NASA shows a year of C02 cycles on Earth

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I think that there has been way to much money and effort to make us believe co2 is a bad thing

Research costs money. After research, salaries, equipment... there's nothing left over to profit off of grants with. More money is spent in attempt to convince people that rising Co2 is harmless, that it's even beneficial. These bloggers and think tank people get paid to tear apart others research rather than conduct their own, paid to testify in Congress to keep meaningful action from being taken and paid to write blogs that insult your intelligence. No research, no salaries, no equipment... plenty of profit.

Saying I don't care only means that I would prefer that it would warm up but in my neck of the woods it's cold as usual . The data issue and the papers produced is only a game of moving the pea under a shell . The Rockefeller's we very heavily invested in fossil fuels for many years and also sponsoring what can only be described as the pro-agw side so if big oil does happen to support some of the skeptic side ,so what . David (fruit fly) Suzuki is pro-agw and he is in bed with big oil . So what . Oh and the Rockefeller's just recently moved away from fossil fuels in their investments . Funny that as the bottom seems to be falling out of the prices now . You would almost think they had the inside scoop on the way the future is going to go ,or they are going to make it go that way .

Climate Audit does a good job at looking at some of the papers being produced and finding errors .In fact they bring out some very questionable methods into the light . This latest of a series is worth noting because a paper produced in 2012 was published then pulled from the journal and has been under review for 2 years .The same author reproduced another paper that looks like the first but had to get out because it was already used in the IPCC's report . If what has been found to be true then the IPCC doesn't care about quality or methods but only needs papers to back up what they want to say . climateaudit.org... Like I said I am not a scientist but I can watch how they discuss issues and take away from them what is going on . Words like deception ,collusion ,fraud ,or if you prefer incompetence can be applied to some of the main actors in this AGW scam . That would also include institutions like the EPA . In the end though it's just my opinion . a reply to: Phage

I guess it comes down to the truth of the matter .If CO2 is increasing and it is , and the theory is that CO2 causes warming then we should see a increase in the temperature record that matches the increase in CO2 . But that is actually the opposite of what we see . a reply to: the2ofusr1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rockpuck

The difference however is that c02 levels in the atmosphere are not rising that fast

Incorrect.
co2now.org...

This is because the Biosphere is never taken into account.

Incorrect. Please refer to section 1.3.9:
www.nipccreport.org...

Cute source.

A simple way to look at the AGW meme against what has and is happening . No fear here :>)

a reply to: Rockpuck
You said biological activity is not considered.
You were incorrect.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: H1ght3chHippie

So maybe the alleged increase in carbondioxide is rather due to a reduction in plant mass, especially trees, rather than due to an increased output of said gas

Maybe, but no. The isotopic signature of the CO2 indicates that it is the result of burning fossil fuels.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

hey, hey , hey, phage..... don't you know that climate science here on ATS, has no validity....please, man-made climate change has nothing to do with this (sarcasm)