The Great Global Warming Swindle
by Gilbert Keith
“CO2 forms a very small part of the earth’s atmosphere. In fact we measure changes in the level of atmospheric CO2 in tens of parts per million. ‘If you take CO2 as a percentage of all the gases in the atmosphere – the oxygen, the nitrogen, the argon and so on – it’s 0.054%. It’s an incredibly small portion. And then of course you’ve got to take that portion that’s supposedly humans are adding which is the focus of all the concern. And it gets even smaller’ (That was Former Professor Tim Ball of the Univ. of Winnipeg. This guy is so old, that his views shouldn’t even matter anymore) […] CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it does affect climate change like other greenhouse gases do, but it’s a very small greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases themselves only form a relatively small part of the earth’s climate system.”
Really? Don’t you fuckers know anything about ratios and math? First of all, I am pretty sure Tim Ball was smoking an unknown combination of potent weed and LSD when he said that the conc. of CO2 is 0.054%. According to the ORNL, the 2004 CO2 concentrations are about 377 ppm which is 0.038%. Where did that ~50% increase in conc. come from? Who knows. Furthermore, it is good to note that even a 0.001% increase in CO2 concentration, means that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by .001/0.038 = 2.63% and NOT 0.001 percent. So, a 0.01% increase in CO2 concentrations means a 26% increase in the amount of CO2. If you don’t agree with me on that, you deserve to sit thru elementary school once again, and learn about fractions, then learn about percentages in 6th grade.
But moving along:
“The number of people who argue that there is some kind of natural equilibrium in the earth’s climate, i mean it is one of the most absurd ideas propagated by a lot of people who really ought to know better.”
“When you are talking about temperature change in the past 150 years, you’re talking about a temperature change of just over half a degree celcius, in a very noisy record where the arrow bars are very considerable, so when you talk about temperature change in the past 20 years, you’re talking in terms of our knowledge of the climate history of the last thousand years a very tiny amount of change.”
Uhh, AFAIK, we have a lot more reliable data from the last 20 years than we have from the last 150 years. What the fuck does it means that the arrow bars are pointing everywhere? Data is data and as long as it points in a general direction, it tells us a lot.
“Personally I still think it’s legitimate to refer to the late 20th century just as the IPCC did.” (i.e. he justified the use of graphs and data that ends in the 1980s/1990s to justify his point, whereas the data clearly nd directly refutes all the claims he made.)
They should really be lynched for
a) Grossly misrepresenting data and manipulating it excessively to fit their claims, and
b) misleading the public with such bullshit.
BAH why I am I spending time watching all this? This is so embarrassing, that it doesn’t merit much criticism anyway.
Just be aware of bunk like this hmmkay?