It is now official. No global warming of the earth's environment in 15 years.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by James Cessna, Feb 14, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There have been greater concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than we have now.

    CO2 that came from natural sources and did not burn the planet to a cinder.

    In fact if you raise CO2 it will actually increase food production.

    What you are doing is arguing against climate change when change is natural and unavoidable no matter how many coal-fired electric generators you close.
     
  2. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just calling it names does not change the reality.

    The lib climate change crowd has tried to bully and intimidate the public with scare tactics and now your scam is losing its affect.
     
  3. Anobsitar

    Anobsitar Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    7,628
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    63
    (*)(*)(*)(*)ed: GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A POLITICAL PROBLEM! The only political question is what to do against global warming. And the USA is doing less than nothing to solve this problem.

    http://youtu.be/peTnXmZxuZQ
     
  4. daisydotell

    daisydotell Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,930
    Likes Received:
    6,499
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread is not personal please don't make it personal with insults.
    Stay on topic and post what you believe about global warming.
     
  5. DonGlock26

    DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    47,159
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I'm looking for someone to say that it is untrue. I didn't see that in your posts. Perhaps, you could find a direct quote.


    _
     
  6. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course it's a political problem as freaked out environmentalists try to persuade the rest of mankind to cut our own throats.
     
  7. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes and it had an effect on the planet then too

    The whole science of Palaeoclimatology has just passed denialists by hasn't it?


    Yes it is called, by the scientists, the NATURAL CYCLE - now what happens when you add more of something to a balanced system?? Hint hint it goes OUT of balance

    I could tell you that is a myth, I could tell you that you are in error but I think today I will be brutally honest and call BULL(*)(*)(*)(*)

    It can increase SOME production but it takes more than CO2 to increase plant growth and if you have severe droughts, like in Texas, and flooding rains, like in Queensland then all the CO2 in the world is not going to help
    http://www.newscientist.com/article...l-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html
    And now we have a new definition of "natural"
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
  9. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But we don't always have severe droughts, do we?

    Or floods.

    The fact is that plants respond very positively to increased levels of CO2.

    And the reason why is that they developed over millions of years with greater CO2 levels than we have now.

    Which is another way of saying that CO2 may be less than ideal rather than more as liberals seem to think.
     
  10. Never Left

    Never Left Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    30,220
    Likes Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your right, its not a political problrm. Its a political agenda.

    Its a ponzi scheme to confiscate wealth from rich nations and give it to poor nations that are poor because they are underdeveloped and have ineffective governemnts.
     
  11. Foolardi

    Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    47,987
    Likes Received:
    6,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But the Cats out of the bag.It is no longer about verifiable
    accurate data.It's about The Movement.And a Kennedy
    Circling the wagon mindset.Global Warming Freaks are not going to
    stop with their propaganda.Just yesterday I noticed another corruption
    thru their efforts.Carl Sagan's Wikipedia Bio has been slightly
    corrupted.It has a sentence suggesting Sagan was worried about
    Global Warming.
     
  12. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are indeed correct, Foolardi!

    The least suggestion that global warming is a natural phenomenon causes the Global Warming Freaks to literally go ballistic.

    This movement has become a religion to them. They simply cannot let it go!


    [​IMG]
     
  13. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    CO2 has been increasing for 150 years. Where is the positive response in plants been hiding for the last 150 years?
     
  14. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It (CO2) hasn't changed much in the past 150 years so we still have a long way to go before it reaches critical levels.

    But it is documented that plants grow bigger with more CO2.
     
  15. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A 40% increase is not a significant change? What would your weight be if it increased 40%?
    According to you, what are the critical levels?
     
  16. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you begin from a very low base then 40% sounds big but really isn't.
     
  17. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nor does everyone agree that CO2 has gone up as much as claimed.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

     
  18. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where you begin is irrelevant when you use percentage. Basic math.

    You are confusing air borne fraction and total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere; they are not the same!
     
  19. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where you begin does matter.

    If you make a dollar an hour and I give you a 40% raise that is still not very much money.
     
  20. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How is it turning the world upside down to take a market based approach to controlling emissions that's been used successfully for 20 years on acid rain emissions and applying it to CO2?

    If you're sick you go to a doctor. If your car breaks down, you go to a mechanic. If you're in legal trouble you go to a lawyer. If your finances are a mess, you go to an accountant. And if the climate is doing weird things, then you go to a climatologist.

    Climate scientists are the people who have spent years of hard work and sleepless nights to earn the privilege of putting PhD after their names. They're the ones who have spent their professional lives trying to understand a really complex and difficult subject. They're the experts. And ignoring the experts just because you don't like what they're saying is foolish. Especially since the only reason you don't like what they're saying is because you've been lied to for years by self interested people who don't give a crap about you or your principles, who have played on your fears by trumping up an imaginary boogeyman.

    I don't know about you, but if someone tried to pull that on me, I'd be mad. Really mad.
    Of course your side tries to scare the public with dire predictions of high gas prices, economic collapse, oppressive government and who knows what else if we don't do as Fox News demands.

    You may be a victim of those scare tactics yourself.
     
  21. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are indeed correct, Mac.

    Anyone who understands simple math (most of the liberals in this group obviously do not!) can to the following basic calculations.

    40% of 1.0 is 0.4. Therefore, increase from 1.0 to 1.4 is a 40% increase.

    40% of 10.0 is 4. Therefore, increase from 10.0 to 14.0 a 40% increase.

    40% of 100 is 40. Therefore, increase from 100 to 140 is a 40% increase.

    If the CO2 concentration in the earth's atmosphere is 10 ppm an increase of 40% to 14 ppm is not much!

    If the CO2 concentration in the earth's atmosphere is 100 ppm, an increase of 40% to 140.0 ppm is a moderate increase!

    If the CO2 concentration in the earth's atmosphere is 400 ppm, an increase of 40% to 560 ppm is a large increase!

    Do any of the liberals in this group know what the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is today? ... I'll bet they do not!

    Case closed. Problem solved!
     
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Does anyone here know simple physics? I bet they do not

    I will use the analogy that Poor Debater uses.

    When you put a drop of ink into water it changes colour does it not? And yet the amount of ink you are adding is only a fraction of the total amount of water.

    If you cannot understand that then think of a mirror = who much of the mirror is the actual reflective surface?
     
  23. Lunchboxxy

    Lunchboxxy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,732
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    To say what is untrue exactly? I'm sure I'll be happy to point it out.
     
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And we are back to cartoons again

    Obviously formulation of intelligent answers are not a criteria to post
     
  25. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We can measure, and PROVE the effects of ink in water, as well as the thickness of the reflective surface of a mirror.

    Now, please, PROVE the thermo/insulative effects of 382-400 PPM , or
    .000382-.000400, atmospheric concentrations, of CO2.

    Not a "hypothesis", but an ACTUAL CHEMICAL TEST, with a CONTROL, a DEFINED VARIABLE, and VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE RESULTS.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page