Earth will die from LACK of CO2!

CO2 is a trace gas.........im not worried either way. Evidently, a huge majority of the population isnt either.

Progressives though......they worry about everything. Somethngs gotta be angst in their life ALL THE FUCKING TIME!! Its called embracing the tragic view of life.
 
But.............nice attempt at a smokescreen.

Bahahaha... seriously? After what you just pulled? Man, you got some nerve, I'll give you that!

And no, most people who reject AGW nonsense, are not Fox News watchers, or Fox would be kicking CNN and MSNBC in the ass much worse than they are. But I love how you just pull these opinions from your ass and present them as if they are facts. It stands to reason you'd be the kind of dullard who would lap up whatever kook theory came along, just to be popular.

You're right..............CO2 IS a chemical compound

Yeah, I know I am right. Glad you could admit it. Now if I could get you to understand I am also right about AGW being a farce and a charlatan scheme to bilk money from corporations, we'd be getting somewhere. But the same lack of scientific intelligence that makes you say stupid shit, like CO2 is a gas, also keeps you from comprehending what CO2 does, and how prevalent it is in the universe. You're a gullible little parroting sheep who has to carry the message for DailyKos and MoveOn, because that's what Al Gore told you to do.
 
especially when most people have access to the internet and can look these things up on Wiki, or Google it to find the truth.

Yes, because we all know, if it's posted on Wikipedia or the Internet, it's Gospel Truth that can't be disputed!
 
CO2 is a trace gas.........im not worried either way. Evidently, a huge majority of the population isnt either.

Progressives though......they worry about everything. Somethngs gotta be angst in their life ALL THE FUCKING TIME!! Its called embracing the tragic view of life.

It's not just the angst, it is the underlying reason for the angst. In this case, the alarmist AGW bullshit, is all about granting more governmental power to punish corporations. It's part of the overall Socialist-Marxist agenda, where government controls everything, because we're all just too stupid to govern ourselves. You see, their angst is always centered around the fact they believe we need less freedom, because our freedom leads to trouble. We can't handle freedom, we're too stupid, we'll destroy the planet if they don't step in to remove our freedom and place us under government control.

If they came right out and honestly admitted this, I would probably have more respect for their opinions, but they aren't honest at all. They create these emotive issues of angst, tug and pull at our heartstrings, plea to our emotions, play on our sympathies, and manipulate the conversation any way possible, in order to advance their agenda. They'll lie, distort, ignore facts, and brazenly claim intellectual superiority over the rest of us, because nothing can interfere with the agenda. Then, they have the unmitigated gall to claim WE are the brainwashed fools.
 
The only retards here are people who don't grasp 8th grade science enough to realize they are being hosed. Political cult? Brainwashing? Whatever are you talking about, fool? I know people who are Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, and Anarchist, who don't worship at the alter in the Church of Al Gore! Get real!p

Why are you trying to pretend you're not part of the right-wing extremist fringe cult? It's not like you're fooling anyone, thus there's no point in trying to keep up the charade. AGW denialism isn't the actual cult. AGW denialism is one of the many required beliefs of the right-wing extremist fringe cult.

Here's a hint. Only kook fringe cults require enemies. The people on the rational side don't care about Gore, since he's not a scientist. You, on the other hand, define him as a kind of all-powerful demon figure. That kind of bizarre Gore-fixation immediately gave away your cult affiliation.

The thing about your idiotic analogy is, if your house was the Earth, it makes perfect sense. If we knew our imminent demise was going to become a gradual cooling down, why would we want to halt warming up?

You propose we emit more CO2 _now_ and roast the earth _now_, to fix a problem a billion years away.

You. Are. A. Retard.

Kiddie table is that way. Please stop bothering the grownups. Unless, of course, you're willing to act like a grownup and admit your idea was kind of dumb. Or just keep doubling down on stupid, since your cult does consider an absolute refusal to any admit error to be an admirable trait.
 
The article and the OP is absured. *The article ends with "By the point at which all life disappears from the planet, we're left with a nitrogen/carbon-dioxide atmosphere with methane being the only sign of active life"

Get that? *It is a bit unclear.

And, to the best of our understanding, eventually, the universe will expand into a vast expance of nothingingness. *If we don't drive ourselves into extinction, the sun will destroy the solar system anyways. *If mankind manages to exit this orb of death and desruction, finding refuge on some new world, or searching endlessly as some Battlestar Gallactica, the universe will eventually expand into a sea of cold nothingness.

Before that even comes to pass, each individual shuffles off*this mortal coil.

And so here we are, neither willing to simply stop eating and breathing, constantly struggling against the inevitable. *The only question is, as you do, are you going concern yourself with little more than your own well being? *Or do you consider the well being of others as well?
 
CO2 is a trace gas.........im not worried either way. Evidently, a huge majority of the population isnt either.

Progressives though......they worry about everything. Somethngs gotta be angst in their life ALL THE FUCKING TIME!! Its called embracing the tragic view of life.

Well, now there is a funny thing...

"In fact, even 60 percent of climate-change doubters favored preparations, the survey found. Researchers collected opinions between March 3 and March 18 via an online questionnaire, using a nationally representative sample of 1,174 American adults, both English and Spanish speaking.

The survey asked about climate-change beliefs and support for adaptation strategies to help coastal areas cope with the rising sea levels and frequent, intense storms that a warmer world could bring. The results showed that 82 percent of Americans are in favor of preparation."

Even Doubters Want to Prepare for Global Warming : Discovery News
 
Why are you trying to pretend you're not part of the right-wing extremist fringe cult?

Because I am not part of a right-wing extremist fringe cult. But again, you have to assert this, because that's what your masters tell you to do.... destroy your opposition by any means necessary. Lie about them, call them every name you can think up that is negative in connotation. The first four which popped into your rather shallow mind, were right-wing, extremist, fringe, and cult.

You propose we emit more CO2 _now_ and roast the earth _now_, to fix a problem a billion years away.

CO2 doesn't roast anything, that is your birdbrain alarmist theory which has been debunked. I propose that we spend not one more second or dime of federal tax money, on stupidity such as this. Abundance of CO2 means abundance of plant life, you like trees don't you?

You, on the other hand, define him as a kind of all-powerful demon figure.

Nope... Never have defined Gore as all-powerful anything, much less a demon. He's a charlatan, and someone who has made a small fortune on the stupidity of morons like you, that's all.
 
The article and the OP is absured. *The article ends with "By the point at which all life disappears from the planet, we're left with a nitrogen/carbon-dioxide atmosphere with methane being the only sign of active life"

Get that? *It is a bit unclear.

And, to the best of our understanding, eventually, the universe will expand into a vast expance of nothingingness. *If we don't drive ourselves into extinction, the sun will destroy the solar system anyways. *If mankind manages to exit this orb of death and desruction, finding refuge on some new world, or searching endlessly as some Battlestar Gallactica, the universe will eventually expand into a sea of cold nothingness.

Before that even comes to pass, each individual shuffles off*this mortal coil.

And so here we are, neither willing to simply stop eating and breathing, constantly struggling against the inevitable. *The only question is, as you do, are you going concern yourself with little more than your own well being? *Or do you consider the well being of others as well?

It's a bit unclear to you because you're stupid. You only read it to find things to pick apart and question. It's like attempting to have a reasonable conversation with a spoiled 7-year-old who doesn't want to take a nap. When the CO2 depletes to a certain level, photosynthesis can no longer occur, and plant life dies... followed closely by all other life. This is because the plant life produces oxygen, and without it, the other life can't live. Because CO2 is a natural byproduct of mammal decomposition, in the VERY end, there will be CO2... there will not be people. It's kind of like when someone bleeds to death, and yet, they still have some blood left in their body.

The only question is, as you do, are you going concern yourself with little more than your own well being? *Or do you consider the well being of others as well?

Why do you continue to pull at my heartstrings with your debunked theory? I consider the well-being of people who are trying to put food on the table and keep jobs, over and beyond the well-being of charlatans. I consider the well-being of corporations, businesses and taxpayers, over those who are running around like Chicken Little, screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
 
Because I am not part of a right-wing extremist fringe cult.

Yet you keep repeating all of their arguments verbatim. Kind of makes your claims of independence ring hollow. Did you actually think your "I'm such an independent!" charade was something we hadn't seen over and over?

CO2 doesn't roast anything, that is your birdbrain alarmist theory which has been debunked.

Your cult dogma says that, sure, but your cult dogma is ignored by everyone outside your cult. Denialism is now restricted to the right-wing extremist political cult in the USA/Canada/UK. Across the rest of planet earth, denialism is essentially dead and buried. Your little lunatic fringe is all that's left, and it's shrinking fast.

Nope... Never have defined Gore as all-powerful anything, much less a demon. He's a charlatan, and someone who has made a small fortune on the stupidity of morons like you, that's all.

Remember the "Gore Rule". Whoever brings up Al Gore first is a cultist. And it's always your side that brings up Gore.

Here on the rational side, we ignore Al Gore, since he's not a scientist. And we wonder where you get the insane ideas about how we follow Gore. Your cult brainwashing is quite thorough in that respect.
 
You're right..............plants DO use CO2 for their way of living. Only trouble is, we're giving off more CO2 than the plants can use, which is resulting in the earth warming up and weather doing really weird things.

Or......................do you think it's normal that Washington DC has snow at about the same time that Canada has to truck it in for the Olympics?

Might wanna check on the flooding here in the U.S., as well as the flooding happening over in other countries.

Oh yeah.................can we talk about the fact that a hurricane hit NYC and New Jersey for the first time in almost all the recorded history of this country?






Untrue. When CO2 levels get that high it gets sequestered in the oceans by the formation of limestone. You should take a geology class sometime. Limestone is a sedimentary rock that is formed in the deep ocean (when there's enough CO2 to do it) away from the shores where sand is compacted to form sandstone, and even further out from where the clays settle out to form mudstone which is then further metamorphosed to form slates and schists through the engine of subduction.

There has been no limestone made for at least 5 million years.......at least none that we can find...

Really? Limestone is formed in the deep ocean?

Like most other sedimentary rocks, most limestone is composed of grains. Most grains in limestone are skeletal fragments of marine organisms such as coral or foraminifera. Other carbonate grains comprising limestones are ooids, peloids, intraclasts, and extraclasts. These organisms secrete shells made of aragonite or calcite, and leave these shells behind after the organisms die.

Limestone often contains variable amounts of silica in the form of chert (chalcedony, flint, jasper, etc.) or siliceous skeletal fragment (sponge spicules, diatoms, radiolarians), and varying amounts of clay, silt and sand (terrestrial detritus) carried in by rivers.

Some limestones do not consist of grains at all, and are formed completely by the chemical precipitation of calcite or aragonite, i.e. travertine. Secondary calcite may be deposited by supersaturated meteoric waters (groundwater that precipitates the material in caves). This produces speleothems, such as stalagmites and stalactites. Another form taken by calcite is oolitic limestone, which can be recognized by its granular (oolite) appearance.

The primary source of the calcite in limestone is most commonly marine organisms. Some of these organisms can construct mounds of rock known as reefs, building upon past generations. Below about 3,000 meters, water pressure and temperature conditions cause the dissolution of calcite to increase nonlinearly, so limestone typically does not form in deeper waters (see lysocline). Limestones may also form in both lacustrine and evaporite depositional environments.[2][3]

Calcite can be either dissolved or precipitated by groundwater, depending on several factors, including the water temperature, pH, and dissolved ion concentrations. Calcite exhibits an unusual characteristic called retrograde solubility, in which it becomes less soluble in water as the temperature increases.

Because of impurities, such as clay, sand, organic remains, iron oxide and other materials, many limestones exhibit different colors, especially on weathered surfaces.

Limestone may be crystalline, clastic, granular, or massive, depending on the method of formation. Crystals of calcite, quartz, dolomite or barite may line small cavities in the rock. When conditions are right for precipitation, calcite forms mineral coatings that cement the existing rock grains together, or it can fill fractures.

Travertine is a banded, compact variety of limestone formed along streams, particularly where there are waterfalls, and around hot or cold springs. Calcium carbonate is deposited where evaporation of the water leaves a solution supersaturated with the chemical constituents of calcite. Tufa, a porous or cellular variety of travertine, is found near waterfalls. Coquina is a poorly consolidated limestone composed of pieces of coral or shells.

During regional metamorphism that occurs during the mountain building process (orogeny), limestone recrystallizes into marble.

Limestone is a parent material of Mollisol soil group.

Limestone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go bullshit someone else.





Try using a legitimate source next time dipshit...you know a GEOLOGIC website. You fucking idiots are all the same...lazy, too fucking lazy to do a little tiny bit of research...


"How Does Limestone Form?
Most carbonate rocks were deposited from seawater. These sedimentary carbonate rocks are common on every continent and have formed through most of geologic history; they are still forming today in the tropics as coral reefs and at the bottoms of shallow seas.

Marine limestone forms because seawater has high concentrations of two key dissolved chemicals-calcium (Ca++) and bicarbonate (HCO3-) ions. In the near-surface layer of most oceans, corals, clams, and other sea-dwelling creatures use these two chemicals to make protective shells by combining them to form calcite or "aragonite," which is the same chemical composition as calcite but has a different crystal form.



Limestone: The Calcium Carbonate Chemical Sedimentary Rock
 
Untrue. When CO2 levels get that high it gets sequestered in the oceans by the formation of limestone. You should take a geology class sometime. Limestone is a sedimentary rock that is formed in the deep ocean (when there's enough CO2 to do it) away from the shores where sand is compacted to form sandstone, and even further out from where the clays settle out to form mudstone which is then further metamorphosed to form slates and schists through the engine of subduction.

There has been no limestone made for at least 5 million years.......at least none that we can find...

Really? Limestone is formed in the deep ocean?

Like most other sedimentary rocks, most limestone is composed of grains. Most grains in limestone are skeletal fragments of marine organisms such as coral or foraminifera. Other carbonate grains comprising limestones are ooids, peloids, intraclasts, and extraclasts. These organisms secrete shells made of aragonite or calcite, and leave these shells behind after the organisms die.

Limestone often contains variable amounts of silica in the form of chert (chalcedony, flint, jasper, etc.) or siliceous skeletal fragment (sponge spicules, diatoms, radiolarians), and varying amounts of clay, silt and sand (terrestrial detritus) carried in by rivers.

Some limestones do not consist of grains at all, and are formed completely by the chemical precipitation of calcite or aragonite, i.e. travertine. Secondary calcite may be deposited by supersaturated meteoric waters (groundwater that precipitates the material in caves). This produces speleothems, such as stalagmites and stalactites. Another form taken by calcite is oolitic limestone, which can be recognized by its granular (oolite) appearance.

The primary source of the calcite in limestone is most commonly marine organisms. Some of these organisms can construct mounds of rock known as reefs, building upon past generations. Below about 3,000 meters, water pressure and temperature conditions cause the dissolution of calcite to increase nonlinearly, so limestone typically does not form in deeper waters (see lysocline). Limestones may also form in both lacustrine and evaporite depositional environments.[2][3]

Calcite can be either dissolved or precipitated by groundwater, depending on several factors, including the water temperature, pH, and dissolved ion concentrations. Calcite exhibits an unusual characteristic called retrograde solubility, in which it becomes less soluble in water as the temperature increases.

Because of impurities, such as clay, sand, organic remains, iron oxide and other materials, many limestones exhibit different colors, especially on weathered surfaces.

Limestone may be crystalline, clastic, granular, or massive, depending on the method of formation. Crystals of calcite, quartz, dolomite or barite may line small cavities in the rock. When conditions are right for precipitation, calcite forms mineral coatings that cement the existing rock grains together, or it can fill fractures.

Travertine is a banded, compact variety of limestone formed along streams, particularly where there are waterfalls, and around hot or cold springs. Calcium carbonate is deposited where evaporation of the water leaves a solution supersaturated with the chemical constituents of calcite. Tufa, a porous or cellular variety of travertine, is found near waterfalls. Coquina is a poorly consolidated limestone composed of pieces of coral or shells.

During regional metamorphism that occurs during the mountain building process (orogeny), limestone recrystallizes into marble.

Limestone is a parent material of Mollisol soil group.

Limestone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go bullshit someone else.





Try using a legitimate source next time dipshit...you know a GEOLOGIC website. You fucking idiots are all the same...lazy, too fucking lazy to do a little tiny bit of research...


"How Does Limestone Form?
Most carbonate rocks were deposited from seawater. These sedimentary carbonate rocks are common on every continent and have formed through most of geologic history; they are still forming today in the tropics as coral reefs and at the bottoms of shallow seas.

Marine limestone forms because seawater has high concentrations of two key dissolved chemicals-calcium (Ca++) and bicarbonate (HCO3-) ions. In the near-surface layer of most oceans, corals, clams, and other sea-dwelling creatures use these two chemicals to make protective shells by combining them to form calcite or "aragonite," which is the same chemical composition as calcite but has a different crystal form.



Limestone: The Calcium Carbonate Chemical Sedimentary Rock

Because you originally said that limestone was formed in deep water. I showed you that it's not.

Evaporation of bodies of water also contributes to the formation of limestone.

It's not the deep ocean that does it dude.
 
Really? Limestone is formed in the deep ocean?

Limestone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go bullshit someone else.

Try using a legitimate source next time dipshit...you know a GEOLOGIC website. You fucking idiots are all the same...lazy, too fucking lazy to do a little tiny bit of research...

"How Does Limestone Form?
Most carbonate rocks were deposited from seawater. These sedimentary carbonate rocks are common on every continent and have formed through most of geologic history; they are still forming today in the tropics as coral reefs and at the bottoms of shallow seas.

Marine limestone forms because seawater has high concentrations of two key dissolved chemicals-calcium (Ca++) and bicarbonate (HCO3-) ions. In the near-surface layer of most oceans, corals, clams, and other sea-dwelling creatures use these two chemicals to make protective shells by combining them to form calcite or "aragonite," which is the same chemical composition as calcite but has a different crystal form.



Limestone: The Calcium Carbonate Chemical Sedimentary Rock

Because you originally said that limestone was formed in deep water. I showed you that it's not.

Evaporation of bodies of water also contributes to the formation of limestone.

It's not the deep ocean that does it dude.

He doesn't actually read what he "researches" for understanding. His own cut and paste says "they are still forming today in the tropics as coral reefs and at the bottoms of shallow seas." It completely contradicts what he said about having not been formed for millions of years and forming in the deep ocean.

He says, "There has been no limestone made for at least 5 million years."

Amazing. It is why he thinks he's an expert on everything, because he skips everything that contradicts his strange, self constructed concepts.

I had one of those, I mistakenly assumed most people were reasonably sane. Opps, my bad.
 
Last edited:
The article and the OP is absured. *The article ends with "By the point at which all life disappears from the planet, we're left with a nitrogen/carbon-dioxide atmosphere with methane being the only sign of active life"

Get that? *It is a bit unclear.

And, to the best of our understanding, eventually, the universe will expand into a vast expance of nothingingness. *If we don't drive ourselves into extinction, the sun will destroy the solar system anyways. *If mankind manages to exit this orb of death and desruction, finding refuge on some new world, or searching endlessly as some Battlestar Gallactica, the universe will eventually expand into a sea of cold nothingness.

Before that even comes to pass, each individual shuffles off*this mortal coil.

And so here we are, neither willing to simply stop eating and breathing, constantly struggling against the inevitable. *The only question is, as you do, are you going concern yourself with little more than your own well being? *Or do you consider the well being of others as well?

It's a bit unclear to you because you're stupid. You only read it to find things to pick apart and question. It's like attempting to have a reasonable conversation with a spoiled 7-year-old who doesn't want to take a nap. When the CO2 depletes to a certain level, photosynthesis can no longer occur, and plant life dies... followed closely by all other life. This is because the plant life produces oxygen, and without it, the other life can't live. Because CO2 is a natural byproduct of mammal decomposition, in the VERY end, there will be CO2... there will not be people. It's kind of like when someone bleeds to death, and yet, they still have some blood left in their body.

The only question is, as you do, are you going concern yourself with little more than your own well being? *Or do you consider the well being of others as well?

Why do you continue to pull at my heartstrings with your debunked theory? I consider the well-being of people who are trying to put food on the table and keep jobs, over and beyond the well-being of charlatans. I consider the well-being of corporations, businesses and taxpayers, over those who are running around like Chicken Little, screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Of course I am reading it to pick it apart. I am also reading it to put it together. It is called critical thinking, you brainless numbnuts.

And it says what I quoted, not a decrease in CO2 but that eventually all it would be is nitrogen and CO2, with a little methane.

You are scanning things to find bullshit interpretations to support your own delusions. Try reading things for undertanding.
 
The article and the OP is absured. *The article ends with "By the point at which all life disappears from the planet, we're left with a nitrogen/carbon-dioxide atmosphere with methane being the only sign of active life"

Get that? *It is a bit unclear.

And, to the best of our understanding, eventually, the universe will expand into a vast expance of nothingingness. *If we don't drive ourselves into extinction, the sun will destroy the solar system anyways. *If mankind manages to exit this orb of death and desruction, finding refuge on some new world, or searching endlessly as some Battlestar Gallactica, the universe will eventually expand into a sea of cold nothingness.

Before that even comes to pass, each individual shuffles off*this mortal coil.

And so here we are, neither willing to simply stop eating and breathing, constantly struggling against the inevitable. *The only question is, as you do, are you going concern yourself with little more than your own well being? *Or do you consider the well being of others as well?

It's a bit unclear to you because you're stupid. You only read it to find things to pick apart and question. It's like attempting to have a reasonable conversation with a spoiled 7-year-old who doesn't want to take a nap. When the CO2 depletes to a certain level, photosynthesis can no longer occur, and plant life dies... followed closely by all other life. This is because the plant life produces oxygen, and without it, the other life can't live. Because CO2 is a natural byproduct of mammal decomposition, in the VERY end, there will be CO2... there will not be people. It's kind of like when someone bleeds to death, and yet, they still have some blood left in their body.

The only question is, as you do, are you going concern yourself with little more than your own well being? *Or do you consider the well being of others as well?

Why do you continue to pull at my heartstrings with your debunked theory? I consider the well-being of people who are trying to put food on the table and keep jobs, over and beyond the well-being of charlatans. I consider the well-being of corporations, businesses and taxpayers, over those who are running around like Chicken Little, screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Of course I am reading it to pick it apart. I am also reading it to put it together. It is called critical thinking, you brainless numbnuts.

And it says what I quoted, not a decrease in CO2 but that eventually all it would be is nitrogen and CO2, with a little methane.

You are scanning things to find bullshit interpretations to support your own delusions. Try reading things for undertanding.

I read the article because I posted the article. I know what the entirety of the article says. Life cannot survive on nitrogen, carbon dioxide and methane, therefore, it ceases to exist. What killed it, was the loss of oxygen, from the loss of plant life, which produces oxygen. What kills the plants is lack of carbon dioxide. LACK OF.... not complete absence of! So we find that while you assume you are "critically thinking" what you are actually doing is "struggling with reading comprehension." This is because you are an idiot and can't help it.

It's this same kind of shallow-brained idiocy that makes you believe man's contributions to the atmosphere, effects anything at all, with regard to the climate. This is one of those things that man of the future will get a chuckle out of, that people actually once thought.
 
Yanno...................too much CO2 may help the plants, but if they can't overcome the amount, they will thrive, but everything else will die.

You DO realize that don't you? Higher forms of life require oxygen as well as other things, right?
 
Because I am not part of a right-wing extremist fringe cult.

Yet you keep repeating all of their arguments verbatim. Kind of makes your claims of independence ring hollow. Did you actually think your "I'm such an independent!" charade was something we hadn't seen over and over?

I'm not repeating an argument, I am stating facts. Where did I say I was an independent? Is everyone either a pinhead like you, or a fringe right wing extremist, or an independent? You're main problem here, is in thinking there is some kind of argument happening. What's worse, is you think it's a political argument and some kind of game you have to win. It stopped being "an argument" about 8-9 years ago, when the AGW theory was discovered to be based on erroneous data that had been manipulated by people with an agenda.

CO2 doesn't roast anything, that is your birdbrain alarmist theory which has been debunked.

Your cult dogma says that, sure, but your cult dogma is ignored by everyone outside your cult. Denialism is now restricted to the right-wing extremist political cult in the USA/Canada/UK. Across the rest of planet earth, denialism is essentially dead and buried. Your little lunatic fringe is all that's left, and it's shrinking fast.

Really? You think that most of the world buys your debunked and discredited theory? I don't even think most of the left buys your rhetoric anymore. You are quickly becoming the fringe cult, if you weren't already there all along. There is no such thing as "denialism," you're just an idiot who needs to make up more words to denigrate your opposition, because your actual "argument" has been defeated long ago.

Nope... Never have defined Gore as all-powerful anything, much less a demon. He's a charlatan, and someone who has made a small fortune on the stupidity of morons like you, that's all.

Remember the "Gore Rule". Whoever brings up Al Gore first is a cultist. And it's always your side that brings up Gore.

Here on the rational side, we ignore Al Gore, since he's not a scientist. And we wonder where you get the insane ideas about how we follow Gore. Your cult brainwashing is quite thorough in that respect.

I've never heard of the Gore Rule, but maybe this is why he couldn't get elected on the coattails of a popular 2-term president? His own home state must have been particularly aware of the Gore Rule, since he lost there as well.

We've already established you are not rational. You think the world is divided into three groups, yours... the independents... and radical fringe extremist right-wingers. You also seem to think that man is contributing to the atmosphere in ways that affect the climate. The ONLY scientists who support your idea, are "climatologists" who are getting paid with nice little grants for research, and charlatans who are trying to sell more books and speaking tours. The REST of the science community, specifically, the botanists, meteorologists and geologists, completely disagree with your theory and always have.

I harken back to the fact that you believe we are having an "argument" here, when the "argument" was settled about 8-9 years ago. Once it was revealed that your "side" was manipulating the data to support your theory, the bloom was off the rose. There was no more "argument" at that point. Since then, it has been pure rhetoric. This is because you seem to be convinced we're having a political disagreement, and you must win those at any cost. That includes, dishonesty, manipulation of facts, denigration, and even disputing science itself. It's why you can throw your hero, Al Gore, under the bus. It's funny, how the man who brought this whole thing to the national spotlight, is now a pariah. Shunned by his own pinhead masses, because ...hey, gotta win at any cost, right?
 
Interestingly enough, the ones who said that global climate change didn't exist were those who were paid off by the oil companies.

Most of the world scientists state that there is something going on, and if we don't stop it, we're screwed.

But.....................keep thinking that climate change isn't going on....................especially when they have to truck snow into Calgary while Washington DC sees it's worst snow.

Oh yeah.....................Sandy was one of the few hurricanes to hit NYC and the Jersey shore.
 
Yanno...................too much CO2 may help the plants, but if they can't overcome the amount, they will thrive, but everything else will die.

You DO realize that don't you? Higher forms of life require oxygen as well as other things, right?

You are making totally convoluted statements that do not make sense. "Too much" CO2 means plants thrive, and plants produce oxygen. The current atmosphere contains about .03% carbon dioxide. In order for carbon dioxide to pose any kind of threat to mammals, it would need to be at least 10% of the atmosphere. It's never going to reach such a level. The more CO2, the more plants grow and thrive, and produce oxygen. In fact, greenhouses actually pump CO2 in to their plants for this very purpose. Not to produce oxygen, but so plants grow and thrive, and look pretty for the consumers.

Botanical scientists say that up until about 600 years ago, plant life on Earth was actually starving for carbon dioxide. CO2 levels have steadily risen during the past 600 years, much of which, there was no industrialization or significant man-made contribution. It naturally rises and falls, due to solar activity and volcanoes. What you just don't seem to comprehend, is that plant life thrives on CO2, it is what plants "breathe" and in turn, the plants produce the oxygen that we breathe. Without abundant CO2, the plants can't survive, they die... taking with them, Earth's ability to provide oxygen. No oxygen--no humans.
 
Interestingly enough, the ones who said that global climate change didn't exist were those who were paid off by the oil companies.

Most of the world scientists state that there is something going on, and if we don't stop it, we're screwed.

But.....................keep thinking that climate change isn't going on....................especially when they have to truck snow into Calgary while Washington DC sees it's worst snow.

Oh yeah.....................Sandy was one of the few hurricanes to hit NYC and the Jersey shore.

No, "most scientists" say no such thing. In fact, I recently read an article in some science rag at the doctors office, which said that something like 89% of scientists dispute AGW theory, in it's entirety. This is where I found the details about what botanical scientists say, regarding how plants were starving for carbon dioxide until about 600 years ago.

Many of the scientists who once believed in AGW, based this on the data... which turned out to be manipulated and erroneous. Scientists form opinions based on data and assume the data is correct. So what the AGW disciples have tried to do, is lay claim to these scientists who once trusted the data, but who now realize it was bunk. The only current scientists who are supporting the theory, are climatologists, most of whom are getting grant money from the government.

As for the weather... I can find plenty of examples of bizarre weather on Earth. The weather simply doesn't care if it happens in New York or Timbuctoo. Thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands of factors are involved when it comes to the weather. However, one factor that has always been a major source of science fiction, is that man can control the weather. We can't! We can invent nuclear weapons, land men on the moon, we can even clone sheep... but we have never been able to find a way to control weather. during WWII the Department of Defense spent untold amounts on secret research into this very thing, and came up empty. Yet, you maintain that we're doing something inadvertently, which is controlling the weather. You do realize, without the data to support the theory, you are espousing something that is pure science fiction?
 

Forum List

Back
Top