BasketCase
Username sez it all
IT'S ALIVE!!! 
Once again, this thread rises from the grave to stalk the land and eat your brains.....
I find it curious, however, that nobody's discussing the actual necro--the article innonimatu posted. The accusation that global warming alarmists are producing bogus data in order to make money is nothing new. Now, let me make one thing real clear: Pachauri's nefarious activities do not disprove global warming--Pachauri is only one guy and this is only a single incident. But it does raise the possibility that some, a lot, or most of the other reported signs of warming are also bogus.
I grabbed some figures off the web: Earth's atmosphere is about 5x10^18 kilograms; said atmosphere is about .04 percent CO2; and each human being on the planet currently emits an average of about 1.3 tons (or about a thousand kilograms) of CO2 per year. If no CO2 was absorbed by any source (fat chance) I figure it would take one thousand to ten thousand years for human beings to get CO2 concentrations from zero to their current levels.
But that's only if NOTHING anywhere on Earth absorbs any of that CO2--as I said, fat chance. So it would actually take much longer to happen.
So you're wrong on that one count, but you're right about everything else. Even if the above figures are accurate, that does not mean we will double the CO2 greenhouse effect in one thousand to ten thousand years, because the greenhouse effect is subject to diminishing returns; the second ton of CO2 produces less warming than the first ton.
My favorite thread just keeps coming back......
Once again, this thread rises from the grave to stalk the land and eat your brains.....
I find it curious, however, that nobody's discussing the actual necro--the article innonimatu posted. The accusation that global warming alarmists are producing bogus data in order to make money is nothing new. Now, let me make one thing real clear: Pachauri's nefarious activities do not disprove global warming--Pachauri is only one guy and this is only a single incident. But it does raise the possibility that some, a lot, or most of the other reported signs of warming are also bogus.
Gotta disagree with you on this one. Check it out, one global warming skeptic disagreeing with another.
I grabbed some figures off the web: Earth's atmosphere is about 5x10^18 kilograms; said atmosphere is about .04 percent CO2; and each human being on the planet currently emits an average of about 1.3 tons (or about a thousand kilograms) of CO2 per year. If no CO2 was absorbed by any source (fat chance) I figure it would take one thousand to ten thousand years for human beings to get CO2 concentrations from zero to their current levels.
But that's only if NOTHING anywhere on Earth absorbs any of that CO2--as I said, fat chance. So it would actually take much longer to happen.
So you're wrong on that one count, but you're right about everything else. Even if the above figures are accurate, that does not mean we will double the CO2 greenhouse effect in one thousand to ten thousand years, because the greenhouse effect is subject to diminishing returns; the second ton of CO2 produces less warming than the first ton.
My favorite thread just keeps coming back......
Totally irrelevant... At zero CO2 humanity probably wouldn't even exist.
