Carbon Dioxide: Mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 so small it's not measurable - [MINISTRY]

[Peter Fairbrother]

On 24/03/19 18:49, Punk wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 05:40:33 +0000
> Peter Fairbrother <peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:

>> Over the million years before 1900 CO2 global average levels hovered
>> around 220 ppm,
> 
> 	And how on fucking earth do you know what happened in the last million years?

By looking at ice cores from the Antartic. As the ice freezes CO2 
freezes with it. Then you take a core, measure the CO2 concentration and 
depth, adjust for how much got trapped, then calculate the age at that 
depth.

That is just roughly speaking; in practice it is a bit more involved 
than that.

Figures are usually based on satellite observations and measurements 
made by hundreds of sensors worldwide, gathered and calculated by 
Scripps and NOAA at Mauna Loa.

The measurement protocols are quite complicated, but very accurate. The 
measurements, methods and calculations are all public. No reputable 
scientist doubts them.


> 	That sort of comment  gives away your pseudo scientific charlatanism.
> 
> 
>> and never exceeded 300 ppm. In the last few 100 years
>> the level has gone from 280 ppm to 411 ppm.
> 
> 	"last few 100 years" again, you know that bullshit figure, how, exactly.

There are several ways, and the figures do vary - but only very 
slightly. For instance, from 1750 to 1850, most reliable measurements 
range from 276 to 282 ppm. Most researchers use the values 280 ppm in 
1850 and 290 ppm in 1900, as representative of the results of 
contemporaneous measurements.

Those measurements were done by chemical analysis. Modern methods use 
electronic sensors etc, and are more accurate than the old methods.

> 	Also notice how you quote 'accurate' numbers for the concentration value...over a bullshit, indefinite timespan.

Sorry about that. But the figures don't change much with the timespan.

>>
>> Will increases in CO2 of this magnitude cause global warming? Well,
>> greenhouse theory says it will. And it always has before.
> 
> 	And you know that happened because you are the guy who runs the computer simulation we live in?

By looking at historic CO2 levels and temperatures.

>> People may argue up and down about that, but the simple fact is that CO2
>> levels rose from 280 pm to 411 ppm over the last few 100 years.
> 
> 
> 	because the enviro fascists say so =)

No. Because it did.

We know that because some chemists in the 1850-1900 period measured the 
amount of CO2 in the air. And because some other chemists measured the 
CO2 content in the air yesterday.

The first got values from 270-280 ppm depending on when the measurements 
were made. The second got values of 411 ppm.

Not hard to understand, not tricky stuff, not people trying to mislead 
you - just what was, and what is.


> 	Peter, what can you tell us about the  commercial/political organization of "the west"? How do you think the government,  'green' 'industry' and the 'mass media' interact?

Not really my field. I try to stay out of politics unless people are 
bending scientific truth for their own benefit - which is happening here.

I guess they are almost all out for themselves. There are a few genuine 
green industry types, but they are often misguided to the point of doing 
as much wrong as they think they are doing good.

There are some genuine media people too, though not many.

And at the top, they are all owned and controlled by the same people. 
Most of whom are somewhat self-serving.



As an aside, I am a little confused - I would have thought you, Zenaan 
etc would be all for supporting the truth about global warming. After 
all it is those rich cunts who want you to believe it isn't true.

But maybe GW is now too mainstream to rebel against?


What have you got?

Peter Fairbrother