seven stats on climate change

[SSDD]

Carbon dioxide is absorbed into the plant cell and through photosynthesis the oxygen atoms are stripped off ... leaving behind what we call a "reduced" carbon atom ... by uncounted steps and pathways, this reduced carbon atom can eventually find itself as part of a DNA strand ... this is the idea of "primary producers", organisms that take CO2 and sunlight and make food for next link on the food chain ...

that is a rational statement, based on fact... this however, is not

"The other acid formed with carbon dioxide in ocean water is deoxyribonucleic acid"

You might be surprised how much our cells have in common with single cell algae ...

Probably not. I get that when you fancy yourself as the smartest person in the room it is hard to imagine that others are educated, but that's just one of the problems with living a fantasy.

 

[SSDD]

I rejected your fake analysis.

One trick pony strikes again....makes hysterical claims, then rejects all science used to rebut those claims and provides nothing upon which a rejection might be seen as a rational answer....you forgot the impotent name calling after you fail to defend your claims...I like the impotent name calling.

Is that all you have? You reject my answer? Based on what exactly? You certainly haven't shown any evidence at all that anything I put there was wrong...and it wasn't "my" analysis...it was peer reviewed, published paper after paper...the fact that you have absolutely nothing to offer up which suggests that any of it is wrong and yet you still reject it says all that needs to be said about you.

You are a walking talking puppet...incapable of any sort of independent thought at all....a mere tool of people who have a political agenda and not nearly bright enough to see your situation.

I rejected your phony analysis. Your claims are hysterical & rejected by real climatologists.

You keep saying that. I made no analysis. I simply provided multiple peer reviewed, published papers which supported my position.

And I asked you to provide some actual science from climatologists which questioned the content of the published literature I provided. You didn't, because there are no papers by climatologists which call the content of any of those papers into question. In fact, I doubt that you could find a single published paper in which one of your experts uses empirical evidence to support a claim that human beings are responsible for any significant portion of the rise we have seen in CO2.

In short dave...you lose yet again. You should have seen this trend developing on the first page of your post when you were unable to defend your position right out of the gate. Just one more problem with being a bot...a talking puppet who is being used by people who have a political agenda...

But hey, feel free to prove me wrong by posting up some sort of actual science which calls either my position, or the published literature I provided into question.

I predict no such information will be forthcoming....prove me wrong....I TRIPPLE dog dare ya....

 

[SSDD]

Sorry assfuck. You lost. You totally ignored the CO2 absorbed by plants, oceans. etc.

Poor dave....can you really not read the words that people write to you and comprehend what they are saying? I didn't ignore anything. I asked for you to state what the earth's total CO2 absorption capacity is and all the CO2 sinks....and your answer is plants, oceans etc.? Is that a "sciency" answer in your book? Is that the limit of what you know on the topic...that plants, and the ocean, and some other stuff absorb CO2?

You just get dumber than that.

Ahhhh...the impotent name calling...I love it when you show just how far you are out of your depth by resorting to name calling...The guy whose knowledge of CO2 sinks is that the plants, the oceans and some other stuff absorbs CO2 calling anyone else dumb just cracks me up. Look up the word irony....use it in a sentence..

Now you claim no CO2 is removed from our atmosphere by absorption.

Tell me Dave, how might CO2 otherwise be removed from the atmosphere? I can't think of a single CO2 sink of any type that doesn't absorb CO2. Oceans absorb CO2, any biological process which removes CO2 from the air involves absorption, even the CO2 transferred to the soil after plants die involves absorption.

The question to you was what are the various CO2 sinks, and how much CO2 do they absorb? You keep making claims about CO2...I provided you with peer reviewed papers in which the various sinks were considered and weighed against the natural and man made sources of CO2 and determined that mankind's CO2 is an insignificant portion of the total CO2 and that there is no real correlation between our CO2 output and the total atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Jesus fuck, you are a certifiable moron.

Impotent name calling, no attempt to even try and rebut anything that I have said or any of the science I have posted and you think you have effectively proved that I am a moron?

Geez dave....tell me, just what is your IQ? Were your parents ever concerned enough to have you tested?

 

[SSDD]

What Is Happening in the Ocean?[/URL]

So do tell me how guanine, (C10H12O6N5P) cytosine, (C9H12O6N3P), thymine, (C10H13O7N2P) and adenine, (C5H5N5) form from CO2 and H2O.

If your link is written at your reading and understanding level, and thus far, I have seen no reason to think otherwise, and truthfully, I doubt that you fully understand even that, you have answered many questions about yourself...

And by the way...there is nothing there in your link even remotely touching on the topic reinydays and I were speaking to....which further cements my belief that you don't even understand things written for children.

As this point dave, I have to say that I am beginning to feel sorry for you. Discussing this with you is like poking at a defenseless animal in a cage...like the animal in the cage, your only defense seems to be to snarl and lash out blindly...

 

[RealDave]

What Is Happening in the Ocean?[/URL]

So do tell me how guanine, (C10H12O6N5P) cytosine, (C9H12O6N3P), thymine, (C10H13O7N2P) and adenine, (C5H5N5) form from CO2 and H2O.

If your link is written at your reading and understanding level, and thus far, I have seen no reason to think otherwise, and truthfully, I doubt that you fully understand even that, you have answered many questions about yourself...

And by the way...there is nothing there in your link even remotely touching on the topic reinydays and I were speaking to....which further cements my belief that you don't even understand things written for children.

As this point dave, I have to say that I am beginning to feel sorry for you. Discussing this with you is like poking at a defenseless animal in a cage...like the animal in the cage, your only defense seems to be to snarl and lash out blindly...

I am not a chemist. You are not a climatologist.

The level of my link was directed at you.

You & rainman evidently want to calculate the amount of rise of CO2 levels in our atmosphere by solely adding in emissions.

This is an obvious sign thaty neither of you know shit about pur atmosphere & how CO2 levels get to what they are.

I said you need to figure in the amount of CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere & you two assfucks had as fit basically denying this as a factor.

 

[RealDave]

I rejected your fake analysis.

One trick pony strikes again....makes hysterical claims, then rejects all science used to rebut those claims and provides nothing upon which a rejection might be seen as a rational answer....you forgot the impotent name calling after you fail to defend your claims...I like the impotent name calling.

Is that all you have? You reject my answer? Based on what exactly? You certainly haven't shown any evidence at all that anything I put there was wrong...and it wasn't "my" analysis...it was peer reviewed, published paper after paper...the fact that you have absolutely nothing to offer up which suggests that any of it is wrong and yet you still reject it says all that needs to be said about you.

You are a walking talking puppet...incapable of any sort of independent thought at all....a mere tool of people who have a political agenda and not nearly bright enough to see your situation.

I rejected your phony analysis. Your claims are hysterical & rejected by real climatologists.

You keep saying that. I made no analysis. I simply provided multiple peer reviewed, published papers which supported my position.

And I asked you to provide some actual science from climatologists which questioned the content of the published literature I provided. You didn't, because there are no papers by climatologists which call the content of any of those papers into question. In fact, I doubt that you could find a single published paper in which one of your experts uses empirical evidence to support a claim that human beings are responsible for any significant portion of the rise we have seen in CO2.

In short dave...you lose yet again. You should have seen this trend developing on the first page of your post when you were unable to defend your position right out of the gate. Just one more problem with being a bot...a talking puppet who is being used by people who have a political agenda...

But hey, feel free to prove me wrong by posting up some sort of actual science which calls either my position, or the published literature I provided into question.

I predict no such information will be forthcoming....prove me wrong....I TRIPPLE dog dare ya....

Total bullshit.


NASA are just rocket scientists.

 

[SSDD]

I am not a chemist. You are not a climatologist.

I never claimed to be and yet, I can provide peer reviewed, published literature from climatologists which support my position while you can provide exactly squat in terms of actual science to support yours...

And I am able to discuss chemistry as well, while you don't even understand what was written for children in the link you provided.

The level of my link was directed at you.

Except it was you who didn't even understand what was provided in the link for children you posted...that was written for kids in the 5th grade, and you didn't understand that it had nothing to do with what raineydays and i were talking about. Your grasp of science is less than that of a 5th grader and you expect ANYONE to believe that you are able to read any actual science and determine whether it has merit or not? How old are you dave? 10? 12?

Clearly you are not working with anything like an adult level of understanding of any sort of science.

You & rainman evidently want to calculate the amount of rise of CO2 levels in our atmosphere by solely adding in emissions.

Again, complete failure to understand what was written...but hey, feel free to cut and paste anything from either one of us making such a claim.

Again, I predict no such cut and paste will be provided because neither of us said any such thing.

This is an obvious sign thaty neither of you know shit about pur atmosphere & how CO2 levels get to what they are.

No dave..it is an obvious sign that you can't read and understand the words in front of you...but again...feel free to cut and paste any statement from either of us in which we say what you claimed. Either you are stupid...or just a bald faced liar.

I said you need to figure in the amount of CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere & you two assfucks had as fit basically denying this as a factor.

You claimed to already know...then you were challenged on that knowledge and now you are thrashing about like a scalded cat trying to make it appear as if you didn't fail to meet the challenge you were given.

Are you a liar, or are you stupid...or both? Once again...cut and paste any such statement by either one of us...and prove that you aren't stupid, or a liar...or both.

I predict no such cut and paste will be appearing because you are in fact either stupid, a liar, or both.

 

[SSDD]

I rejected your fake analysis.

One trick pony strikes again....makes hysterical claims, then rejects all science used to rebut those claims and provides nothing upon which a rejection might be seen as a rational answer....you forgot the impotent name calling after you fail to defend your claims...I like the impotent name calling.

Is that all you have? You reject my answer? Based on what exactly? You certainly haven't shown any evidence at all that anything I put there was wrong...and it wasn't "my" analysis...it was peer reviewed, published paper after paper...the fact that you have absolutely nothing to offer up which suggests that any of it is wrong and yet you still reject it says all that needs to be said about you.

You are a walking talking puppet...incapable of any sort of independent thought at all....a mere tool of people who have a political agenda and not nearly bright enough to see your situation.

I rejected your phony analysis. Your claims are hysterical & rejected by real climatologists.

You keep saying that. I made no analysis. I simply provided multiple peer reviewed, published papers which supported my position.

And I asked you to provide some actual science from climatologists which questioned the content of the published literature I provided. You didn't, because there are no papers by climatologists which call the content of any of those papers into question. In fact, I doubt that you could find a single published paper in which one of your experts uses empirical evidence to support a claim that human beings are responsible for any significant portion of the rise we have seen in CO2.

In short dave...you lose yet again. You should have seen this trend developing on the first page of your post when you were unable to defend your position right out of the gate. Just one more problem with being a bot...a talking puppet who is being used by people who have a political agenda...

But hey, feel free to prove me wrong by posting up some sort of actual science which calls either my position, or the published literature I provided into question.

I predict no such information will be forthcoming....prove me wrong....I TRIPPLE dog dare ya....

Total bullshit.


NASA are just rocket scientists.

One trick pony strikes again....no rebuttal, no attempt to even try and offer up anything at all to challenge either my position or the peer reviewed, published literature I provided.

Tell me dave, does your response seem in any way smart to you? When you make claims, I provide actual science that contradicts them...when I make claims, you don't because you can't...why do you even bother to answer if looking like an idiot child is the best you can do? Do you enjoy being made a fool of? Do you like having people know that you aren't very bright? Do you think you are fooling anyone at all?

 

[SSDD]

Finally....a rational response from dave....no response at all. See dave, you can learn. How does it feel to do the smart thing?

 

[RealDave]

I rejected your fake analysis.

One trick pony strikes again....makes hysterical claims, then rejects all science used to rebut those claims and provides nothing upon which a rejection might be seen as a rational answer....you forgot the impotent name calling after you fail to defend your claims...I like the impotent name calling.

Is that all you have? You reject my answer? Based on what exactly? You certainly haven't shown any evidence at all that anything I put there was wrong...and it wasn't "my" analysis...it was peer reviewed, published paper after paper...the fact that you have absolutely nothing to offer up which suggests that any of it is wrong and yet you still reject it says all that needs to be said about you.

You are a walking talking puppet...incapable of any sort of independent thought at all....a mere tool of people who have a political agenda and not nearly bright enough to see your situation.

I rejected your phony analysis. Your claims are hysterical & rejected by real climatologists.

You keep saying that. I made no analysis. I simply provided multiple peer reviewed, published papers which supported my position.

And I asked you to provide some actual science from climatologists which questioned the content of the published literature I provided. You didn't, because there are no papers by climatologists which call the content of any of those papers into question. In fact, I doubt that you could find a single published paper in which one of your experts uses empirical evidence to support a claim that human beings are responsible for any significant portion of the rise we have seen in CO2.

In short dave...you lose yet again. You should have seen this trend developing on the first page of your post when you were unable to defend your position right out of the gate. Just one more problem with being a bot...a talking puppet who is being used by people who have a political agenda...

But hey, feel free to prove me wrong by posting up some sort of actual science which calls either my position, or the published literature I provided into question.

I predict no such information will be forthcoming....prove me wrong....I TRIPPLE dog dare ya....

Total bullshit.


NASA are just rocket scientists.

One trick pony strikes again....no rebuttal, no attempt to even try and offer up anything at all to challenge either my position or the peer reviewed, published literature I provided.

Tell me dave, does your response seem in any way smart to you? When you make claims, I provide actual science that contradicts them...when I make claims, you don't because you can't...why do you even bother to answer if looking like an idiot child is the best you can do? Do you enjoy being made a fool of? Do you like having people know that you aren't very bright? Do you think you are fooling anyone at all?

Rebuttal? You have been rebuttred a gazillkipn times & yopu juast don;tr get it.

You are a fool who thinks they know more than NASA. So just fuck off. If only it it were just your children & grandchildren that would suffer from your ignorance.

 

[RealDave]

I am not a chemist. You are not a climatologist.

I never claimed to be and yet, I can provide peer reviewed, published literature from climatologists which support my position while you can provide exactly squat in terms of actual science to support yours...

And I am able to discuss chemistry as well, while you don't even understand what was written for children in the link you provided.

The level of my link was directed at you.

Except it was you who didn't even understand what was provided in the link for children you posted...that was written for kids in the 5th grade, and you didn't understand that it had nothing to do with what raineydays and i were talking about. Your grasp of science is less than that of a 5th grader and you expect ANYONE to believe that you are able to read any actual science and determine whether it has merit or not? How old are you dave? 10? 12?

Clearly you are not working with anything like an adult level of understanding of any sort of science.

You & rainman evidently want to calculate the amount of rise of CO2 levels in our atmosphere by solely adding in emissions.

Again, complete failure to understand what was written...but hey, feel free to cut and paste anything from either one of us making such a claim.

Again, I predict no such cut and paste will be provided because neither of us said any such thing.

This is an obvious sign thaty neither of you know shit about pur atmosphere & how CO2 levels get to what they are.

No dave..it is an obvious sign that you can't read and understand the words in front of you...but again...feel free to cut and paste any statement from either of us in which we say what you claimed. Either you are stupid...or just a bald faced liar.

I said you need to figure in the amount of CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere & you two assfucks had as fit basically denying this as a factor.

You claimed to already know...then you were challenged on that knowledge and now you are thrashing about like a scalded cat trying to make it appear as if you didn't fail to meet the challenge you were given.

Are you a liar, or are you stupid...or both? Once again...cut and paste any such statement by either one of us...and prove that you aren't stupid, or a liar...or both.

I predict no such cut and paste will be appearing because you are in fact either stupid, a liar, or both.

Sorry but when you don't even consider the Earth's absorption of CO2, you are a fool.

The challenge we are given is to do something to help reduce the effects of Climate Change.

Instead you run in circles screaming false analysis & conspiracy theories.

The joke is not on you, it is you.

 

[ReinyDays]

Rebuttal? You have been rebuttred a gazillkipn times & yopu juast don;tr get it.

You are a fool who thinks they know more than NASA. So just fuck off. If only it it were just your children & grandchildren that would suffer from your ignorance.

Your rebuttal to one of your seven claims was that NASA didn't make that claim ...

We were up to how NASA defines "dire" and you explaining why 15% less sea ice in the Arctic is catastrophic even when balanced against the direct sea lanes between Europe and East Asia ...

Try and control your emotions ... your spelting is going to shit and it makes you look like a complete idiot ...

 

[miketx]

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.

You're a lying sack.

 

[SSDD]

One trick pony strikes again....makes hysterical claims, then rejects all science used to rebut those claims and provides nothing upon which a rejection might be seen as a rational answer....you forgot the impotent name calling after you fail to defend your claims...I like the impotent name calling.

Is that all you have? You reject my answer? Based on what exactly? You certainly haven't shown any evidence at all that anything I put there was wrong...and it wasn't "my" analysis...it was peer reviewed, published paper after paper...the fact that you have absolutely nothing to offer up which suggests that any of it is wrong and yet you still reject it says all that needs to be said about you.

You are a walking talking puppet...incapable of any sort of independent thought at all....a mere tool of people who have a political agenda and not nearly bright enough to see your situation.

I rejected your phony analysis. Your claims are hysterical & rejected by real climatologists.

You keep saying that. I made no analysis. I simply provided multiple peer reviewed, published papers which supported my position.

And I asked you to provide some actual science from climatologists which questioned the content of the published literature I provided. You didn't, because there are no papers by climatologists which call the content of any of those papers into question. In fact, I doubt that you could find a single published paper in which one of your experts uses empirical evidence to support a claim that human beings are responsible for any significant portion of the rise we have seen in CO2.

In short dave...you lose yet again. You should have seen this trend developing on the first page of your post when you were unable to defend your position right out of the gate. Just one more problem with being a bot...a talking puppet who is being used by people who have a political agenda...

But hey, feel free to prove me wrong by posting up some sort of actual science which calls either my position, or the published literature I provided into question.

I predict no such information will be forthcoming....prove me wrong....I TRIPPLE dog dare ya....

Total bullshit.


NASA are just rocket scientists.

One trick pony strikes again....no rebuttal, no attempt to even try and offer up anything at all to challenge either my position or the peer reviewed, published literature I provided.

Tell me dave, does your response seem in any way smart to you? When you make claims, I provide actual science that contradicts them...when I make claims, you don't because you can't...why do you even bother to answer if looking like an idiot child is the best you can do? Do you enjoy being made a fool of? Do you like having people know that you aren't very bright? Do you think you are fooling anyone at all?

Rebuttal? You have been rebuttred a gazillkipn times & yopu juast don;tr get it.

A gazillikipin times huh....I wager that you cant even provide either a link (if you are bright enough to manage such a feat) or the post number to a single one.

Why tell lies that are so easily caught out? Are you really that stupid or just that big a liar?

You are a fool who thinks they know more than NASA. So just fuck off. If only it it were just your children & grandchildren that would suffer from your ignorance.

Sill waiting for you to produce some actual science from NASA that says I am wrong...clearly you can't do it because there is none...there is only your fantasy...

 

[RealDave]

I rejected your phony analysis. Your claims are hysterical & rejected by real climatologists.

You keep saying that. I made no analysis. I simply provided multiple peer reviewed, published papers which supported my position.

And I asked you to provide some actual science from climatologists which questioned the content of the published literature I provided. You didn't, because there are no papers by climatologists which call the content of any of those papers into question. In fact, I doubt that you could find a single published paper in which one of your experts uses empirical evidence to support a claim that human beings are responsible for any significant portion of the rise we have seen in CO2.

In short dave...you lose yet again. You should have seen this trend developing on the first page of your post when you were unable to defend your position right out of the gate. Just one more problem with being a bot...a talking puppet who is being used by people who have a political agenda...

But hey, feel free to prove me wrong by posting up some sort of actual science which calls either my position, or the published literature I provided into question.

I predict no such information will be forthcoming....prove me wrong....I TRIPPLE dog dare ya....

Total bullshit.


NASA are just rocket scientists.

One trick pony strikes again....no rebuttal, no attempt to even try and offer up anything at all to challenge either my position or the peer reviewed, published literature I provided.

Tell me dave, does your response seem in any way smart to you? When you make claims, I provide actual science that contradicts them...when I make claims, you don't because you can't...why do you even bother to answer if looking like an idiot child is the best you can do? Do you enjoy being made a fool of? Do you like having people know that you aren't very bright? Do you think you are fooling anyone at all?

Rebuttal? You have been rebuttred a gazillkipn times & yopu juast don;tr get it.

A gazillikipin times huh....I wager that you cant even provide either a link (if you are bright enough to manage such a feat) or the post number to a single one.

Why tell lies that are so easily caught out? Are you really that stupid or just that big a liar?

You are a fool who thinks they know more than NASA. So just fuck off. If only it it were just your children & grandchildren that would suffer from your ignorance.

Sill waiting for you to produce some actual science from NASA that says I am wrong...clearly you can't do it because there is none...there is only your fantasy...

I called NASA, they don;t know who you are.

NASA says MMGW is real & dumbass you says it isn't.

What else do I need?

 

[RealDave]

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.

You're a lying sack.

You fucking idiot.

Either you knew this was fake, in which case you are a fucking asshole

Or you don't, which makes you a duped fool.

Which is it?

FACT CHECK: Did a 1977 'Time' Story Offer Tips on 'How to Survive the Coming Ice Age'?

 

[RealDave]

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.

You're a lying sack.

The real cover from 10977 you lying sack of shit. Dumbass Mikey from Texas proven to be a fool yet again.

 

[miketx]

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.

You're a lying sack.

You fucking idiot.

Either you knew this was fake, in which case you are a fucking asshole

Or you don't, which makes you a duped fool.

Which is it?

FACT CHECK: Did a 1977 'Time' Story Offer Tips on 'How to Survive the Coming Ice Age'?

A liar quoting a liar as proof.

 

[RealDave]

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.

You're a lying sack.

You fucking idiot.

Either you knew this was fake, in which case you are a fucking asshole

Or you don't, which makes you a duped fool.

Which is it?

FACT CHECK: Did a 1977 'Time' Story Offer Tips on 'How to Survive the Coming Ice Age'?

A liar quoting a liar as proof.

Well, assfuck mikey. Why don't you go to the Time website & search for a pic of the cover in question.

 

[RealDave]

This link is for dumbass mikey

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age