🚀 go-pugleaf

Fabrikant wrote:
> Guess, what is the present level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:
> is it 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%?  None of the above.  Various sources give
> it at about one third of one percent (just for comparison, nitrogen is
> about 78% and oxygen is about 20% of atmosphere).

The statement is irrelevant - the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
relative to other gases doesn't imply anything about the significance
of the level of CO2 itself, unless you're saying something about
reactions between these constituents, which you are not. It's like
saying that arsenic is harmless because there's only 1 gram in a liter
of water.

> carbon dioxide is not a poison, it is what every living creature
> exhales and what every plant inhales, because it is absolutely
> necessary for photosynthesis.

The statement is irrelevant - for the reasons stated above and also
because the phenomena that are said to be harmful and triggered by the
rising CO2 levels, are not the inhalation/exhalation by every living
creature. It's somewhat like saying that water in gunpowder is harmless
bacause everybody is drinking so much of it.

> The media does bombard us with numbers, but only with those, which
> serve their dishonest goals: to create panic, because panic sells.  We

The MSM is innumerate, venal, and incompetent, but that doesn't imply
anything about the body of research about global warming.

> are told that each human exhales about 4 tons of carbon dioxide, which
> is 50 times the weight of average human being, so we feel like criminal
> polluters and fight with urges to stop breathing at all.

That is a good joke.

> heard our "objective" media telling us the whole story or at least
> mention that without carbon dioxide all life will stop, because all the
> plants will die.

Because it is irrelevant.

> periodicity of about 100,000 years. So, about 100,000 years ago, the
> carbon dioxide concentration was 0.3%, while now the maximum observed
> is 0.38%. Taking into consideration that there was no measurable
> industrial human activity 100,000 years ago, we should presume 0.3% of
> carbon dioxide has nothing to do with humans.  Even if the remaining
> 0.08% is due to humans, this means that if we stop all industrial
> activity, we can not go below 0.3%, so what is all hoopla about?

You asserting that the difference between 0.30 and 0.38 is
insignificant, which you are not qualified to say.

> There is one more detail: every data in the published graph presents
> not the carbon dioxide concentration at certain point in time, but
> rather average of 731 years.  Notwithstanding the present concentration
> of 0.38%, if we take the average of the past 731 years, I am sure, we
> will not get more than 0.3% concentration and the conclusion will be

This statement is internally contradictory.

> In addition, at least one of the articles states quite clearly that
> there is nothing abnormal in the present atmosphere.

And you're asserting that this is the one article that got it right.

> media would not quote this opinion back to you.  So, whenever the media
> is trying to scare the life out of you, read the original research and
> make your own conclusions.

You're asserting  that your audience and yourself are capable of
drawing valid conclusions from the original research. The mass media
may be imbeciles, but that doesn't imply that the audience is
scientifically literate.