Yes you are correct. I've been saying the same thing for years. Sadly, the majority of the dumb public are brainwashed. They have the intelligence of a zombie and will swallow whatever bullshit lie the government feeds them.
What a load of rubbish, from a denialist lobby group.
Firstly, he's obfuscating like crazy by mixing up percentages, parts per million (ppm), and grains per 85800, or grains per 33, talking about global or local (Australian) outputs, or sometimes discussing the changes in carbon dioxide in relation to the atmosphere as a whole (making it sound 2500 times less important than they actually are).
The 0.04% (400ppm) figure means it's easier, not harder, for humans to affect the concentration; if we were to put out the same quantity of nitrogen as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it really would be a negligible amount (0.0019%), but instead we're increasing the natural, stable, world output of co2 by 3% (12ppm).
"Aussies make 1.5% of global carbon dioxide emmissions"? But they're only 0.326% of the global population, so that's nearly 5 times the global average per person.
The 1:5700000 figure, again, is about molecules of air, because it doesn't sound as impressive when you talk about 1:2280 molecules of global co2, and wanting to reduce it to 1:2400.
I'm not going into the political parts at the end, except to say it sounds like they want the solitary scientific advisor to have repeated every experiment ever made on global warming before he should be allowed to have a valid opinion, while they just get to make baseless assertions.
@Tomblebee just imagine your room probably 4mx5m you put 2 people inside. you don't feel any change. how if you put 10 peoples inside, you'll get hotter it's the same with the world? XD
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
62Opinion
Yes you are correct. I've been saying the same thing for years. Sadly, the majority of the dumb public are brainwashed. They have the intelligence of a zombie and will swallow whatever bullshit lie the government feeds them.
ahh my anxiety started with global warming... im not reading the comments cuz someone is gonna sore wa chigau yo that ass
do not believe this QA, she doesn't know what she's talking about
Another apologist for the increasingly vocal "Do nothing" lobby.
Thank goodness for global warming otherwise we'd still be in an ice age
Either a troll or a very stupid person lol
What's next, the Earth is flat and it's 6,000 years old
media.giphy.com/media/rcg2gEGzrLmq4/giphy.gif
wow... this was painful to read... really painful.
Climate change is a lie? No wonder society thinks women are only supposed to be looked at and not allowed to talk. What a joke this site is
How it works:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/how_it_works.png
@goaded answer is X to the power of 3 and whole divided by 3
* whole divided by 2
What a load of rubbish, from a denialist lobby group.
Firstly, he's obfuscating like crazy by mixing up percentages, parts per million
(ppm), and grains per 85800, or grains per 33, talking about global or local (Australian) outputs, or sometimes discussing the changes in carbon dioxide in relation to the atmosphere as a whole (making it sound 2500 times less important than they actually are).
The 0.04% (400ppm) figure means it's easier, not harder, for humans to affect the concentration; if we were to put out the same quantity of nitrogen as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it really would be a negligible amount (0.0019%), but instead we're increasing the natural, stable, world output of co2 by 3% (12ppm).
"Aussies make 1.5% of global carbon dioxide emmissions"? But they're only 0.326% of the global population, so that's nearly 5 times the global average per person.
The 1:5700000 figure, again, is about molecules of air, because it doesn't sound as impressive when you talk about 1:2280 molecules of global co2, and wanting to reduce it to 1:2400.
I'm not going into the political parts at the end, except to say it sounds like they want the solitary scientific advisor to have repeated every experiment ever made on global warming before he should be allowed to have a valid opinion, while they just get to make baseless assertions.
@goaded ahhhhh too much to read, got better things to do man. csgo ain't gonna play itself :(
tl;dr? Shorter: He's a con man, skirting the edges of lying.
@goaded sorry, couldnt hear you over the sound of my quad-kill
very true its all lies its what you would call nature if no humans where on earth all those kind of things would still go on
if a giant volcano erupts , the entire earth will cool again and if the volcano was very huge , we may get into ice age again.
What a fascinating theory.
@Tomblebee search it by yourself and see why volcanos will cool the ecosystem
Nah, it sounds logical enough :)
This take is why I totally support funding for education... especially science education.
Amen!
Ha ha... while I agree with you on what authority do you make such a claim?
Heard about it when I was a kid. Nothing bad has happened. Great writing, M. B. 48
... well i think human population is too high right now.
more people = hotter?
More people; more consumers demanding stuff that is produced needlessly pollution the atmosphere with greenhouse gases = hotter. Maybe, I don't know.
@Tomblebee just imagine your room probably 4mx5m you put 2 people inside. you don't feel any change.
how if you put 10 peoples inside, you'll get hotter it's the same with the world? XD
So all these warm blooded mammals be heating up the earth? Interesting.
look at the carbon tax in Canada. so much on the fuel
They promoted this stupidity?
* Featured
I agree humans have nothing to do with global warming.