Yea, old crock is looking for the missing link, his kin.link?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yea, old crock is looking for the missing link, his kin.link?
A few years ago a peer reviewed paper blamed the obesity epidemic on increasing CO2 levels, based on scant and conflicting evidence.
Proof that anything can be blamed on CO2, no matter how absurd.
My, my, Ian, you are sounding more and more like jc and Silly Billy. Fine company you are keeping there.
Nope. I have just had six or seven years of experience with your dishonest contributions here. You run away from topics where you have be shown wrong and seemingly forget it ever happened. The next time the topic comes up you demand that the whole thing be proven all over again. Like I said, a waste of time.
My, my, Ian, you are sounding more and more like jc and Silly Billy. Fine company you are keeping there.
Nope. I have just had six or seven years of experience with your dishonest contributions here. You run away from topics where you have be shown wrong and seemingly forget it ever happened. The next time the topic comes up you demand that the whole thing be proven all over again. Like I said, a waste of time.
Typical liberal behavior.
They use the tactic in all their threads.
Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.
The CO2 tipping point made you reply with stupidity.The OP's source never had anyone claiming "CO2 makes you stupid".
Yet Billy is claiming it did. He actually thought the statement "400 ppm is a psychological tipping point" was someone saying "CO2 physically makes people stupid", and then he went off on several raving points to disprove that strawman.
Conclusion: Billy is a jabbering moron and skilled propagandist.
A couple other deniers used Billy's propaganda rant as an excuse to push their own victimhood tantrums, not caring about any silly facts. But why should they care? Cultists aren't concerned with honesty or making sense. They only care about pushing the goals of the cult, and will justify any sleaze in the name of that. Now that deniers have given up on the science, they're only interesting as examples of abnormal cult psychology.
A few years ago a peer reviewed paper blamed the obesity epidemic on increasing CO2 levels, based on scant and conflicting evidence.
Proof that anything can be blamed on CO2, no matter how absurd.
Dr Fraser said the difference between 399 and 400ppm was trivial, but when it does hit 400ppm mark it would be a “psychological tipping point”....
To put the 400ppm into perspective, Dr Fraser said if you stood near a highway with cars going past, you could be hit with 500ppm of CO2....
Yes it was a “psychological tipping point”. At that point it gave the rabid deniers a chance to rejoice,
Nothing happened! ... We won! ... The models are wrong! ... algore is a moron!, etc.
What's your point? Do you think mainstream climate scientists or the folks at the IPCC are worried about the high price of lawyers or kidney stones? Mind you, a great deal of the things on your list ARE threatened by global warming and ARE things we ought to be concerned about: the extinction of whales (and many other species), agricultural failures, increasingly intense storms and so forth.
What's worrisome is that you think none of this applies to you. Fool.
Dr Fraser said the difference between 399 and 400ppm was trivial, but when it does hit 400ppm mark it would be a “psychological tipping point”....
To put the 400ppm into perspective, Dr Fraser said if you stood near a highway with cars going past, you could be hit with 500ppm of CO2....
Yes it was a “psychological tipping point”. At that point it gave the rabid deniers a chance to rejoice,
Nothing happened! ... We won! ... The models are wrong! ... algore is a moron!, etc.
All of which is true
they also stated more severe weather, more hurricanes and bzzzzzzzt nothing of the sort.Evidence of the scam:
"scientific Consensus"
Was Global Warming, now Climate Change so as to cover everything.
Intolerance of opposing views and marginalizing of contrary evidence.
Intimidation.
Fraud.
And the biggest clue to the scam: the answer to the problem is to elect more democrats and push the left wing agenda.
Whales? Now that is a glaring admission of your ignorance.What's your point? Do you think mainstream climate scientists or the folks at the IPCC are worried about the high price of lawyers or kidney stones? Mind you, a great deal of the things on your list ARE threatened by global warming and ARE things we ought to be concerned about: the extinction of whales (and many other species), agricultural failures, increasingly intense storms and so forth.
What's worrisome is that you think none of this applies to you. Fool.
Now this is just o dam funny...
sourceDr Fraser said the difference between 399 and 400ppm was trivial, but when it does hit 400ppm mark it would be a “psychological tipping point”....
To put the 400ppm into perspective, Dr Fraser said if you stood near a highway with cars going past, you could be hit with 500ppm of CO2....
So its simply how to make people feel afraid and give up their rights...
Then we have US Submarine Operations, you know the guys who have their fingers on nuclear launch codes, who live at 3,500ppm on average and have operated at 11,300ppm without ill effect, Claim: CO2 makes you stupid? Ask a submariner that question
Hilarious.... Their cry's of doom are simply psychological warfare for their agenda..
Change the topic, you stated that global warming drove the Whales to extinction, I can see why you want to run and hide from that post, but stating someone is changing the topic, is hardly the way to ignore your ignorance.You're trying to change the topic. The point is that most of this list of nonsense is just that and only that. It has nothing to do with the validity of AGW and the threats it poses.
Cause there is less smog and pollution in the cities!No wonder why you clipped those pieces out of the story because the whole story would show you a liar.
He said if country air reached 400ppm that the cities would see more smog and pollution. I have yet to see you present a reason why this is wrong.
And the reason you lied about the link shows you have nothing to stand on but lies.