PF virtually unknown in nature. LeChatelier’s principle (negative feedback essentially) everywhere.

I have 4 ‘O’ levels in English, so do not need English lessons from you or your friends. The Roman and Medieval Warm periods were as warm or warmer than today and were time of great PROSPERITY, not doom and gloom. WHY should our present mild warming be any different? Not logical. Plants are growing 50% faster than in 1950 on average; pines much faster. Using LESS water (stomata more closed). World grain 2,400m tons today, just 600m in 1950. HALF of what you eat is from CO2 and about 15% from man made. Without CO2 you stop breathing - it triggers the breathing reflex - some pollution that, eh?

Just changing the paint on temp stations from whitewash to modern paints, makes 0.7F difference, half the amount claimed by alarmists. And modern ones crammed with electronics that give off heat. GIGO. USA has the best stations, but 89% of them incorrectly sited on blacktop or near heat vents - see website showing photos of 790 odd badly sited stations. NOAA/NASA raising 600 temps/month and lowering 3. 40% of temp stations “estimated”. NO stations on 65+% of planet.

Read John D. Maclean’s audit of HADCRUT4…In 19th century for 3 years, just ONE station for the whole Southern hemisphere; Brit warships just 2 miles apart recording 3C temp differences! GIGO. Forest fires destroying 50m acres in USA in the 30s some yesrs, cf.700,000 (some sites saying 8m) lost last year. Less storms in latter half of 20th century. And sea level rise? Laughable!.…changing air pressure from 960 to 1050 millibars makes about 2ft difference in water level, AND storm surges( seiches) 28ft in USA in 2005, so whining about an inch is ridiculous! “28ft, Wilbur! Just a teen, weeny bit more than a few inches, eh?”

So, try to address the issues I have raised, not making silly childish comments like a teenage girl. Maybe you are all teenies, eh?

We were one of the first to raise pollution as serious - analyzing the stomach parts of crabs from Liverpool bay using solid gold crucibles and HF. We found it took 15 years for HALF the pollution to clear. Horrified. After 30 years still 1/4 left! Built a stackwall house using recycled cedar logs; passive solar conservatory on South side growing salad veggies and herbs year round in Maritime Canada. Built aerobatic biplane; +10G, -6G; 6,000 rivets; differential frieze ailerons; push pull control tubes - silky smooth.

Have spent the night on the most active volcano in the Americas, Pacaya. Boom every 20 minutes. American party on other side robbed, women raped, one man shot in leg. Later had to bribe my way out of Honduras after insulting them - they make you run around paying bribes here and there. La mordida? $10. ha, ha.

Get a grip, people. Address the issues.



Without CO2 you stop breathing – it triggers the breathing reflex – some pollution that, eh?
I've heard so many terrible excuses to ignore CO2 levels that I assumed I had heard them all. But no...

Thanks to His Excellency Sir Mark Wheatcroft PhD., MD. Esq. (plus whatever other honorifics he wants to imagine he has), I get to hear one more. Not only is this (hopefully) the last of them floating about the internet, it is also the worst by a light-year (and as Mark will tell you, “that’s… a long… Long time!”).

I would love to mock the idiocy of that statement, but it does such a good job on it’s own I’ll just sit back and let it do all the work.

Yes, we get it! You don’t understand the science so it must be wrong. The fact is that you can’t keep dumping crap into the air and land and oceans forever and expect it to never do anything. If you want to stick your head in the sand, that’s fine. But leave me out of your little delusion where you think you know more about climate science than climate scientists do. I have children and, someday maybe, grandchildren to consider. I WILL NOT bet their lives on your dumbass conspiracy theory!

Wheatcroft, You should have told us earlier that you are the Indiana Jones of Climate Change Denial. (tho I don’t recall Indiana thinking so pejoratively about teenage girls.) Was that a shot at young Greta? How could a teenage girl know anything compared to a grown man of adventure and hubris? I mean besides dedicating just about every moment of her young life to learning what the climate scientists say.

Vanity is not her issue. Just the truth.

Your level of ignorance is astounding, exceeded only by your stupidity. I refer you to the "’ website. To begin with, pure O2 was given to patients, but many died. Today, ALL breathing O2 in hospitals contains a trace of CO2.

And for the other peasant, am M.Wheatcroft BSc, RAFVR, Draper, Bart. (Baronet. Not really!)…we Drapers are pals with HM and HRH Prince Charles - we provided the Sovereign with 500 armed men on 2 occasions, and loaned them money often. Had dinner with Charles and got to meet Diana when she was just married - a very beautiful woman with a huge empathetic aura about her…I think she fancied me! (sic)

We own half of The College of William and Mary (second oldest Uni in USA), Queen Mary College London Uni, 40 hotels and office blocks, 12 schools, 200 old folks in homes, look after wounded veterans, and give scholarships to the young. See YouTube, “Drapers Hall” the richest Livery Hall in England. Built when my family were Beadles for over 70 years. As a Draper, I cannot be arrested for ‘drunk and disorderly’, and indeed, the Constables have to take me home for free!

Look, insulating 500 roofs in UK would cost the same as a windmill. The insulation would save MORE energy in 2 years than the energy from the 25 year life. So about 12 TIMES better!

To change to windmills would mean covering half of the UK with windmills. But none of you address the issues I have raised - that CO2 is only 0.3% of forcing. The rest is from the decrease in cloud cover caused by our cleaning the air of aerosols, AND by Synodic Resonance…if you place 3 pendulum clocks on a wall, within 5 minutes, they will all be in sync. SR makes the Sun hotter with more Sunspots - this in turn shields the Earth more from Cosmic Radiation (I am the author of, “Cosmic Ray induced radio nuclides and their uses in Oceanography.”) which is also an important source of cloud nucleation.

Be10 is an excellent proxy for Sun strength. As it is rare (unlike C14), no prob with contamination. Its radioactivity telling us WHEN deposited, and the AMOUNT telling us how hot the Sun was - more Be10, weaker Sun. Be is nasty; used in atom bombs - got to see an H bomb when visiting a V bomber station - big fat white thing.

Water vapour 47 times that of CO2 in the Tropics. Is 2 times a better greenhouse gas than CO2, so is 94 times MORE important as a forcer than CO2. Seawater is BUFFERED so resists changes to pH…water at 0C holds 4 times the CO2 of 27C water, so as temps rise LESS O2 in seawater, not more.

Timor Leste, where my son works, is 3C warmer than The Great Barrier reef, yet coral THRIVING, and more fish by type than anywhere in the World - 600+. So is warming hurting TGBR ? Remember, boys and girls, the issues not mediocre slander!

So, name 2 bad things PRESENTLY from GW, and name 2 examples of Positive feedback in nature - will send you $100 if you can. NO instability, castoring say. Not fire - chemical reaction, so not counted.

Mark; Your credentials are perfect for someone who would prefer keeping the oil based economy in place without concern for future generations.

Just as aside, this forum is moderated by volunteers . Opening lines like the one above are considered counter productive.


Global warming lead to climate change. Climate changes have lead to

  1. droughts and famine in some locales

  2. massive increases in human migration out of desperation

2 examples of Positive feedback in nature

  1. breast milk production

  2. population growth


Please donate my $100 to a home for retired adventurers gone bad. You’re welcome.

Let me be very clear here, it is not my duty to defend climate science. I am not a climate scientist. And you are not qualified to form an opinion on climate science. You are not a climate scientist. Objective reality is not determined by what you or I believe. We are not scientists debating the science. The actual scientists have done that and you are wrong. I don’t have to explain why you are wrong. I don’t even have to know why you are wrong. But I do KNOW that you are wrong because I accept the reality of scientific understanding. You being wrong will not change even if you convince me that you are right. You would STILL be wrong even if I was convinced.

Now, if you truly believe that you are not wrong then simply take your findings to the scientific community and present your case. It is when THEY say that you are not wrong, and ONLY then, that you actually become not wrong. But you have to be willing to accept that they are not going to sit and patiently explain to you why you are wrong because nobody is going to spend a few years of their lives giving you the education you are too lazy or broke or cheap to get yourself, and you absolutely NEED that education to understand why you are wrong. It is not even THEIR job to explain to you why you are wrong. Their job is to tell you what the science says objective reality is and nothing more. If you want a voice in that objective reality, you have to earn that by getting the education that qualifies you to have it. Anything short of that is just you being wrong.

Look, insulating 500 roofs in UK would cost the same as a windmill. The insulation would save MORE energy in 2 years than the energy from the 25 year life. So about 12 TIMES better!
The largest wind farm in America is in Texas at the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center. Its 421 turbines produce enough energy to power 220,000 homes. That means a single wind turbine can power more than 522 homes. If one wind turbine can power 522 homes then how can insulating only 500 homes save more energy in 2 years than it can produce in 25? Your information comes from a biased UK conservative group called "Country Guardian", not a scientific study. Like all of your information, that claim is painfully out of date, being made in 2004. It is unsubstantiated by any other source and Country Guardian was formed specifically for the purpose of fighting wind power.

If you want to be taken seriously then the least you can do is fact check yourself instead of mindlessly repeating outdated and discredited information. Seriously, you have done ZERO real research into this. You’re just parroting what other people you agree with have said without bothering to check if it’s true and up to date. You’re getting all of your information from conservative web pages and talking points, which makes you a partisan hack, not an informed participant in the discussion. You are never, ever going to convince intelligent people with your biased big-oil-friendly talking points devoid of any facts, context or roots in reality. You are still wrong. Every time you type, what you type is wrong. You are at best a mindless drone who has been tricked into spreading a false gospel and at worst a witting ally of big oil and/or some other disruptive force such as the Russian government. If you can only be bothered to get your “information” from conservative sources then you are going to get nothing but conservative lies.

Ocean rising by inches, swamped by 28 ft storm surge. (2005, August check it out!) 34,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition saying, “No crisis; no emergency from GW.” Fact check that. Denmark ordered by EU to compensate the poor for high power costs - their windmills backed up by COAL and expensive imports. Well done, indeed…where Hudson landed on his Bay, now 20kms from the sea. Some ocean rise! Ostia, Rome’s port miles from the Med now. Ditto Pevensey castle (where William the conk landed in 1066), MILES from the sea. More sea rise, eh?

The 97% consensus, bogus. Done by an undergrad, Doran(?) who reviewed 11,000 papers for any mention of GW. In FACT only 1.6% said GW was man made…Mark Twain, “It is easy to convince a fool of something, but then impossible to make him change his mind.”

Virtue signalling - our BC Gov paying $1bn/year for ‘run of the river’ power. Only one small problem - they work mostly at the Spring freshet when our regular dams are FULL, so this new power CANNOT be used! Money that would have built 4,000 homes/year - 1000s of homeless living on the streets - “Who cares about them.”

You do not state your qualifications, but I tilt mine against yours. What do you know of quantum mechanics? Why does heavy water kill plants? Einstein’s Special Theory was an extension of who’s work? What is exponential function to the power of minus j omega t used in? Feynman’s double slit experiment suggests spin coupling/entanglement? Why? What is diazo methane used for? Why can you not use regular glassware with it?

I spent my last year mostly doing high grade analysis. GC-MS etc. Thats Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectrometer to you. Good down to 10 to the power 16, or 1 teaspoon in 800,000 swimming pools. (may have lost/gained a 10 somewhere)…Moths work by GC for smell - a male can smell his girl 1 mile away. If moth man size, could smell his wife’s perfume from 300 miles away!!! If IONISED GC (As in airport screening), could smell it 500 miles away.

Instead of slander/libel, why not discuss rationally? I almost certainly went to a better school and Uni than you, doing my degree exams at least a year quicker than you. Have been to more places. Met terrorists? I have. 3 sets including PIRA, the Provos - bought hash from them. And Instrument rated, aerobatic, formation, low level, RAF pilot; busting 3 rivet guns pulling 3/16 s.s. rivets building a plane - built one have you?

Riddle me this, Indiana. Why did you jump the shark on your franchise by having aliens in your last movie?

Dude, write a book about your adventures. You could even include a chapter where you are Princess Di’s secret love interest early in her marriage, that eventually lead to the downfall of their wedding bliss. If you want a little science fiction element you can add a part where you accidentally consume a radioactive moth, and then develop the skill of gas chromatography perception. You could then smell Di from 300 miles away.

It would be a top seller. You could do that instead of trying to doom prospects for the Earth’s future.

Do you just love the fossil fuels industries, too much?

All the replies have been abusive and ignorant. 10 year olds know CO2 triggers our breathing reflex. The poster must be half witted if they think a British BSc would suddenly INVENT that? And he/she so lazy they did not bother to Google it? Nobody has addressed the many points I have made…“Name 2 examples of Positive Feedback” - the reply? Mother’s milk. No explanation…THUS, you have no answer.QED.

The moderators allow this abuse, then caution me for showing the post was wrong, uneducated. Then, “Not a scientist” OK apparently, when it must be plain as a pikestaff that, unlike today, in my time, Degrees were hard earned.

And in reply to, “All climate scientists agree GW…” I could not be bothered to reformat it after cutting and pasting - not sure you lot can read. Ha, ha!

INTRODUCTION: More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report – updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming ―consensus‖ – features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun. The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal - - which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists – detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate 3 change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming – As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.” Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears: “We‟re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” – UN IPCC‘s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium. “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” – NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself – Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.‖ – Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” – Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems and has published peer-reviewed papers. “The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet‟s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” – Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences who has 4 published numerous peer-reviewed studies about the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth‘s magnetic field. “Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” – Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book ―The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.‖ "I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore‖ – Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, has published several peer-reviewed studies in biochemistry. Mumper’s presentation was titled ―Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.‖ “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what „science‟ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” – Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled ―The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere‖ and he published a paper in August 2009 titled ―Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.‖ [Updated December 9, 2010] “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” – Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring’s quote.] “Those who call themselves „Green planet advocates‟ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” – Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004” by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.” “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I 5 know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” – Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia‘s CSIRO‘s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research. “We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.‖ – Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens‘ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering. “There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” – Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” – Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled ―Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.‖ “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC‟s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.‖ – South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

Nana, nana! Cat got your mediocre tongue? I hear Greta making a borno starring AL Bore as a gelded buckold boyeur. See, no naughty words!! Qua heri, sasa, shenzi mavi!

Oh my. Indiana, what has happened to you. I guess the fossil fuel industry can corrupt anyone. It’s really quite bathetic that your imagination runs to pedophilia and cuckoldry as a way to try to diminish those who you despise.

And I hope you are not trying to renig on the $100 I asked you to donate on a retirement home. (You will eventually need such a place.) Dude, you milk a cow a lot and this stimulates the cow making more milk than she would have with little milking. Hence Positive Feedback.

The rest of your crap looks like an overall compilation of points by some fossil fuel sponsored think tank designed to continue thwarting reason and thus to keep the world on track to really really mess up the Earth as a place for us humans.

@3point14rat first off, you’re confusing Carbon monoxide with Carbon dioxide. Pollution is Carbon monoxide, pure poison. What we breathe out of our lungs, is Carbon Dioxide, but we don’t breathe out enough to cause the issues we are having with climate change nor do other animals. It probably would be enough to the trees and plants, but what we put out in pollution, along with carbon monoxide, it more than trees and plants can handle, so we have an excess of both carbons. Since we have both the pollutant, Carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide in larger quantities than the earth can handle, we have an increase in temp, thereby increasers in climate problems.