When I argue with someone, especially those who "know science" about climate change, I always ask them "Do you know what percentage of atmosphere is CO2?"
I keep insisting they take a guess until they come up with something. Usually 5%, 10%, even 25% lol.
I then look at them with a straight face and say, "no its not 5%. Not even 1%. Not even 0.1%. Its actually 400 parts in a million. Its 0.04%.
I have noticed that it takes the wind out of their sails to realise this basic fact. If they still insist in arguing, it is very easy to show the ridiculousness of the idea that a 0.01% of CO2 (the claimed increase) can collect enough energy to increase the temparature of the entire atmosphere.
Every single "Big Lie" - be it Climate Change, or Covid or Vaccines or 2020 or Russia War or anything else - is built on top of such flimsy lies (by design) that when the time comes to expose it, people who believed that crap would have their head spinning as to how did they even fall for this.
Every single "big lie" is a scientific, university and policy funding scam. Every.Single.One.
They get enough people on board - on each side- to create a "debate". They get funding which is the shared between the politicians pushing it through and those arguing each " side" of the scam.
That is great advice. I usually just told them that the big greenhouse farmers that produce cucumbers, tomatoes etc, need to add CO2 in the greenhouses in order to get a proper outcome (at least in my country, but why would we be the only ones). This also makes people stop and think...
Good point. Some of these lefties indulge in the yerba. What would they think when you tell them that growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses so they can have their product?
I like to ask "what is the strongest greenhouse gas? They never say "water vapor" because that is over 90% of greenhouse effect. Deserts get BRUTALLY cold at night
"- 93% of warming is in the oceans, yet their temperatures jump erratically, ignoring CO2’s steady rise.
1963–70: Cooling. 1970–80: Warming. Post-2000: Stability. Why? Natural solar cycles, clouds, and aerosols—not CO2.
Satellite and ARGO data confirm: Earth warms when solar input increases. Not because of a trace gas.
The IPCC’s models overstate CO2’s role while ignoring the sun’s dominance. Even the remaining 25% of warming is uncertain—cleaner air (fewer aerosols) means fewer clouds, which also warms the planet.
Conclusion: CO2’s impact is minimal. Climate sensitivity is overestimated. No apocalypse—just natural variability.
Yet trillions depend on the myth. Who benefits from the fear?
The science is settled—just not how they claimed."
CO2 absorbs a photon and then releases a photon. 50% of which is released into space. It is a net wash on photons. Physicists should know that; so they have all been lying.
All the models held the solar output as a constant. Giant red flag right from the beginning. Obvious to any scientist; so they have all been lying.
Wait until you learn its not photons but perturbations travelling through our electro/magnetic universe like a wave propagating across water. The water doesn't move, neither does an electron/proton ...... fields, pressure mediation.... fun times ahead for humanity!
Yup. CO2 fear mongering is fake, like glowbull warming is fake. The replacement crisis "climate change" is as fake as the "ozone depletion" scam.
Its a patchwork of scare tactics to manipulate and control - and for profit. The endless banning of aerosols forces HVAC system upgrades and profit for manufacturers of "environmentally-friendly" refrigerants.
BREAKING:- Massive nuclear reaction at the center of the Solar System that pushes it's influence 11 billion miles out into the void of space actually effects Earth at 1/118th that distance !!!!!!
This amazing, unprecedented effect of the sun is an even stronger catalyst for climate than cow farts, scientists said whilst garrotting themselves with piano wire.
Scientist's were, in fact, stunned so hard their tiny little propeller hats began spinning across the whole domain of Earth in ungodly unison. This widely observable effect has been attributed to the incipient cancelling of all scientific funding for "Climate Change" harlot-ism and peer reviewed hand-relief, widely practiced by approved government Thinkers and lick-spittle toadies of academia.
"Bow tie wearing, pseudo-intellectual faggots and David AttenWarmer will be hardest hit by this stunning twist of fate" said - Boutros-Boutros Crapiopia, DEI administrator of Sailor's horn pipe University.
I was searching on Google to find the article they claim to reference. Here is what Google AI presents to me:
Multiple searches confirm that no new study has found that
carbon dioxide (CO2) is a "physically impossible" cause of global warming. This premise is false and runs contrary to the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. A 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change, with CO2 being the biggest contributor.
The claim that CO2's role is "physically impossible" appears to be based on persistent, but scientifically discredited, arguments.
How typical of Goggle to keep the propaganda rolling. Now it is apparently not "97% of scientists agree", but 99%.
I then tried Yandex, and did find an article from 2024 by 3 Polish scientists, but it has now been retracted. Since the X tweet does not cite any references to scientific articles or authors, I will treat this as promising, but needs evidence.
When discussing this topic with the "CO2 is dangerous - pay more taxes" crowd in my social circle, I want to be able to confront them with scientific evidence, and not hearsay.
We've known it is primarily the sun's output for a long time. That's why all these scientists would ignore the question why are we seeing interplanetary climate change?
Biggest scam ever...
Correct...😎NOT gonna happen....
When I argue with someone, especially those who "know science" about climate change, I always ask them "Do you know what percentage of atmosphere is CO2?"
I keep insisting they take a guess until they come up with something. Usually 5%, 10%, even 25% lol.
I then look at them with a straight face and say, "no its not 5%. Not even 1%. Not even 0.1%. Its actually 400 parts in a million. Its 0.04%.
I have noticed that it takes the wind out of their sails to realise this basic fact. If they still insist in arguing, it is very easy to show the ridiculousness of the idea that a 0.01% of CO2 (the claimed increase) can collect enough energy to increase the temparature of the entire atmosphere.
Spot on..... 👍😉
Every single "Big Lie" - be it Climate Change, or Covid or Vaccines or 2020 or Russia War or anything else - is built on top of such flimsy lies (by design) that when the time comes to expose it, people who believed that crap would have their head spinning as to how did they even fall for this.
The majority of 'people' are willfully ignorant morons....
PURKISS80....... You have typed a mouthful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!♨️♨️♨️♨️♨️♨️♨️♨️♨️♨️
😁👍
Every single "big lie" is a scientific, university and policy funding scam. Every.Single.One.
They get enough people on board - on each side- to create a "debate". They get funding which is the shared between the politicians pushing it through and those arguing each " side" of the scam.
That is great advice. I usually just told them that the big greenhouse farmers that produce cucumbers, tomatoes etc, need to add CO2 in the greenhouses in order to get a proper outcome (at least in my country, but why would we be the only ones). This also makes people stop and think...
Good point. Some of these lefties indulge in the yerba. What would they think when you tell them that growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses so they can have their product?
I like to ask "what is the strongest greenhouse gas? They never say "water vapor" because that is over 90% of greenhouse effect. Deserts get BRUTALLY cold at night
"- 93% of warming is in the oceans, yet their temperatures jump erratically, ignoring CO2’s steady rise.
1963–70: Cooling. 1970–80: Warming. Post-2000: Stability. Why? Natural solar cycles, clouds, and aerosols—not CO2.
Satellite and ARGO data confirm: Earth warms when solar input increases. Not because of a trace gas.
The IPCC’s models overstate CO2’s role while ignoring the sun’s dominance. Even the remaining 25% of warming is uncertain—cleaner air (fewer aerosols) means fewer clouds, which also warms the planet.
Conclusion: CO2’s impact is minimal. Climate sensitivity is overestimated. No apocalypse—just natural variability.
Yet trillions depend on the myth. Who benefits from the fear?
The science is settled—just not how they claimed."
CO2 absorbs a photon and then releases a photon. 50% of which is released into space. It is a net wash on photons. Physicists should know that; so they have all been lying.
All the models held the solar output as a constant. Giant red flag right from the beginning. Obvious to any scientist; so they have all been lying.
Wait until you learn its not photons but perturbations travelling through our electro/magnetic universe like a wave propagating across water. The water doesn't move, neither does an electron/proton ...... fields, pressure mediation.... fun times ahead for humanity!
Yup. CO2 fear mongering is fake, like glowbull warming is fake. The replacement crisis "climate change" is as fake as the "ozone depletion" scam.
Its a patchwork of scare tactics to manipulate and control - and for profit. The endless banning of aerosols forces HVAC system upgrades and profit for manufacturers of "environmentally-friendly" refrigerants.
BREAKING:- Massive nuclear reaction at the center of the Solar System that pushes it's influence 11 billion miles out into the void of space actually effects Earth at 1/118th that distance !!!!!!
This amazing, unprecedented effect of the sun is an even stronger catalyst for climate than cow farts, scientists said whilst garrotting themselves with piano wire.
Scientist's were, in fact, stunned so hard their tiny little propeller hats began spinning across the whole domain of Earth in ungodly unison. This widely observable effect has been attributed to the incipient cancelling of all scientific funding for "Climate Change" harlot-ism and peer reviewed hand-relief, widely practiced by approved government Thinkers and lick-spittle toadies of academia.
"Bow tie wearing, pseudo-intellectual faggots and David AttenWarmer will be hardest hit by this stunning twist of fate" said - Boutros-Boutros Crapiopia, DEI administrator of Sailor's horn pipe University.
Anybody needing a "study" to tell them this is too studied to be allowed out by themselves in public.
Stupid....
Aaaaaaaand , if that number goes any lower plant life on earth begins dying at a pace that is unrecoverable
I was searching on Google to find the article they claim to reference. Here is what Google AI presents to me:
How typical of Goggle to keep the propaganda rolling. Now it is apparently not "97% of scientists agree", but 99%.
I then tried Yandex, and did find an article from 2024 by 3 Polish scientists, but it has now been retracted. Since the X tweet does not cite any references to scientific articles or authors, I will treat this as promising, but needs evidence.
When discussing this topic with the "CO2 is dangerous - pay more taxes" crowd in my social circle, I want to be able to confront them with scientific evidence, and not hearsay.
CO2 is critical for plant growth. Without it, plants die - then so will we. Solar activity is the biggest contributor to climate change - not CO2.
We've known it is primarily the sun's output for a long time. That's why all these scientists would ignore the question why are we seeing interplanetary climate change?
The brainwashing has been amazing. We're talking mass deactivation of brain cells.