Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Of course your chart doesn't mean anything. According to your greenhouse theory, a measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations would lead to a predictiable rise in temperature. Such has not been the case precicely because the greenhouse gas theory is bunk. When you present a theory that predicts X if you get an increase in Y and you do get an increase in Y but X doesn't happen, your theory is shot. Get a new one. Unless, of course, you have a dumbed down educational establishment that allows you to sell it to gullible, uneducated masses whose "scientific analysis" is based not on facts, but on their political agenda.We know that increases in CO2 are the result of warming, not the cause but your scam artists at the national academy and oak ridge do need to keep that grant money coming or most of them are out of a job and they do have those homes in stylish neighborhoods and BMW's to pay for.Take your medicine show and try and sell your snake oil to someone as gullible as yourself.If you look at your silly little chart with its atmospheric CO2 concentration of 370 or so and nothing else it might appear somewhat alarming (if you are the sort to believe that the sky is perpetually falling). When you look at the earth's historic CO2 concentrations and see that for most of history, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been at least 1,000 ppm and for most of history considerably higher than that, the signifigance of your silly little chart is lost. Relative to history, the atmosphere is positively starved for CO2. Maybe you can make the case that mankind is unnaturally holding down atmospheric CO2 concentrations. At least you would have historical evidence for that.
Of course your chart doesn't mean anything. According to your greenhouse theory, a measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations would lead to a predictiable rise in temperature. Such has not been the case precicely because the greenhouse gas theory is bunk. When you present a theory that predicts X if you get an increase in Y and you do get an increase in Y but X doesn't happen, your theory is shot. Get a new one. Unless, of course, you have a dumbed down educational establishment that allows you to sell it to gullible, uneducated masses whose "scientific analysis" is based not on facts, but on their political agenda.
We know that increases in CO2 are the result of warming, not the cause but your scam artists at the national academy and oak ridge do need to keep that grant money coming or most of them are out of a job and they do have those homes in stylish neighborhoods and BMW's to pay for.
Take your medicine show and try and sell your snake oil to someone as gullible as yourself.
If you look at your silly little chart with its atmospheric CO2 concentration of 370 or so and nothing else it might appear somewhat alarming (if you are the sort to believe that the sky is perpetually falling). When you look at the earth's historic CO2 concentrations and see that for most of history, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been at least 1,000 ppm and for most of history considerably higher than that, the signifigance of your silly little chart is lost. Relative to history, the atmosphere is positively starved for CO2. Maybe you can make the case that mankind is unnaturally holding down atmospheric CO2 concentrations. At least you would have historical evidence for that.
