Comments by "Michael Lenczewski" (@kayakMike1000) on "BBC News" channel.

There is no consensus.
19
Here is a great story, CO2 molecules at concentrations less than 150 ppm would lead to an extinction level event as all plants would struggle to live.
3
Who gives a fuck about consensus?
3
Jan 6 was an inside job.
2
@houmm08 it's decades of biased research that gets rewarded for claiming there is an existential threat.
2
@houmm08 ok, the guy who invented the lobotomy won a Nobel prize in medicine. The most recent group of scientists won the Nobel prize in physics for climate models that probably don't work. Last I reviewed the climate models, they were predicting too much warming and predicted warming in the tropical troposphere that is not observed in the satellite or weather balloon data.
2
@WildSkyMtn and the scumbag scientists in the 80s and 90s also predicted that the Maldives and lower Manhattan would be under water. That prediction was revised a bunch, the people predicted there would be no arctic sea ice... I could go on but climate scientist are about as reliable as the Jehova's Whitnesses
2
Horseshit. Nobel prize virologist says it was engineered. Luc Montagnier
1
I need to learn to argue like shapiro. He does well here. This chucklehead is really trying to ruffle Shapiro.
1
Very biased against the evil republicans.
1
He is wrong. Argument from consensus is a logical fallacy. We know the data is being screwed with (see climategate). We know the models are bullshit. We know the majority of the heating is NOT where the CO2 actually is. We know that 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor.
1
@Aristarcus you can quit reproducing
1
@houmm08 so there was this guy named Barack and he won a Nobel peace prize yet he killed American citizens on drone strikes.
1
@Chris G you're a bot
1
@maligatormotivator7763 yes, heard this one before. CO2 is not arsenic, nor are planets human bodies. Your analogy is completely absurd. First, there is a minimum of CO2 that the planet needs to Support the carbon cycle. We have a little more than twice the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for that. But that value has been much higher in the past. So, if you think about it, the most CO2 that humans could put into the atmosphere before all the oil and coal could run out is probably another 400 ppm. That's going to take another 250 years and we'll probably start running out of commercially sensible fossil fuel oils. Coal night last that long. I dunno. But I don't think the climate is going to really be that bad even by then. There are only so many infrared photons to absorb, eventually any alleged greenhouse gasses won't contribute to more warming. You run out of quantum packets of energy that GHG s are opaque to... We may already be at that point. Surface mass balance of the greenland ice sheet is up this year, by quite a lot. Fossil fuels are a finite commodity, so We're going to need nuclear energy sometime soon, we could probably build out nuclear plants everywhere in a few decades.
1
@houmm08 you mentioned Nobel peace prize as if that was some guarantee that the scientists aren't biased jackholes. Michael Mann lost a court case, some other scientist called him a fraud, Mann sued for defamation. Because Mann would not release his data and software for the hockey stick graph, the court dismissed the case.
1
@houmm08 well, Nobel prizes come to mind, you said that yourself. It's easier to win grant money and get published. You can go on the news... Scientists are human and have egos, I think they sometimes want their hypothesis to be correct...
1
@danielmouncer4131 it's called an absorption spectra because the CO2 particles absorb the infrared photons. The CO2 particles are not reflecting anything. They absorb radiation and can transfer the energy through interactions with other molecules they come in contact with., Most likely of which is nitrogen. You need to go back to physics. You're just factually wrong and the one with the pseudoscience. If the oceans are accumulating thermal energy, then they are net emitters of CO2. When water becomes warmer, it reduces it's capacity to dissolve CO2. That's why the CO2 graph in Hawaii is all wavy, seasonal temperature differences in Earth's water temperature. This suggests that the source of CO2 might not be humans, but it's natural accumulation from the oceans outgassing.
1