How Wikipedia Debunks Global Warming!

For the past month on another forum (liberal based) I have been debating with these hippies why Global Warming is a complete and utter scam. I'll post my thoughts on this at a later date.

However, consider this. Have you ever researched C02? Have you ever even looked it up on Wikipedia?

These are just a couple of little snippets I found on Wikipeida's C02 page which you can find here: en.wikipedia.org...

It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039% by volume.

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.

So this is why 400 PPM is only .04%

Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4–5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.

So while you can honestly say that humans may be contributing to 35% of the rising temperatures. Do you Global Warmer supports have any real idea how minuscule that is!!!! That is 35% of .04%!

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Let me show you exactly where you went wrong, and will lose people:

I have been debating with these hippies why Global Warming is a complete and utter scam.

global warming is not a scam. It's real. What is being debated is the causes. Al Gore and friends would rather ignore the cause and tax you, than actually investigate.

The earth goes through warming and cooling periods as indicated in our historical records. As the earth warms, weather patterns become erratic (sound familiar?) giving you snow in places that shouldn't get it, and heat and drought in other places.

Saying "Global Warming is a complete and utter scam" is just downright wrong.

Then you spend the rest of your post talking about the human impact. that's where you lost everyone.

Do I think man is playing a role? Obviously, we've been pumping god knows what into the atmosphere (a closed system) for decades or more, we are indeed a factor.

BUT

There is also the sun and other important factors at play, which get ignored by both sides.

The fact remains, out of the possible causes of global warming, we as humans are the only variable we can control. It's only logical to make steps towards limiting our impact.

And no, a tax is not the answer at all.

don't get confused, you've proved that humans only play a small part in the big picture, but you simply can not say the entire picture is a fraud based on that, it's not.

All this climategate stuff you guys harp about over and over, did you even read the leaked emails? You do understand that they weren't faking the numbers they were trying to hide the past instances of warming and cooling, and trying to sensationalize the issue.

At the core, there is a real issue there, it's just been sugar coated and fed to the masses as an excuse to tax you for breathing

Have you ever even looked it up on Wikipedia?

Interesting, whenever i post links to Wikipedia that deal with the very real global warming issue, I'm told wikipedia is not a reliable source. Interesting.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


Global Warming- Human induced Climate Change

Climate Change- Natural Earth Cycles.

That is the difference. Sorry if I forgot to add that most people no the difference

Also another point to touch upon.
Higher CO2 concentrations would help spur plant growth.

www.co2science.org...

Kubler et al. (1999) grew a red seaweed common to the Northeast Atlantic intertidal zone, Lomentaria articulata, for three weeks in hydroponic cultures subjected to various atmospheric CO2 and O2 concentrations to determine the effects of these gases on growth. In doing so, they found that oxygen concentrations ranging from 10 to 200% of ambient had no significant effects on daily net carbon gain or total wet biomass production rates in this particular seaweed. In contrast, CO2 concentrations ranging from 67 to 500% of ambient had highly significant effects on these parameters. At twice the current ambient CO2 concentration, for example, daily net carbon gain and total wet biomass production rates were 52 and 314% greater than they were under ambient CO2 conditions. Likewise, Tisserat (2001) grew water mint (Mentha aquatica) plants for four weeks at ambient and enriched atmospheric CO2 conditions, finding that compared to plants exposed to air of 350 ppm CO2, those grown in air of 3,000 ppm CO2 produced 220% more fresh weight.

It would seem that higher concentrations of CO2 in the environment would increase plant growth. We could grow more crops. Feed more people.
I think someone is lying to us about the real reason of reducing CO2 in the environment.

Originally posted by grey580

It would seem that higher concentrations of CO2 in the environment would increase plant growth. We could grow more crops. Feed more people.
I think someone is lying to us about the real reason of reducing CO2 in the environment.

Ugh, that idea has been shown to be complete bunk multiple times.
We've destroyed so many plants. Plants have plenty of CO2 to "breathe." It isn't the CO2 that's the limiting factor of plant growth. That claim that we could grow more plants with higher amounts of CO2 is complete BS.

The fact is global warming is irrelevant. We have been destroying our environment. There are holes in the Ozone layer. I don't even know how many forests have been destroyed, but read about the forests in Lebanon. They had the most beautiful trees that were even written about in the Bible, yet in the past 100 years or so they've been almost completely wiped out.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by grey580

It would seem that higher concentrations of CO2 in the environment would increase plant growth. We could grow more crops. Feed more people.
I think someone is lying to us about the real reason of reducing CO2 in the environment.

Ugh, that idea has been shown to be complete bunk multiple times.
We've destroyed so many plants. Plants have plenty of CO2 to "breathe." It isn't the CO2 that's the limiting factor of plant growth. That claim that we could grow more plants with higher amounts of CO2 is complete BS.

The fact is global warming is irrelevant. We have been destroying our environment. There are holes in the Ozone layer. I don't even know how many forests have been destroyed, but read about the forests in Lebanon. They had the most beautiful trees that were even written about in the Bible, yet in the past 100 years or so they've been almost completely wiped out.

edit on 30-8-2011 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2011 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

We have been destroying the world yes, but did you even read what I posted?? During the times of the dinosaurs there was 8000 PPM of Co2 in the air. Vegetation was around much of the planet. It was a lush tropical paradise. And plants and animals grew to massive sizes!!!!