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.
and yet you can't post one post with a link that says what you said it says. When it doesn't. hahahahahahahhhaha keep failing dude. I'm laughing. BTW, the truth is on my side and why you can't find anything.Boy you are ignorant
I just did dumbo.and yet you can't post one post with a link that says what you said it says. When it doesn't. hahahahahahahhhaha keep failing dude. I'm laughing. BTW, the truth is on my side and why you can't find anything.
sure I do, why do you think I don't? It seems you don't know that we need CO2 to breath oxygen, do you?So you don’t know what pollution is do you ?
Yup, 100% correct. And, I just posted a link showing it does from an institute of your choice, and Columbia references another climate science institute spent an entire article showing how CO2 polutes.those scientists who agree with you.
Not only me, but ever climate research facility in the world. Of course, you being a dimwit, you don’t even know what a pollutant is.
still no institute to back you, no matter what word salad you choose to use.I just did dumbo.
Are you laughing at yourself.
Columbia just told us how CO2 pollutes, the entire article tell you how CO2 pollutes.
You’re other Australian link in their newsletter did, “the conversation” link was posted. .
What dim wit.
hahahahahaha I ain't your bitch fool, post the statement from the link or you fail yet again. I don't play chase the links.Yup, 100% correct. And, I just posted a link showing it does from an institute of your choice, and Columbia references another climate science institute spent an entire article showing how CO2 polutes.
Aso, you are a buffoon.
Yes I do. But too high a concentration in the lower ozone makes it a pollutant too scirnce illiterate.sure I do, why do you think I don't? It seems you don't know that we need CO2 to breath oxygen, do you?
they don’t have to say the word pollutant. They assume the readers aren’t stupid when they describe how it’s bad for the environment. They dint know how dumb you are.they say CO2 is a pollutant?--Nope, I did a search for the word pollutant, nothing coms up. fail again!!!
Yup, two of them. Both of your choicestill no institute to back you, no matter what word salad you choose to use.
too much of anything is a pollutant. So what now?Yes I do. But too high a concentration in the lower ozone makes it a pollutant too scirnce illiterate.
not me sucka, post the statement from it that backs you, i just told you I'm not chasing links, that falls on you!Yup, two of them. Both of your choice
Not quite, too high a level or poor location or in the presence of other substances that cause adverse reaction. That’s ozone ( oxygen ) and CO2 and a plethora of other gasses.too much of anything is a pollutant. So what now?
I did. Being able to read, falls on you.not me sucka, post the statement from it that backs you, i just told you I'm not chasing links, that falls on you!
Too much water vapor is dangerousNot quite, too high a level or poor location or in the presence of other substances that cause adverse reaction. That’s ozone ( oxygen ) and CO2 and a plethora of other gasses.
.
Post #?I did. Being able to read, falls on you.
Posted that already. Now you want me to give you a post number to a post number addressed to you ? Mighty inconsiderate of you.Post #?
I started this thread with a reference. And, I did not say I gave hundreds. I said I could give hundreds. Just look on Google. You do know that the "to" before dumb should be "too" dumb ass.You said you gave hundreds. You gave nothing. The only reference from a denier we’ve seen, disproves what they claimed because they were to dumb to read it. It was hilarious.
I do.
Because that's in complete agreement with your first assertion.
I think he's looking for someone to come back at him in a similar manner. If you're not up for that...
For this argument, what does it matter if he's left, right or center? This is a question of science, not politics.
It's not, but it does help with getting all parties in a debate to agree on the meaning of terms.
Because it is now changing due to human actions and is changing faster than at any time in millions of years and has already taken us into conditions that the human species has NEVER experienced before.
CO2 does not help animals live and grow really big. And all the plants and animals on Earth did quite well for millions and millions of years on CO2 that never went above 300 ppm. We're currently at 420 ppm. A pollutant is a harmful or dangerous contaminant. Science is not trying to get humanity to control our CO2 output due to its toxicity but to it's function in the greenhouse effect.
I did not see your reference either but I could have missed it. What did it say? Could you possibly link to it again?
The current rate of CO2 increase is six or seven times as high as any glacial cycle increase (those spikes mark the advance and retreat of massive glaciation) for the last 1 million years.
Very interesting. They keep saying CO2 is rising at rates never seen. But, looking at this graph, that is not true. What happened 130,000 years ago? Did cavemen drive Flintstone cars with oil from underneath the ground? Could there be other reasons for the spike from 1950? I think so. And, there is no evidence other than opinionated conclusions of why there was that mass extinction back in 200,000,000 years ago. Could have been an asteroid or possibly lots of volcanos as well. 414 ppm is actually not a bad number. There will be less desserts, more food and there you go.
Yet, there's no indication that we are going into an ice age or the sea levels are rising any faster. See, there are other gases that cause more harm than CO2 could ever do. SO2 for one. Methane for another. CO2 is necessary for plant growth which is necessary for animal growth and so on. What is interesting is that if CO2 levels get below 175ppm, the green goes away and we are left baron with dessert. It's been really close in the past.The current rate of CO2 increase is six or seven times as high as any glacial cycle increase (those spikes mark the advance and retreat of massive glaciation) for the last 1 million years.
Yes, there is. This first graph goes back 22,000 years. Note that it begins with temperatures going down for about 4,000 years, then they rise for about 10,000 years and then very slowly fall till the sudden increase beginning with the Industrial Revolution. Note the change in the time scale at the right end.Yet, there's no indication that we are going into an ice age
Any faster? The issue is that it is rising at all and there are very clear "indications" that is taking place: tidal gauge and satellite data, balanced against localized uplift and subsidence, changes in basin volume and other arcanities tell a very clear story. Sea level is rising both from thermal expansion and from the melting of land-based ice.or the sea levels are rising any faster.
You left out H2S, CO, methyl isocyanate, ammonia, phosgene, methyl bromide and all the heavy metal gases. ; - ) This is the the third time I've had to say this, but the problem with CO2 is NOT its toxicity; it is its participation in the greenhouse effect.See, there are other gases that cause more harm than CO2 could ever do. SO2 for one. Methane for another.
The world got along swimmingly for 3 million years (including 2,800,000 years before the appearance of homo sapiens) with CO2 never getting above 300 ppm. Humanity has NEVER faced CO2 levels anywhere near their current value.CO2 is necessary for plant growth which is necessary for animal growth and so on.
What is interesting is that if CO2 levels get below 175ppm, the green goes away and we are left baron with dessert. It's been really close in the past.
