I will oblidge you Webster sycophant [ sik-uh-fuhnt, -fant, sahy-kuh- ] See synonyms for: sycophantsycophantssycophanticallysycophantic on Thesaurus.com noun a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite. You are a sycophant. You are a "servile flatterer" and "fawning parasite" for Pedo Joe and his merry band of pedophiles, Marxist and fags. He and they can do nothing wrong in your view. You suck up to this pedophile hoping in vain that you will be recognised as a good useful idiot, which you are BTW, and will be rewarded with a seat at the table. You will not get that seat at the table. You are only useful to put him and they in office then you will be discarded like a used condom. Got another one for you Einstein SOPHISTRY You are also quilty of political sophistry What is political sophistry? Political sophistry is the practice of using clever arguments that sound convincing but are in fact false.
June 261, 2023 The World's simplest argument to prove human CO2 does not change the climate Click here to read online and comment. Meteorologists, scientists explain Why there is No Climate Emergency Original article by Katie Spence - The Epoch Times, Sep 14, 2023 The following is a simplification of one part of the Epoch Times article. Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist and certified consulting meteorologist, said IPCC's core theory is that natural CO2 has stayed constant at 280 ppm since 1750 and that human CO2 is responsible for the 140-ppm increase. This IPCC theory makes human CO2 responsible for 33 percent of today's total CO2 level. Here's the problem with that IPCC theory. The public perception of CO2 is that it goes into the atmosphere and stays there. They think it just accumulates. But it doesn't. At a constant level, the outflow equals the inflow. A 140-ppm constant level requires a continual CO2 inflow of 40 ppm per year because, according to the IPCC, CO2 has a turnover time of 3.5 years. So, divide 140 ppm by 3.5 years to get 40 ppm per year. A level of 280 ppm requires 80 ppm of inflow. So, IPCC's claimed human carbon dioxide level of 140 ppm requires 40 ppm per year inflow, which is 33% of the total carbon dioxide inflow. But even IPCC says human CO2 inflow is only about 5 percent to 7 percent of the total CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. So, because a human-caused CO2 inflow of 5% to 7% cannot support IPCC's claimed 140 ppm human-caused level, the IPCC instead claims human CO2 has a turnover time of hundreds to thousands of years. The IPCC is saying something is different about human CO2 that keeps it from flowing out of the atmosphere as fast as natural CO2. IPCC scientists should have asked the simple question: 'Is a human CO2 molecule identical to a natural CO2 molecule?' The answer is yes. Well, if human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, their turnover times are identical, or 3.5 years. So, the whole idea where they say it's in there for hundreds, or thousands, of years is impossible. Therefore, IPCC's claim that human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase is climate fiction. (Believe it or not, there are some PhD physicists who cannot follow this simple argument.) (This simple argument, by itself, would have defeated Held v Montana but Montana's AG Knudsen censored this argument and all other arguments that prove human CO2 does not cause climate change.) Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) Author: Climate Miracle (Amazon) Author, Speaker, Teacher, Expert Witness 100%-win record as expert witness. Copyright (c) 2023 by Edwin X Berry Ed Berry LLC 439 Grand Dr #147 Bigfork, MT 59911 Website: https://edberry.com Email: [email protected] Cell: 406.471.1464
Suffice it to say his mathematical argument is ridiculous. This part is pure bullshit: "So, because a human-caused CO2 inflow of 5% to 7% cannot support IPCC's claimed 140 ppm human-caused level," It's obvious bullshit, and I'll get to that in a moment, but I don't know if he's peddling bullshit because he's genuinely fucking stupid, or because he wants to rope in morons such as yourself. My guess is probably the latter, because he wants to sell you his books. The ONLY way the sentence I quoted would make any sense is if the 140 ppm arose during the CO2 turnover period of 3.5 years (he says it's 3.5, I've seen estimates of 23 years).... but the 140 ppm didn't arise in just the last 3.5 years... it's an accumulation since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700's. What's funny here is you probably didn't even understand what he's trying to say, but were convinced that it makes sense, anyway.
This is wrong. Humans contribute 3% to the total CO2. Seems like we should be asking the trees and volcanos for carbons taxes instead of us Humans.
A simple analogy: Fill your bathtub with water, about half way up. Now open the drain... just slightly. Now turn on the faucet, again just slightly, so that the water flows in and out of the bathtub are equal and the bathtub water level stays the same. This could go on for thousands of years, with the water level staying constant. Now open up the faucet, again just slightly. So here's the problem: no matter how slight the new input the flow in is now greater than the flow out, and the water level will rise. If you keep opening up the faucet at a faster rate the water level will rise faster. In the past million years, the CO2 ppm on Earth has fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm, that latter measure an infrequency outside the mean of about 240 ppm. Now, thanks to the Industrial Revolution, in the past 250 years we have in very short order shattered that 240 ppm mean and that 300 ppm ceiling, now at 420 ppm. We have risen 140 ppm in just 250 years. Every year we're burning more and more fossil fuels. We keep opening up the faucet faster and faster.
So, using our bathtub model, let's say a water molecule stays in the bathtub for a day before it flushes out of the system and is replaced by new flow. And then we open the faucet a bit and the water level starts rising. After a month or so the water level reaches the top of the bathtub. "Doctor" Berry's stupidity is the proposition that all the extra water from halfway up (i.e. our previous constant level) to the top couldn't have been caused by opening up the faucet, because that water would have gone down the drain in one day! And now that I've explained this to you all can we just dispense with the stupidity that "Doctor" Berry has anything meaningful to add to the climate change issue?
But the atmosphere isn’t a bathtub. As I said, humans contribute to 3% of the total CO2 in our atmosphere. Why aren’t you mad at the other 97% that you seem to think doesn’t matter? I mean, are you going to tell me the other 97% is linear production? Did you know that soil absorbs CO2? Many more things do as well. Does the bathtub walls absorb water?
1. CO2 DOES NOT DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE CLIMATE CHANGE DRIVES CO2 2. CO2 IS GOOD FOR PLANTS AND ANIMALS, MORE IS BETTER 3. CO2 RISES AFTER TEMPERATURE RISES NOT BEFORE 4. REX IS SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT REPEAT AFTER ME. ONE MORE THING ANYONE WHO BELIEVES MAN CAN CONTROL THE EAETHS CLIMATE AND TEMPERATURE IS IGNORANT THEREFORE REX IS IGNORANT
