TexasCHLforum.com

Because of the Pope's visit to the United States, climate change is being brought up again. I am doing a one person effort to try and get people to understand one simple fact about climate change and the atmosphere. Will you help?

Please take this simple one question climate change test.

What is the percentage of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere?

Greater than 5%

5% to 2%

1.99999% to .05%

Less than .05%

Look it up on Google. Did you pass or fail? Was this test helpful? Did you learn a fact you did not know before? Thanks for taking the test.

A better fun fact is the graph of past earth CO2 concentration vs. temperature. The touted correlation does not exist.

Pretty sure the amount of CO2 in the air has increased significantly this week with all the hot air being blown by the Pope and his band of merry sycophants.

I thought the Pope is Catholic, but he's apparently adopted the religion of climate change...

One of the very few things we can count on in life, going back before the dawn of mankind, is that the climate changes. However, a dispassionate observation of the actual not-fudged-for-ideological-reasons numbers shows that the planet has been cooling a bit for the past 5-10 years or something like that. This of course throws out "man-made" global warming. And given the increases in the products of industry and the increasing population, it is impossible to argue that "man-made" global cooling is a real thing. In other words, climate change is real, but it is NOT "man-made".

Some "genius" of a progressive (read that as: control freak) determined at some point that, if climate change could be linked to political/economic ideology, then progressivism (read that as: implacably anti-individual liberty-ism) could be framed as mankind's champion.

That genius should have been suffocated in his crib. It's too late for that. So now we get to live with the fallout. Here's what the Pope needs to focus on:

Galatians 5:1 (ESV)
Christ Has Set Us Free
​1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

That is a far more positive message than that of submitting to the yoke of a global government in the name of a false environmental science.

needs something, business is way down

Come on guys. Did you take the test? Did you pass? Inquiring minds want to know. Now don't give out the answer here. I didn't pass when I took it, just so you know.

I had a physics professor way back in 1989 tell the class that the entire chlorofluorocarbons debate about destroying the ionosphere was a purely political one, not supported by reality. Was kinda shocking to have a physics professor say something so bold, so he went on to explain that in a laboratory environment CFC did indeed bust apart ozone molecules. However, the CFC molecules were too heavy to float up into the ionosphere, therefore was a moot point regarding 'Greenhouse Effect'. He related it more akin to special interest groups pushing to get rid of Freeon 12 by selectively citing studies to move on to newer refrigerants. He did say that CFCs would break up ground-level ozone, and that was a good thing as ground-level ozone contributed to dry rot of rubber, etc.

The reliance on selective studies to further a cause never grows old.

I got it right.

I had to look it up. I did not know it was less than 1 %.

Mike S wrote:I had a physics professor way back in 1989 tell the class that the entire chlorofluorocarbons debate about destroying the ionosphere was a purely political one, not supported by reality. Was kinda shocking to have a physics professor say something so bold, so he went on to explain that in a laboratory environment CFC did indeed bust apart ozone molecules. However, the CFC molecules were too heavy to float up into the ionosphere, therefore was a moot point regarding 'Greenhouse Effect'. He related it more akin to special interest groups pushing to get rid of Freeon 12 by selectively citing studies to move on to newer refrigerants. He did say that CFCs would break up ground-level ozone, and that was a good thing as ground-level ozone contributed to dry rot of rubber, etc.

The reliance on selective studies to further a cause never grows old.

I'd suspect we had the same teacher, but mine was in a DC Circuits class.

Had to look it up.

Topbuilder wrote:I had to look it up. I did not know it was less than 1 %.

Dont look at his answer, before you take the test. BTW 1% 25 times bigger than .04 percent.

Algore like to refer to 400 parts per million as it sounds really scary and people have a hard time understanding how small that is.
400/1,000,000 = .0004

The big rise in C02 levels they get all upset about is from .0003 to .0004 since the 1910's

What you also need to understand is that all life ceases to exist on Earth if the C02 levels fall below .00018 as plants need that much just to exist at all. They really would prefer C02 levels much higher, that's why greenhouses artificially raise the C02 levels to promote plant growth. During the age of the dinosaurs the C02 levels were more like .002 that's probably why they were so big as they had a lot to eat since plants were really happier.

Just as an aside, all the C02 level data since about 1980 have been taken on top of Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, the largest on Earth. Volcanos are of course the largest emitters of C02, which is why there was such a high C02 level during the age of the dinosaurs.

The Popemobile just became a clown car imho.

http://www.amazon.com/Mad-World-Climati ... +climatism

Just a quick recommendation. If any of you want to read a fairly short book that has a good summary of the political, scientific, and economic bull about global warming, this book does pretty good. It has fairly recent data and covers the issues with a lot of different parts of the argument.