Would someone prove me wrong...USA has nearly 6 times the number of trees necessary

[Toddsterpatriot]

REMEMBER the deficits start at Zero each year.

Bush ran up the National Debt from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, he added $4.9 trillion.

Obama ran up the National Debt from $10.6 trillion to $19.1 trillion, so far, for an addition of $8.5 trillion.

8.5 is 73% more than 4.9

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

You should probably stop posting math, because you suck at it, seriously.

And once you are talking about the DEBT!
NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???
The national debt is when there is a deficit the US borrows to pay the deficit. That borrowing adds to the DEBT!
The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush and remember NOTHING adverse has happened during Obama's terms!
NO hurricanes. NO 9/11... No dot.com bust that cost $8 trillion in market losses. NOTHING of those gigantic events.
So why is that hard to admit? THEY happened! Nothing like that has happened to obama. And in spite of NO major events that costs TAX revenues
ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

And once you are talking about the DEBT!

Yes, that's what you get when you spend more than revenues.

NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???

The deficit spending adds to the debt, that's why I'm showing how much was added to the debt.

The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush

Nope. Obama's deficit spending is $8.5 trillion, so far, compared to $4.9 trillion, for Bush.

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

You should stop posting your math errors, they make you look stupid.

OK one last time: 7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

View attachment 67358

7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion...

Don't know where you got 2.005 trillion for Bush's deficits, but you're way, way off.

7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Which would mean an almost 300% increase, if your bad numbers were correct.

Try this, what percentage increase if you go from 3 to 6?

You asked!

View attachment 67378
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).

Bush spent $3.546 trillion but when you subtract TARP which WAS PAID BACK PLUS $50B IN PROFIT.
Deduct $550 B from what was spent is $3.046 Billion. While Obama spent $6.220 Trillion and deduct $550B he spent $6.770 Trillion.

Divide $6.770 trillion Obama spent by Bush's $3.046 trillion and you get: 222%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

And what is the percentage increase?

 

[healthmyths]

And once you are talking about the DEBT!
NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???
The national debt is when there is a deficit the US borrows to pay the deficit. That borrowing adds to the DEBT!
The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush and remember NOTHING adverse has happened during Obama's terms!
NO hurricanes. NO 9/11... No dot.com bust that cost $8 trillion in market losses. NOTHING of those gigantic events.
So why is that hard to admit? THEY happened! Nothing like that has happened to obama. And in spite of NO major events that costs TAX revenues
ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

And once you are talking about the DEBT!

Yes, that's what you get when you spend more than revenues.

NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???

The deficit spending adds to the debt, that's why I'm showing how much was added to the debt.

The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush

Nope. Obama's deficit spending is $8.5 trillion, so far, compared to $4.9 trillion, for Bush.

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

You should stop posting your math errors, they make you look stupid.

OK one last time: 7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

View attachment 67358

7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion...

Don't know where you got 2.005 trillion for Bush's deficits, but you're way, way off.

7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Which would mean an almost 300% increase, if your bad numbers were correct.

Try this, what percentage increase if you go from 3 to 6?

You asked!

View attachment 67378
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).

Bush spent $3.546 trillion but when you subtract TARP which WAS PAID BACK PLUS $50B IN PROFIT.
Deduct $550 B from what was spent is $3.046 Billion. While Obama spent $6.220 Trillion and deduct $550B he spent $6.770 Trillion.

Divide $6.770 trillion Obama spent by Bush's $3.046 trillion and you get: 222%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

And what is the percentage increase?

The percentage increase is determined by subtracting 3 from 6 or 3.
Divide 3/6 and you get 50% increase.
The point though is Obama spent 200% more then Bush did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And once you are talking about the DEBT!

Yes, that's what you get when you spend more than revenues.

NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???

The deficit spending adds to the debt, that's why I'm showing how much was added to the debt.

The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush

Nope. Obama's deficit spending is $8.5 trillion, so far, compared to $4.9 trillion, for Bush.

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

You should stop posting your math errors, they make you look stupid.

OK one last time: 7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

View attachment 67358

7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion...

Don't know where you got 2.005 trillion for Bush's deficits, but you're way, way off.

7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Which would mean an almost 300% increase, if your bad numbers were correct.

Try this, what percentage increase if you go from 3 to 6?

You asked!

View attachment 67378
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).

Bush spent $3.546 trillion but when you subtract TARP which WAS PAID BACK PLUS $50B IN PROFIT.
Deduct $550 B from what was spent is $3.046 Billion. While Obama spent $6.220 Trillion and deduct $550B he spent $6.770 Trillion.

Divide $6.770 trillion Obama spent by Bush's $3.046 trillion and you get: 222%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

And what is the percentage increase?

The percentage increase is determined by subtracting 3 from 6 or 3.
Divide 3/6 and you get 50% increase.
The point though is Obama spent 200% more then Bush did.

The percentage increase is determined by subtracting 3 from 6 or 3.
Divide 3/6 and you get 50% increase.

50% increase? Wow!

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!
7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Why didn't you subtract something here? Before you came up with your incorrect 400%?

 

[healthmyths]

OK one last time: 7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

View attachment 67358

7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion...

Don't know where you got 2.005 trillion for Bush's deficits, but you're way, way off.

7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Which would mean an almost 300% increase, if your bad numbers were correct.

Try this, what percentage increase if you go from 3 to 6?

You asked!

View attachment 67378
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).

Bush spent $3.546 trillion but when you subtract TARP which WAS PAID BACK PLUS $50B IN PROFIT.
Deduct $550 B from what was spent is $3.046 Billion. While Obama spent $6.220 Trillion and deduct $550B he spent $6.770 Trillion.

Divide $6.770 trillion Obama spent by Bush's $3.046 trillion and you get: 222%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

And what is the percentage increase?

The percentage increase is determined by subtracting 3 from 6 or 3.
Divide 3/6 and you get 50% increase.
The point though is Obama spent 200% more then Bush did.

The percentage increase is determined by subtracting 3 from 6 or 3.
Divide 3/6 and you get 50% increase.

50% increase? Wow!

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!
7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Why didn't you subtract something here? Before you came up with your incorrect 400%?

Because each year the deficit starts at ZERO! Do you understand?
Bush started with zero then spent more the revenue came in as did Obama.
Consequently when you add up the deficits starting at zero each year for the budgets they were responsible for.
Obama spent 200% more i.e. had 200% more deficits then Bush.
Start from Zero!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion...

Don't know where you got 2.005 trillion for Bush's deficits, but you're way, way off.

7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Which would mean an almost 300% increase, if your bad numbers were correct.

Try this, what percentage increase if you go from 3 to 6?

You asked!

View attachment 67378
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).

Bush spent $3.546 trillion but when you subtract TARP which WAS PAID BACK PLUS $50B IN PROFIT.
Deduct $550 B from what was spent is $3.046 Billion. While Obama spent $6.220 Trillion and deduct $550B he spent $6.770 Trillion.

Divide $6.770 trillion Obama spent by Bush's $3.046 trillion and you get: 222%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

And what is the percentage increase?

The percentage increase is determined by subtracting 3 from 6 or 3.
Divide 3/6 and you get 50% increase.
The point though is Obama spent 200% more then Bush did.

The percentage increase is determined by subtracting 3 from 6 or 3.
Divide 3/6 and you get 50% increase.

50% increase? Wow!

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!
7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Why didn't you subtract something here? Before you came up with your incorrect 400%?

Because each year the deficit starts at ZERO! Do you understand?
Bush started with zero then spent more the revenue came in as did Obama.
Consequently when you add up the deficits starting at zero each year for the budgets they were responsible for.
Obama spent 200% more i.e. had 200% more deficits then Bush.
Start from Zero!

Because each year the deficit starts at ZERO! Do you understand?

If you say so.

Obama spent 200% more i.e. had 200% more deficits then Bush.

Spending more than Bush is not the same as having more deficits.
Obama could have spent more than Bush and had smaller deficits....
Obama could have spent less than Bush and had larger deficits....

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!
7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Why didn't you subtract something here? Before you came up with your incorrect 400%?

 

[sonic]

This whole theory depends on trees sitting above every CO2 producing entity to capture the emissions. Most of the stuff goes straight into the air and stays in the atmosphere for 200 years! Right out of smokestacks, millions of cars sitting on freeways, not to mention the methane from the cattle industry rising from open fields into our poisoned atmosphere. Sure, trees deal with a percentage of it, as evidenced by countless numbers of trees choking and dying from air pollution in the mountains above the L.A. Basin, but they can't handle nearly enough.

 

[healthmyths]

This whole theory depends on trees sitting above every CO2 producing entity to capture the emissions. Most of the stuff goes straight into the air and stays in the atmosphere for 200 years! Right out of smokestacks, millions of cars sitting on freeways, not to mention the methane from the cattle industry rising from open fields into our poisoned atmosphere. Sure, trees deal with a percentage of it, as evidenced by countless numbers of trees choking and dying from air pollution in the mountains above the L.A. Basin, but they can't handle nearly enough.

Who in the hell are you? What is your expertise? Where are your substantiating links?
Why should anyone believe YOUR totally subjective personalized opinions?
What is wrong with using the Internet and reputable authorities for your statement?

Your "opinion" means nothing.

 

[healthmyths]

For those that seemingly are Internet search ignorant!

Today, CO2 concentrations are barely at 380 ppm -- still CO2-impoverished.
Many scientists strongly believe that we should be trying to produce more CO2, not less. And for good reason.

"Carbon is the building block for all life on earth. It provides all of the food and most the energy for the human race. Carbon dioxide is a tiny part of the atmosphere, yet it sustains all life on earth. It is NOT a pollutant.
To be anti-carbon is to be anti-life and anti-human". - Viv Forbes, Pasture Manager, Soil Scientist and Geologist
Did you know that many farmers operate machines which produce CO2 in their greenhouses to encourage plant growth?

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not to be confused with its poisonous evil cousin carbon monoxide (CO), which can kill humans and animals in just a few minutes.
Life as we know it could not exist without carbon DIOXIDE in our atmosphere.

Did you also know that carbon dioxide is actually invisible? The puffs of clouds you see from coal-fired power plants are just that -- clouds.
Power plants use steam to drive the turbines which generate electricity.
Steam must be cooled and condensed to water to reuse it to make more steam.
The fat, curvy towers that look like they are belching white smoke are really only emitting pure water vapor. They are in effect making clouds.
The actual exhaust emissions come from the smokestack, which is the tall skinny tower. Because modern technology makes it possible to remove much of the fly ash and sulfur before releasing smokestack gases to the air, smokestack emissons today are often almost invisible.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere today are NOT at record high levels.
Carbon Dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (380 ppmv) that the "slice" it represents in charts is really only a "line" about 1/2 as thick as a line can be shown. Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished."

In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm, except during periods of glacial expansion during ice ages.

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period). Temperature after C.R. Scotese Climate History

I Love CO2: CO2 & Climate Facts
These are the facts about CO2... not myths!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And once you are talking about the DEBT!

Yes, that's what you get when you spend more than revenues.

NOT deficit spending do you understand the difference???

The deficit spending adds to the debt, that's why I'm showing how much was added to the debt.

The deficit spending by Obama WAS 400% more then Bush

Nope. Obama's deficit spending is $8.5 trillion, so far, compared to $4.9 trillion, for Bush.

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!

You should stop posting your math errors, they make you look stupid.

OK one last time: 7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

View attachment 67358

7.842 trillion Obama rung up in deficits divide by Bush's 2.005 trillion...

Don't know where you got 2.005 trillion for Bush's deficits, but you're way, way off.

7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Which would mean an almost 300% increase, if your bad numbers were correct.

Try this, what percentage increase if you go from 3 to 6?

You asked!

View attachment 67378
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).

Bush spent $3.546 trillion but when you subtract TARP which WAS PAID BACK PLUS $50B IN PROFIT.
Deduct $550 B from what was spent is $3.046 Billion. While Obama spent $6.220 Trillion and deduct $550B he spent $6.770 Trillion.

Divide $6.770 trillion Obama spent by Bush's $3.046 trillion and you get: 222%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

Dividing 6 by 3 and you get 200%

And what is the percentage increase?

The percentage increase is determined by subtracting 3 from 6 or 3.
Divide 3/6 and you get 50% increase.
The point though is Obama spent 200% more then Bush did.

The percentage increase is determined by subtracting 3 from 6 or 3.
Divide 3/6 and you get 50% increase.

50% increase? Wow!

ObAMA has spent 400% more then BUSH!
7.842 trillion .. divide by.. 2.005 trillion... almost 400%

Why didn't you subtract something here? Before you came up with your incorrect 400%?

 

[mamooth]

For those that seemingly are Internet search ignorant!

Today, CO2 concentrations are barely at 380 ppm

Over 400 ppm and climbing. Talk about search ignorant, you're kind of the definition.

-- still CO2-impoverished.

Many scientists strongly believe that we should be trying to produce more CO2, not less. And for good reason

No, only a couple internet cranks are pushing such a dumb conspiracy theory.

Anyways, it looks like you're jumping to a new conspiracy theory. After your "but the trees can eat it all!" conspiracy got shot down, I guess you had to do something. That one was particularly dumb. Since CO2 levels are climbing fast, it is very obvious that the existing trees are not eating all the CO2. That point is not arguable.

 

[healthmyths]

For those that seemingly are Internet search ignorant!

Today, CO2 concentrations are barely at 380 ppm

Over 400 ppm and climbing. Talk about search ignorant, you're kind of the definition.

-- still CO2-impoverished.

Many scientists strongly believe that we should be trying to produce more CO2, not less. And for good reason

No, only a couple internet cranks are pushing such a dumb conspiracy theory.

Anyways, it looks like you're jumping to a new conspiracy theory. After your "but the trees can eat it all!" conspiracy got shot down, I guess you had to do something. That one was particularly dumb. Since CO2 levels are climbing fast, it is very obvious that the existing trees are not eating all the CO2. That point is not arguable.

Where is your proof CO2 levels are "climbing fast"? What is meant by "fast"?

More importantly refute this:

If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?
For only "pennies a day," any greenhouse owner can produce CO2 to help increase plant yields in their greenhouses. That's the message on CO2 generators sold by greenhouse supply companies across the United States and Canada. "1,500 ppm [of carbon dioxide] can be achieved... these generators automatically provide the carbon dioxide needed to meet maximum growing potential for only pennies a day," the ad says.

Learn more: If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?

 

[mamooth]

If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?

Because greenhouses are very different from the real world. You need to get away from your ivory tower fancy theories and look at the real world, like the scientists do.

Many factors limit plant growth, like water, temperature, sunlight, phosphorous, nitrogen, potassium or CO2. Plants can grow only as fast as the most limiting factor allows.

In the greenhouse, all the other limiting factors are supplied in abundance, so CO2 ends up being the most limiting factor, hence increasing it increases plant growth.

Outside of a greenhouse, CO2 is rarely the most limiting factor, hence increasing it has little effect.

 

[healthmyths]

The entire history of CO2 emissions is based on the continuous testing from Mauna Loa Hawaii sitting on type of a volcano.
Global Patterns of Carbon Dioxide : Image of the Day
The below though are satellite readings and note the wide range in CO2 PPM.
Ranging from obviously lows in Arctic/Antarctic the rest of the world has a range of CO2 PPM.
YET where is the single source of all the alarm about rising CO2? sitting on a volcano in Hawaii.
Looking at the below globe NOTE the highest PPM is in the Labrador Sea NE of Canada and SW of Greenland. Why?
Another really hot spot is north of Japan in the Sea of Okhotsk, east of Russia and West of the Kamchatka Peninsula. Why?
But the major point of the below globe is the gross exaggeration and alarm of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii and using
that as the measuring stick! Why not give a more accurate picture as the below globe shows. The range going from 391 with the predominance of the globe being LESS them 402 PPM of CO2. In fact using the color bar code below the rest of the world is proportionally WAY below the alarmist figure!