Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Sid Belzberg]

ChessTalk

Negative Climate Change (NCC) Thread
(Started: 21/12/9)

Overview



A. Weekly Stats:

Week # 37 (23/9/11 – 17, 2023 [7 days])

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(37 wks.)___________

........23...................19.........................37....................44

Responses (Posts)

......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (37 wks.)__________________

.............1......................2.......................3...........................5.

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats are running a bit behind the 2023 average so far.

But there remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change of almost 40 CT'ers daily. All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!

B.The Anthropogenicist Position

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The core issue:

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 8 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) before then is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, not just “natural” warming, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

C. The Naturalist Position -Negative “Natural” Climate Change

This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.

D. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project

All sides have been trying to come up with accurate Statements on climate change, giving Support Reasons, that will gain general acceptance....we are using "The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)".

Under TCFP we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then all are free to post "Supplementary Support" or "Supplementary Challenge".

As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her Challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger.

The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the posting of the Proposed Statement.

The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. Neither is the goal “consensus”. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted”.

E. CT'ers' (Of all stripes) Immediate Tasks

a. Statement/Revised Statement/Challenge

Propose your idea for the majority to consider. You can also just post a Supplementary Support for a Statement, or, a Supplementary Challenge.

Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements in layperson's terms"!

b. Negative Climate Change Thread “Responses”

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses”. It seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

c. CT'ers' Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Negative Climate Change

i) The Large Picture Solution

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?
You can do something! Promote the discussion on Negative Climate Change!

ii) The Local Picture Solution

When you like one of this thread's Responses or links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in! Send them to your personal friends interested in climate change!

Bob A. (Anthropogenicist/As Participant)

Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, explains how unelected globalists (including Klaus Schwab and the United Nations) are using the #ClimateScam as an excuse to cut off fossil fuels and nitrogen fertiliser, in order to deliberately depopulate the planet. "These powerful elites, like Schwab and on down, they want control of the world. They want control of everybody. Now what do they want? They want fewer people."

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Negative Climate Change (NCC) Thread
(Started: 21/12/9)

Overview



A. Weekly Stats:

Week # 37 (23/9/11 – 17, 2023 [7 days])

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(37 wks.)___________

........23...................19.........................37....................44

Responses (Posts)

......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (37 wks.)__________________

.............1......................2.......................3...........................5.

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats are running a bit behind the 2023 average so far.

But there remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change of almost 40 CT'ers daily. All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!

B.The Anthropogenicist Position

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The core issue:

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 8 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) before then is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, not just “natural” warming, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

C. The Naturalist Position -Negative “Natural” Climate Change

This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.

D. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project

All sides have been trying to come up with accurate Statements on climate change, giving Support Reasons, that will gain general acceptance....we are using "The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)".

Under TCFP we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then all are free to post "Supplementary Support" or "Supplementary Challenge".

As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her Challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger.

The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the posting of the Proposed Statement.

The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. Neither is the goal “consensus”. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted”.

E. CT'ers' (Of all stripes) Immediate Tasks

a. Statement/Revised Statement/Challenge

Propose your idea for the majority to consider. You can also just post a Supplementary Support for a Statement, or, a Supplementary Challenge.

Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements in layperson's terms"!

b. Negative Climate Change Thread “Responses”

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses”. It seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

c. CT'ers' Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Negative Climate Change

i) The Large Picture Solution

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?
You can do something! Promote the discussion on Negative Climate Change!

ii) The Local Picture Solution

When you like one of this thread's Responses or links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in! Send them to your personal friends interested in climate change!

Bob A. (Anthropogenicist/As Participant)

[Pargat Perrer]

[B]Negative Climate Change (NCC)
.....

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries has revealed that an analysis of satellite data shows that there has been a 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years between 1986 and 2016. 70% of this increase is attributed to CO2 in the air and that vegetation has increased every year from 1982 to 2009. The increase amounts to the equivalent of two landmasses the size of the United States in new green vegetation.

The “greening” is most impactful in arid regions where they have high temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. This helps plants to retain more water during transpiration which will help during dry spells and make the plants less “water-stressed.” The increased CO2 results in higher crop yields, which equates to more food and thriving wildlife. The result has been a $3 trillion increase in crop yields over the last 30 years.


Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Would it be possible .....

for the world to pool monies to build on the major oceans large floating platforms, designed in location and construction to avoid and / or withstand the worst cyclone / hurricane events ... platforms on which would be growing the equivalent of the Amazon rainforest?

These ocean rainforests would absorb much of the CO2 and release oxygen, and could also grow much-needed foods and medicinals for the world's use.

Each platform would be dozens of miles in diameter, with a flexible system of pontoons and surface area that could roll with the waves.

This might also help to cool the surface of the oceans, which are getting warmer every year.

Obviously this would require billions of dollars of investment .... taken from the rich, of course (I knew you would like that part, Dilip!).

Edit: I am reminded of the Ringworld novels of SF writer Larry Niven ... huge rings built by ancient aliens around a sun-like star. Surface area millions of Earths equivalent. Unimaginably huge. A slice of a Dyson sphere, basically, with huge rims around the edges to prevent water from flowing off. The rims and base were built from some unspecified material that could withstand anything, including meteorite / asteroid collisions, and there was in place multiple weapon sites to detect and blow up incoming asteroids. A great figment of the imagination.

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change (NCC)

Generally-Accepted Statements Update

(At 10 Statements as of 23/9/17; all currently fully processed)





Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Statement # 3

“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

Statement # 4:

Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

Statement # 5

Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Statement # 6

For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.

Statement # 7

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

Statement # 8

If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

Statement # 9

The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

Support Reasons: Sid Belzberg – CT/NCC Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

Statement # 10

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it, we would be a dead planet.

Support Reasons - Sid Belzberg

Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Abstract

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services^1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO₂ fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO₂ fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries has revealed that an analysis of satellite data shows that there has been a 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years between 1986 and 2016. 70% of this increase is attributed to CO2 in the air and that vegetation has increased every year from 1982 to 2009. The increase amounts to the equivalent of two landmasses the size of the United States in new green vegetation.

The “greening” is most impactful in arid regions where they have high temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. This helps plants to retain more water during transpiration which will help during dry spells and make the plants less “water-stressed.” The increased CO2 results in higher crop yields, which equates to more food and thriving wildlife. The result has been a $3 trillion increase in crop yields over the last 30 years.

Note: These 10 Statements are Generally Accepted by a group of Canadian Tournament Chess players (Across the Spectrum re partisan politics and opinion on the issue) on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics Forum): https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...ss-discussion- board/217060-anthropogenic-negative-climate-change-ancc)


Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). The individuals represent a political partisan spectrum, and an issue spectrum.

Statement # 11 (Proposed)

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it,we would be a dead planet.

Support Reasons - Sid Belzberg

Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Abstract

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services^1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO₂ fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO₂ fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.


https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries has revealed that an analysis of satellite data shows that there has been a 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years between 1986 and 2016. 70% of this increase is attributed to CO2 in the air and that vegetation has increased every year from 1982 to 2009. The increase amounts to the equivalent of two landmasses the size of the United States in new green vegetation.

The “greening” is most impactful in arid regions where they have high temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. This helps plants to retain more water during transpiration which will help during dry spells and make the plants less “water-stressed.” The increased CO2 results in higher crop yields, which equates to more food and thriving wildlife. The result has been a $3 trillion increase in crop yields over the last 30 years.

Opposition Challenge Reasons - By Bob Armstrong

CO2 is a major component of the greenhouse gas canopy around Earth. This canopy (Methane is actually the more serious component however) is causing heat to be trapped in the Earth's air/atmosphere, and is raising the temperature of Earth's air/atmosphere, oceans and seas, soil, etc. this is the greatest threat to his existence that man has ever faced.

Humans cannot handle "heat prostration" (Definition: A condition marked by weakness, nausea, dizziness, and profuse sweating that results from physical exertion in a hot environment. Heat exhaustion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). Only now, the "heat prostration" is not due to "physical exercise".....it is due to the simple inability to escape the heat. Even if Humans are able to go underground, the technology for inside air quality and temperature control will brake down under the stress on the energy system.

The fact that CO2 is good for Earth's vegetation is not relevant. Continued existence of the human species is more important than the greening of the planet.

For the Role of CO2 from 500 million years ago, see the video of YouTuber Pothole54.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg&t=38s

So CO2 is a "dangerous pollutant", and Statement # 11 is false.

Processing

Not one other CT'er came forward with a Supplementary Challenge.

Conclusion

Statement # 11 is generally accepted, and it joins the list of Statements.

[Secretarial Note: This Statement will now be renumbered as Statement # 10.]

Bob A (As Group Secretary]

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change
(Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics); they represent a spectrum of partisan political opinion, and an issue spectrum; in Layman's Terms")

Statement # 10 (Proposed)

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

Supporting Reasons – Sid Belzberg Post # 1730 - 1732 – 23/8/31

Opposition Challenge 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1720 - 23/8/28)

I think statement # 10 is outrageous.

If true, it would give the fossil fuel industry unlimited licence to burn everything, because hey "would have no impact on the climate".
As the church lady says, "how convenient".

I do follow climate updates elsewhere, and I don't see any mention of support for statement #10. I know Sid has cited a recent study by a couple of scientists, so if it does gain credibility elsewhere, I will let you know.

So instead of just letting statement #10 stand as is, I think some notation that it is not considered generally accepted as of now.

Opposition Challenge 2 - Bob Armstrong (As Participant) - Post # 1732 - 23/8/31

Our revised group Statement # 6 will be on our list of generally accepted Statements at 12:00 AM tomorrow:

Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
[ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]

Sid's Statement # 10 (Proposed) is roughly in agreement with the fact re current CO2:

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

But other scientists draw very opposite conclusions from Sid's Statement # 10! This is a big spike recently in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. They see the spike as due to anthropogenic activity (The Industrial Revolution). And they clearly link the increase in CO2 to the increase in temperature (Part of the Non-Porous Greenhouse Gas Canopy argument):

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/ca...ustrial-levels

So CO2 DOES have an impact on the climate as it is one of the causes of the rising heat level on Earth.

I agree with Bob G - it is not generally acceptable and should be stricken from the list of Statements.

Processing:

Not one other CT'er came forward to support Statement # 10. In fact, there were 2 Challenges to the Statement.

Conclusion

Statement # 10 is not generally accepted. It will therefore now be removed from the list.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid's Statement # 10 (Proposed) is roughly in agreement with the fact re current CO2:

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

But other scientists draw very opposite conclusions from Sid's Statement # 10! Recently moving into the 400 PPM range is a big spike in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Many scientists see the spike as due to anthropogenic activity (The Industrial Revolution). And they clearly link the increase in CO2 to the increase in temperature (Part of the Non-Porous Greenhouse Gas Canopy argument):

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/ca...ustrial-levels

So CO2 DOES have an impact on the climate as it is one of the causes of the rising heat level on Earth.

I agree with Bob G - it is not generally acceptable and should be stricken from the list of Statements.

Bob, your Wikipedia article does not refer to the physically proven fact that additional CO2 over and above 400 PPm does not hold as much radiation as the first 400 ppm. Your other link is a 404 error.
Bob G did a lot of handwaving and failed to produce any evidence that disproved the peer-reviewed paper I offered up.
I, too, could get my CT friends here to support me, but I won't as I despise the so-called "consensus" as it is a fraud that has been thrown at us both with the scamdemic and the climate change scam. Your process is a microcosm of this.
Data talks bullshit walks.

I agree with Bob G - it is not generally acceptable and should be stricken from the list of Statements.

How shocking!

[Dilip Panjwani]

No fireplaces, No meat, No dairy, No heat, No air conditioning, No cars, No clothes, No flights, No comedians, No free speech, No cash, No cats, No dogs, No farm animals, No children. Your future as peasants under the eco-fascists, Really just fascists With the best excuse ever

Hi Sid,
As you have rightly said before, life is too precious to waste on trying to put sense into someone whose mind is packed with DM-shit...

[Sid Belzberg]

No fireplaces, No meat, No dairy, No heat, No air conditioning, No cars, No clothes, No flights, No comedians, No free speech, No cash, No cats, No dogs, No farm animals, No children. Your future as peasants under the eco-fascists, Really just fascists With the best excuse ever

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Negative Climate Change (NCC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)

Overview



A. Weekly Stats:

Week # 36 (23/9/4 – 10, 2023 [7 days])

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(36 wks.)___________

........19...................41.........................37....................44

Responses (Posts)

......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (36 wks.)__________________

.............2......................4.......................3...........................5.

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats have dropped considerably as against both the prior week stats, and the 2023 average so far.

But there remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change of almost 40 CT'ers daily. All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!

B.The Anthropogenicist Position

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The core issue:

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 8 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) before then is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, not just “natural” warming, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

C. The Naturalist Position -Negative “Natural” Climate Change

This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.

D. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project

All sides have been trying to come up with accurate Statements on climate change, giving Support Reasons, that will gain general acceptance....we are using "The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)".

Under TCFP we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then all are free to post "Supplementary Support" or "Supplementary Challenge".

As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her Challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger.

The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the posting of the Proposed Statement.

The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. Neither is the goal “consensus”. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted”.

E. CT'ers' (Of all stripes) Immediate Tasks

a. Statement/Revised Statement/Challenge

Propose your idea for the majority to consider. You can also just post a Supplementary Support for a Statement, or, a Supplementary Challenge.

Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements in layperson's terms"!

b. Negative Climate Change Thread “Responses”

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses”. It seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

c. CT'ers' Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Negative Climate Change

i) The Large Picture Solution

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?
You can do something! Promote the discussion on Negative Climate Change!

ii)The Local Picture Solution

When you like one of this thread's Responses or links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in! Send them to your personal friends interested in climate change!

Bob A. (Anthropogenicist/As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

CT/Negative Climate Change

Update

[Part II of 2 parts; Part I above]

Statement # 8

If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

Support - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1606 - 23/8/7

The definition of sustainable agriculture used does not explicitly say that this involves necessarily only organic farming. The definition leaves open the possibility that Non-Organic farming could be "sustainable". It is argued that used correctly, certain fertilizers have no effect on health or the environment. But this is still an open question.

Secondly, the statement does not take any position on whether or not farming DOES have a negative effect on climate.

Statement 9

The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

Supporting Reasons: Sid Belzberg Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

Statement # 10

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

Supporting Reasons: Sid Belzberg Post # 1730-2 – 23/8/31

Opposition Challenge 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1720 - 23/8/28

I think statement # 10 is outrageous.

If true, it would give the fossil fuel industry unlimited licence to burn everything, because hey "would have no impact on the climate".
As the church lady says, "how convenient".

I do follow climate updates elsewhere, and I don't see any mention of support for statement #10. I know Sid has cited a recent study by a couple of scientists, so if it does gain credibility elsewhere, I will let you know.

So instead of just letting statement #10 stand as is, I think some notation that it is not considered generally accepted as of now.

Opposition Challenge 2 - Bob Armstrong (As Participant) - Post # 1732 - 23/8/31

Statement # 6 now is:

Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
[ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]

Sid's Statement # 10 (Proposed) is roughly in agreement with the fact re current CO2:

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

But other scientists draw very opposite conclusions from Sid's Statement # 10! Recently moving into the 400 PPM range is a big spike in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Many scientists see the spike as due to anthropogenic activity (The Industrial Revolution). And they clearly link the increase in CO2 to the increase in temperature (Part of the Non-Porous Greenhouse Gas Canopy argument):

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/ca...ustrial-levels

So CO2 DOES have an impact on the climate as it is one of the causes of the rising heat level on Earth.

I agree with Bob G - it is not generally acceptable and should be stricken from the list of Statements.

Processing : There is one week for further Supplementary Support Reasons, and Supplementary Opposition Reasons; deadline: Sat., Sept. 16 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Statement # 11

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it, we would be a dead planet.

Support Reasons: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1733 – 23/8/31 (Secretary)

Opposition Challenge Reasons – Bob Armstrong

CO2 is a major component of the greenhouse gas canopy around Earth. This canopy (Methane is actually the more serious component however) is causing heat to be trapped in the Earth's air/atmosphere, and is raising the temperature of Earth's air/atmosphere, oceans and seas, soil, etc. this is the greatest threat to his existence that man has ever faced.

Humans cannot handle "heat prostration" (Definition: A condition marked by weakness, nausea, dizziness, and profuse sweating that results from physical exertion in a hot environment. Heat exhaustion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). Only now, the "heat prostration" is not due to "physical exercise".....it is due to the simple inability to escape the heat. Even if Humans are able to go underground, the technology for inside air quality and temperature control will brake down under the stress on the energy system.

The fact that CO2 is good for Earth's vegetation is not relevant. Continued existence of the human species is more important than the greening of the planet.

For the Role of CO2 from 500 million years ago, see the video of YouTuber Pothole54.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg&t=38s

So CO2 is a "dangerous pollutant", and Statement # 11 is false.

Processing : There is one week for further Supplementary Support Reasons, and Supplementary Opposition Reasons; deadline: Sat., Sept. 16 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

B. Secretarial Rulings

I – Procedural

Ruling # P1 (Post # 1624 – 23/8/23)

New Proposed Statements must be accompanied by a short, executive summary, set of reasons.

[Note: If the Support Texts are extensive, they will have to be shortened by the proposer; these Statements are often repeated and updated in future postings, and extensive support texts, with graphs/charts/ long book or report quotes, etc., will simply become too unwieldy; but the Post # & date of the Extensive support texts will be noted for those viewers wanting more information than the executive summary.]

II – Substantial

Ruling # S1 (Post # 1682 – 23/8/24)

There shall be put forward no Statement on the cause of current Canadian wildfires.

Support

There is great controversy outside this group, and inside, as to the cause of current Canadian wildfires (Natural, Accidental Human, Deliberate Human [arson]). A generally accepted Statement is not possible.


C - CT'er Group Decisions

Discussion Protocol (Post # 1736 – 23/9/3)

This CT'er group will continue to use the "Generally Accepted" (The Conversation Format Protocol) Protocol . It has rejected the “Free-Form” discussion protocol.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

CT/Negative Climate Change

Update

[Part I of 2 parts]




Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). The individuals represent a political partisan spectrum, and an issue spectrum.

We now have 11 STATEMENTS in various stages of acceptance (See below).

We use “The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)”. All Statements are a work-in-progress, though for some, there are now no outstanding Proposed Revision/Opposition Challenges.

A. Statements

Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Support - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1453 – 23/7/20 - slightly edited) - "Our new Commonly Accepted Statement # 1 does not play one way or another as to whether the rise in temperature is a “problem”. It merely states the fact that Naturalists agree with - their fact is that the average rising temperature is about .5 degrees C every 100 years.....that is "rising" temperature."

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Support 1 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1485 – 23/7/22 [Lightly Edited]

“The post of Sid Belzberg (Post # 1296 – 23/4/29) "supports" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time".

Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future.”

Support 2 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1523 – 23/7/27

“The New Warming Climate State/Multi-Century Temperature Periods

Scientists concluded a few years ago that Earth had entered a new climate state not seen in more than 100,000 years. As fellow climate scientist Nick McKay and I recently discussed in a scientific journal article, that conclusion was part of a climate assessment report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2021.

Earth was already more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial times, and the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were high enough to assure temperatures would stay elevated for a long time.

https://theconversation.com/is-it-re...=pocket-newtab “

Support 3 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1526 23/7/27

“This [July] Looks Like Earth’s Warmest Month. Hotter Ones Appear to Be in Store.

July is on track to break all records for any month, scientists say, as the planet enters an extended period of exceptional warmth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/c...d396a4debfd6ce “

Statement # 3

“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

Statement # 4:

Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

Support 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1468 – 23/7/19)

"Seems crazy and very hard to believe that they [Texas Governor, Greg Abbot,] would have to legislate employers to allow such breaks from a scorching heat work environment, but apparently that is the case. The water breaks since 2010 that Governor Abbott now wants to take away has reduced the death toll on workers significantly."

Support # 2 - Fred Harvey (Post # 1470 - 23/7/19)

"I have lived in the same town for 50 plus years (how dull...not). Amongst other things, I have seen the tomato growing season go from 2.5 months to 4 months. For 35 years we lived without air-conditioning....now not so much. Them's two facts that suggest significant warming."

Support # 3 - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1451 - 23/7/11)

"I, for one, believe we see "problems" for human living all around us every day, the world over, from rising heat levels (Regardless of arguing over why the heat is rising or the rate at which it is rising)."

Statement # 5

Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Support - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data.”

Statement # 6

Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
[ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]

Supporting Reasons - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1735 - 23/9/1

The source of the percentage of CO2 in the air, both historically, and currently is given. The spike in CO2 after the human Industrial Revolution (Approx. 1850 A.D.) coincides with the period of increased warming. CO2 is only one of the greenbelt gases forming the non-porous heat canopy around the Earth.
This Statement deals only with CO2 in the air/atmosphere. It does not tie the rising temperature of the Earth to the spike in CO2; that will have to await future Statements, if there can be a generally accepted on in this group at all.

Statement # 7

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

Support # 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1415 – 23/7/2)

“Scientists have been warning us about climate change (global warming) for decades. The science is very complicated, but we now have 50 years of data to support the premise that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause. We need to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. Our options include renewables (solar panels, windmills) and nuclear.”

Support # 2 - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 1417 – 23/7/2)

“It is essential to have alternate sources of energy, as fossil fuels, including coal, won't last for very long.”

Support # 3 – Sid Belzberg (Post # 1419 – 23/7/2)

“In theory, this is a finite resource, but it is not scarce and likely would take several hundred years to deplete entirely.”

Support # 4 – Bob Armstrong (Post # 1423 – 23/7/2)

“Please note that I have introduced ....... including in renewables, "tidal" & "water turbines".”

[Part II below]

Bob B (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

This was a very interesting finding last year :

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article...n-ozone-losses

Observation of large and all-season ozone losses over the tropics


This paper reveals a large and all-season ozone hole in the lower stratosphere over the tropics (30°N–30°S) existing since the 1980s, where an O₃ hole is defined as an area of O₃ loss larger than 25% compared with the undisturbed atmosphere. The depth of this tropical O₃ hole is comparable to that of the well-known springtime Antarctic O₃ hole, whereas its area is about seven times that of the latter. Similar to the Antarctic O₃ hole, approximately 80% of the normal O₃ value is depleted at the center of the tropical O₃ hole. The results strongly indicate that both Antarctic and tropical O₃ holes must arise from an identical physical mechanism, for which the cosmic-ray-driven electron reaction model shows good agreement with observations. The whole-year large tropical O₃ hole could cause a great global concern as it can lead to increases in ground-level ultraviolet radiation and affect 50% of the Earth’s surface area, which is home to approximately 50% of the world’s population. Moreover, the presence of the tropical and polar O₃ holes is equivalent to the formation of three “temperature holes” observed in the stratosphere. These findings will have significances in understanding planetary physics, ozone depletion, climate change, and human health.

It basically states that:

1. Tropical Ozone Hole: The study indicates the existence of a large, all-season ozone hole over the tropics since the 1980s. This tropical ozone hole is extensive, encompassing a significant percentage of the Earth’s surface area and affecting approximately half of the world’s population.
2. Cosmic-ray-driven Electron Reaction (CRE) Model: The article mentions the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced-reaction (CRE) model as a potential mechanism behind both the Antarctic and tropical ozone holes. This model challenges the previously held notion that only chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other anthropogenic factors are responsible for ozone depletion. Instead, the CRE model suggests that cosmic rays, which produce electrons in the atmosphere, can trigger reactions that deplete ozone.
3. Challenges in Identifying the Tropical Ozone Hole: The paper explains that the tropical ozone hole is not easily identified for several reasons:
   • It is stable across seasons and does not display the same temporal variations as polar ozone holes.
   • The ozone in the tropics is mainly found in the middle stratosphere, with only a portion in the lower stratosphere where the hole is observed.
   • The conventional definition of an ozone hole (based on Dobson Units) did not detect this tropical variation.
4. Data and Methodology: The research utilized a comprehensive dataset that includes ozone measurements from the 1960s onward, providing a long-term perspective on ozone concentrations and enabling the comparison of more recent data with baseline values.

Implications and Significance:

• Global Impact: The tropical ozone hole has the potential for widespread implications. Increased ultraviolet radiation at the ground level, due to a thinner ozone layer, poses health risks for human populations, particularly skin cancer and cataracts. It can also affect ecosystems, including marine environments where UV can penetrate the upper layers of the oceans, impacting phytoplankton, which form the base of the marine food chain.
• Understanding Ozone Depletion: The discovery challenges conventional wisdom on ozone depletion, which focused on anthropogenic causes like CFCs. If cosmic rays play a significant role, as the CRE model suggests, it changes our understanding of how and why ozone holes form.
• Policy Implications: Given that international agreements like the Montreal Protocol were designed to phase out ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) like CFCs, this new information might require a reassessment of strategies and policies to protect the ozone layer.

The reason I mention it is Bob A took it on himself to delete statement 9 partly on the basis that Methane gas has something to do with damaging the Ozone layer, That at one point was the consensus, but these findings unequivocally refute this.

Science is about truth, not popular opinions.

https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0094629

[Sid Belzberg]

, makes Sid the winner re Statement 11 [sigh]).

I don't view it that way. I put my scientist's hat on and ask if someone can offer a convincing refutation.
I would be the first to withdraw this statement in that eventuality. Truth does not have a deadline. For you, Bob, it appears to
be a political campaign, not a search for truth. In my world, the "winner" is truth, not popularity.

For the Role of CO2 from 500 million years ago, see the video of YouTuber Pothole54.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg&t=38s
So CO2 is a "dangerous pollutant", and Statement # 11 is false.

My evidence is based on published science in peer-reviewed journals. Your "proof" is based on the rants of
a science journalist propagandist who has never published a paper in his life.
Please show me a peer-reviewed paper that refutes post-1749 and the paper referenced in it. Please show me a paper that refutes
the paper I cited from the respected journal Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004 in post 1748.

I am still waiting for a refutation to the CETIS data mentioned in statement 1 where you omitted the fact that the average temp increase
is .5 degrees per century for the last three hundred years and that CO2 from industry went up for 50% of that time with
no change in the rate of increase in temperature.

Science is not for you, Bob, and come to think of it, your political track record (Unregistered party with a single member you) shows that you suck at politics as well.

[Sid Belzberg]

The fact that CO2 is good for Earth's vegetation is not relevant. Continued existence of the human species is more important than the greening of the planet.

No vegetation= no plants to convert co2 to oxygen= no human species ....duh!



This also proves that Bob's "generally accepted statement 6" is a festering heap of dog feces.

https://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/...n020100182.pdf