Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Have we resolved yet what we are saving?
Is it the planet or humans?
It used to be the whales but now we're off to bigger propositions. It may be the universe later....just to up the scare tactics.
Flooding has been going on for centuries. Add the fact that the region has an outdated drainage system in need of repair and you've got problems.
Nothing the liberals are proposing will change any of this. Redistributing wealth does not stop floods, tornadoes or change temps. Scientists revealed that during the Renaissance era, the core temp was slightly hotter than it is today.
Taking care of the planet is good. The stupid cap and trade plot is all about wealth redistribution and gaining control and has nothing to do with saving the earth.
This is the type of thinking that moves us no where. Clementines answer is to do nothing because there is nothing we can do. We are just like the Dinosaurs and they were wiped out...So stop being silly and worrying about mans existence! Stop trying to use your brains to theorize on solutions. Just like the Dinosaurs we should just accept it!
Why? Because Clementine says this is good!
Yeah and you put up the intro page of a pdf as proof of something.
Is the conclusion in the intro or what. Then did you read your own paper? This is the first line:
Fossil Fuel combustion, deforestation and changes in human land use has caused atmospheric CO2 concentration to increase 280 to 370 since preindustrial times.
BUT I thought man had no effect on the climate? Your paper says otherwise but you cant blue type this one away.
No the conclusion is not in the intro or what. The citation you read was not even from the author of the paper, the author of the paper is citing a statement out of Amthor, a document cited by the author that was written back in 1995. Are you unfamiliar with using parenthesis for citations?
Irregardless of whether man caused co2 emissions have had a significant effect on increased co2 emissions, which is not the point of this current discussion,
the issue is what effect will co2 have on plants. Funny how you missed that. Well not funny but yes, it is funny that you again focused in like a laser on catch word phrases. Really if you can't understand anything above the level of 2nd grade material why are you bothering to argue with adults?
Its based on science and republicans dont believe in it...or they do...or something like that
More like "political science".
Yeah and the way it becomes political is when you say so. And since you dont need proof either way what an awesome way to deal with information eh?
Ohhh charts based on science that republicans dismiss outright! Now we're talking!
You can't read the charts, not my fault.
Its based on science and republicans dont believe in it...or they do...or something like that
More like "political science".
Yeah and the way it becomes political is when you say so. And since you dont need proof either way what an awesome way to deal with information eh?
This climate change/global warming thing IS pure politics.
It's a means to an end.
Yeah and you put up the intro page of a pdf as proof of something.
Is the conclusion in the intro or what. Then did you read your own paper? This is the first line:
Fossil Fuel combustion, deforestation and changes in human land use has caused atmospheric CO2 concentration to increase 280 to 370 since preindustrial times.
BUT I thought man had no effect on the climate? Your paper says otherwise but you cant blue type this one away.
No the conclusion is not in the intro or what. The citation you read was not even from the author of the paper, the author of the paper is citing a statement out of Amthor, a document cited by the author that was written back in 1995. Are you unfamiliar with using parenthesis for citations?
Sure, are you familiar with reading because it says that man effects the climate. Next time read your own stuff before posting it
Irregardless of whether man caused co2 emissions have had a significant effect on increased co2 emissions, which is not the point of this current discussion,
Oh so now that your paper agrees with me its no longer part of the discussion?
the issue is what effect will co2 have on plants. Funny how you missed that. Well not funny but yes, it is funny that you again focused in like a laser on catch word phrases. Really if you can't understand anything above the level of 2nd grade material why are you bothering to argue with adults?
So where is that paper that shows increased CO2 levels is like steroids for plants then? Is it a secret? Do I need a code?
Very true
We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not
Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it
^Astounding. That "thinking" would have to be premised on the notion that we have the slightest ability to alter climate change, much less cause it in the first place.
But we don't have any such ability.
Not only do we not bear any responsibility for any global warming, we also do not bear responsibility for any global cooling. We similarly lack any blame for failure to "fix" it because we also lack the first last or middle ability to do a god damn thing about it.
And proof of that lies.....
Notice how they arent even interested in the science? They are too busy dismissing actual science and scientists with TMZ style rumor mill bullshit.
The science is CO2 and other greenhouse gases are good for us. The science is the Sun causes warming on the planet and all the other planets, not man.
Have we resolved yet what we are saving?
Is it the planet or humans?
It used to be the whales but now we're off to bigger propositions. It may be the universe later....just to up the scare tactics.
At least outer space. I believe this thread started with the moon causing flooding in Miami.
I didn't realize global warming had reached the moon.
It must be from the golf balls that was left there.
Notice how they arent even interested in the science? They are too busy dismissing actual science and scientists with TMZ style rumor mill bullshit.
What is incredibly obvious is the fact that your science is politically driven. The wanted outcome is the redistribution of wealth on the global stage.
You can deny it all you want, but that is the intended end result for the IPCC.
Its SO OBVIOUS that not one of you that make the claim can provide ANY evidence of this INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS thing.
TMZ style rumor mill is really all you got
Think of what happens when your car burns 1 gallon of gasoline. You think it has disappeared but it hasn't. That gasoline is merely in a different form and we are breathing it. Now think about all the cars in your city that are pumping gas into the air. Now think about all the cars in the world that are pumping gas into the air. Now think about all the power plants in the world that are pumping gas into the air. Now think about all the other sources of pollution being pumped into the air. And finally think about the fact that this has been occurring for at least a century and that it is getting worse each day as more and more cars and power plants enter the picture. If 90+% of the scientists in the world think global warming is caused by man, I think I'll believe the scientists rather than you. Here is one more thing to think about, what if you are wrong? You do realize you may be betting your life or the lives of some of your loved ones. You do realize that?Very true
We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not
Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it
^Astounding. That "thinking" would have to be premised on the notion that we have the slightest ability to alter climate change, much less cause it in the first place.
But we don't have any such ability.
Not only do we not bear any responsibility for any global warming, we also do not bear responsibility for any global cooling. We similarly lack any blame for failure to "fix" it because we also lack the first last or middle ability to do a god damn thing about it.
No the conclusion is not in the intro or what. The citation you read was not even from the author of the paper, the author of the paper is citing a statement out of Amthor, a document cited by the author that was written back in 1995. Are you unfamiliar with using parenthesis for citations?
Sure, are you familiar with reading because it says that man effects the climate. Next time read your own stuff before posting it
Oh so now that your paper agrees with me its no longer part of the discussion?
the issue is what effect will co2 have on plants. Funny how you missed that. Well not funny but yes, it is funny that you again focused in like a laser on catch word phrases. Really if you can't understand anything above the level of 2nd grade material why are you bothering to argue with adults?
So where is that paper that shows increased CO2 levels is like steroids for plants then? Is it a secret? Do I need a code?
Listen, retard, can I call you retard? No one is saying that man has no effect on co2 emissions, no one is arguing that co2 has no effect on the climate. That you think anyone is, really just explains why I see you as retarded. No secret code is require, dumb ass, just read the abstract of the paper. If you want the rest of the paper go get it yourself. It's against the copyright laws for me to replicate it.
The point is, ya dufus, that CO2 may in fact have a positive effect, as opposed to the doom and gloom fear, uncertainty and doubt professed by you low information voters.
Another point is that warmer temperatures may in fact have a positive effect, as opposed to the doom and gloom fear, uncertainty and doubt professed by you low information voters.
Further, man's effect on CO2 levels pales in significance to the other sources of CO2 in our atmosphere, so really our emissions is a moot point.
Still further, even if we wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, which we don't, why would we agree to unilaterally reduce our emissions by killing our food supply (cows etc.) and ending our use of cheap fossil fuels just to move our food sources and production to asia?
Flooding has been going on for centuries. Add the fact that the region has an outdated drainage system in need of repair and you've got problems.
Nothing the liberals are proposing will change any of this. Redistributing wealth does not stop floods, tornadoes or change temps. Scientists revealed that during the Renaissance era, the core temp was slightly hotter than it is today.
Taking care of the planet is good. The stupid cap and trade plot is all about wealth redistribution and gaining con8trol and has nothing to do with saving the earth.
Very true
We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not
Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it
yeah these guys are so good at predicting. In tne 60s they told us medicare would only cost 10 billion in the 90s, ooooooops.
We better cede all of our freedom to people suckering folks into buying carbon credits.........thats not capitalism, thats the greatest show on earth tomfoolery
^Astounding. That "thinking" would have to be premised on the notion that we have the slightest ability to alter climate change, much less cause it in the first place.
But we don't have any such ability.
Not only do we not bear any responsibility for any global warming, we also do not bear responsibility for any global cooling. We similarly lack any blame for failure to "fix" it because we also lack the first last or middle ability to do a god damn thing about it.
And proof of that lies.....
LOL.
You discard the notion that you (the proponent of the fanciful notion that WE can control climate) have any fucking burden of persuasion in that regard, but when folks who don't buy your unsupported bullshit call bullshit on you, you DEMAND "evidence" all of a sudden.
You folks are laughable. And nothing more. Just laughable.
If you want the first hint of cred, ClosedMinded, then all you have to do is show the solid science supporting the contention that human beings caused the ice ages or the subsequent warming periods.
Best of luck.
Yeah and the way it becomes political is when you say so. And since you dont need proof either way what an awesome way to deal with information eh?
The way you deny facts about the IPCC's method of cherry picking "papers" and "emails" leaves whatever you have to say questionable.
Notice how they arent even interested in the science? They are too busy dismissing actual science and scientists with TMZ style rumor mill bullshit.
Do you beleive CO2 increases cause a rise in temperature? If so, then where is your evidence. Talk about wanting evidence, your kind have produced zip zero, nadda. Yet the sky is falling. Right.And proof of that lies.....
LOL.
You discard the notion that you (the proponent of the fanciful notion that WE can control climate) have any fucking burden of persuasion in that regard, but when folks who don't buy your unsupported bullshit call bullshit on you, you DEMAND "evidence" all of a sudden.
Whoa buddy, I dont believe we can control the climate so you have that wrong. I believe we have an effect on it by our actions. Not that we are Storm from the X-men or something. Second all you have to say is you dont have any proof of what you are saying
You folks are laughable. And nothing more. Just laughable.
If you want the first hint of cred, ClosedMinded, then all you have to do is show the solid science supporting the contention that human beings caused the ice ages or the subsequent warming periods.
Best of luck.
Where is your evidence again? I asked the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th guy but they responded just like you. With smileys and deflection.
Show us the experiment that shows higher concentration of CO2 causes an increase in temperature. show us that one. Without it your scare tactics are just that.Sure it does RKM...It supports your bullshit so much it says in the first paragraph that its bunk.
But you typed in blue that you dont believe it soooo...I guess its wrong....the power of blue type wins over science again DAMMIT!
IOW they had you at their sound bite, and you are to stupid to read on. We call folks like you "low information voters." Easily swayed by catch phrases, like change we can believe in, or affordable health care.
Great so go out there and find some information that doesnt call you a moron right out the gate that shows more CO2 is like steroids for plants and I'll be right here, How about that?
Sure, are you familiar with reading because it says that man effects the climate. Next time read your own stuff before posting it
Oh so now that your paper agrees with me its no longer part of the discussion?
So where is that paper that shows increased CO2 levels is like steroids for plants then? Is it a secret? Do I need a code?
Listen, retard, can I call you retard? No one is saying that man has no effect on co2 emissions, no one is arguing that co2 has no effect on the climate. That you think anyone is, really just explains why I see you as retarded. No secret code is require, dumb ass, just read the abstract of the paper. If you want the rest of the paper go get it yourself. It's against the copyright laws for me to replicate it.
Against copyright laws?
And it may have a negative effect also, right? right?
Further, man's effect on CO2 levels pales in significance to the other sources of CO2 in our atmosphere, so really our emissions is a moot point.
No its not. Just because Darth Vader is worst than Jason doesnt mean Jason is a moot point.
Still further, even if we wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, which we don't, why would we agree to unilaterally reduce our emissions by killing our food supply (cows etc.) and ending our use of cheap fossil fuels just to move our food sources and production to asia?
No one wants to murder cows so now you can rest easy. I love a good steak.
No one is saying ending using fossil fuels just reducing them.
Why did you say the artcle agreed with you when it didnt? And why when I asked for proof that more CO2 will be great for plants you replied with no proof?
I mean the first was a flat out lie, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on the second. Where's that proof bro?
Listen you lying/ignorant piece of shit (take your pick), and I say that with utmost respect, the title and opinions expressed in your linked article are just that. Opinions. The post you linked actually agrees with what I said. It's not my fault you can't read past the bullshit political and monetary gain based opinions to see the facts.
Whoa wait, you said the scientific article agreed with you 100% then when I quoted it showing you were lying thru your teeth now the scientific article is wrong and is nothign more than opinion?
