The Great Global Warming Swindle Documentary

a reply to: jrod
My own guess is that those hitting the alarm button will be regarded by the next century’s scientists similar to how we regard doctors who used to bleed patients to reduce a fever. Along the way we’ll have wasted plenty of money, time, and resources on various futile schemes, but we won’t have suspended democracy in order to decarbonize the global economy.

But no matter what the trends show, the True Believers will not change their views. They are all-in, and reversing their position would shatter their psyche.

a reply to: RumpleStiltskin

True believers?

Were the people who were concerned about leaded gasoline just a bunch of alarmist also?

The amount of CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere is alarming!

a reply to: jrod

Were the people who were concerned about leaded gasoline just a bunch of alarmist also?

No.
For you to compare a toxic metallic element to Carbon shows how desperate and foolish you are.
Keep it up, expose the depths of stupidity you will sink to.

a reply to: RumpleStiltskin

You are the one calling people.

The fact is we burn a lot of fuel, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Another fact is we are observing a spike in atmospheric CO2 levels.

It does take rocket science to figure out there is a direct relationship to our fossil fuel addiction and the atmospheric C02 levels.

a reply to: jrod
Question, the carbon cycle as a whole, on a yearly basis, how much of the CO2 emitted is man made, how much is natures work?

a reply to: RumpleStiltskin

This has been discussed over and over on here. Use ATS's search feature to look at past threads for your answer.

I am not going to waste my time providing you with information that is already on this forum.

Here's the question.

If you google this documentary, you'll see that most scientists and scientific organizations have debunked it or had issue with some of the statements in the film, including some false graphs. Several of the scientists interviewed in the film have gone on record saying that they were misrepresented and their statements were taken out of context.

So....Are all of these scientists in on the biggest conspiracy ever commited in history? Like tens of thousands of scientist and hundreds of thousands of support staff and researchers also including college students, interns, professors, etc.

That kind of defies reality. yes? No?

Or is it more likely that big oil and fossil fuel companies and combustion engine companies have paid off some bloggers a few scientists and some pundits?

I'm just laying those questions out there. They're important.

a reply to: amazing

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Thanks for posting. I wonder where the usual and customary leftist trolls on ATS are in their vain attempt to discredit this documentary.

Now if we can somehow get the Discovery Channel, Disney, The Nat Geo Channel, etc. to all shut up about the massively false narrative of "man made global warming". We watched a great documentary on the Great Barrier Reef the other day and I wanted to gouge my eyes out every time the narrator stated the decline in the GBR was due to "man made global warming".

originally posted by: RumpleStiltskin
a reply to: jrod
Question, the carbon cycle as a whole, on a yearly basis, how much of the CO2 emitted is man made, how much is natures work?

Humans emit about 36 gigatonnes/year of CO2 and nature emits about 724 gigatonnes/year.

a reply to: Nathan-D

Sources minus sinks mate...

Nature had a good balance of the sources vs sinks of CO2...the levels where steady.

Now an extra source of CO2 has been added...and now we are observing a spike in CO2 that directly correlates to our fossil fuel addiction.

Not rocket science bro!

originally posted by: jrod

a reply to: Nathan-D



Sources minus sinks mate...



Nature had a good balance of the sources vs sinks of CO2...the levels where steady.



Now an extra source of CO2 has been added...and now we are observing a spike in CO2 that directly correlates to our fossil fuel addiction.



Not rocket science bro!

I don't have the time or truthfully the inclination to go through this again, Jrod. If anyone is interested in knowing why nature could be contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2 they can read my replies in this thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com... Or they can see my rebuttal to Skeptical Science here: chipstero7.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Nathan-D

You are on point as a skeptic...in other words you know your stuff a quite well.

But once again i really do not think a rational person can try to tell is the CO2 spike is from natural causes..


Forva disclaimer...i probably had an ld50 amount of alcohol tonite.. So yeah more 007s for me!

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nathan-D
But once again i really do not think a rational person can try to tell is the CO2 spike is from natural causes.!

The idea that some of the increase in CO2 is natural is argued for by some scientists, such as Dr. Ed Berry, Murry Salby, Prof. Tom Segalstad and Jaworowski. I would say they were rational and their arguments compelling. I argue that some of the increase is natural and possibly due to ocean outgassing.

a reply to: Nathan-D
Yeah, warming waters should release more CO2 but oceanic CO2 levels are increasing. How does that work?

If the oceans are outgassing CO2, shouldn't the concentrations be decreasing? Or perhaps the increased partial pressure of CO2 (as a result the combustion of fossil fuels) is overcoming that effect.

That 13C/12C ratio is a pretty good indication that old carbon is the problem.

Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

www.realclimate.org...

They tell us to worry about 'Global Warming' but they don't tell you to worry about the fact that they are microwaving everyone.

These microwaves are going to damage young girls eggs..........so that humans will fail to reproduce.

Yeah, warming waters should release more CO2 but oceanic CO2 levels are increasing. How does that work?

Quote from a post I made elsewhere: ‘Even if PCO2(aq) is increasing it is not incompatible with the idea that a large portion of the increase could be natural. Humans have emitted about 2,000Gts since 1850 (according to the IPCC in AR5) and the increase in CO2 has been just over 900Gts. Hence more human CO2 must have been absorbed by sinks (primarily by the ocean) than what may have been emitted naturally. Say hypothetically the oceans have contributed 50% to the atmospheric CO2 increase due to the warming, then only about 450Gts would have been emitted by the oceans and being the main sink they would have absorbed more than what they have emitted, which would increase CO2(aq) in the oceans’.

That 13C/12C ratio is a pretty good indication that old carbon is the problem.

The C12/C13 ratio indicates that there is around 6% of human CO2 remaining in the atmosphere today and so I remain skeptical that the C12/C13 ratio can be used as proof that humans have increased the atmospheric CO2 level by 40%.

a reply to: Phage
Nathan has answered your question, no response?