GW causing tidal flooding in Florida...no worries.

[RKMBrown]

Sure its good for you and you must be typing that with your mouth on an exhaust pipe

Without CO2 there would be no plant or animal forms.

And without water there wouldnt be life but you dont want a tsunami.

What about it? We are talking about levels. Too much CO2 and plants and animals die...

Is this what you are reduced too? CO2 good because breathing

The level of CO2 required to cause plants and animals harm is only achievable in isolated environments. To put it bluntly, you are crying wolf.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Sure its good for you and you must be typing that with your mouth on an exhaust pipe

Without CO2 there would be no plant or animal forms.

And without water there wouldnt be life but you dont want a tsunami.

What about it? We are talking about levels. Too much CO2 and plants and animals die...

Is this what you are reduced too? CO2 good because breathing

The oxygen, nitrogen, and CO2 levels were vastly different in the Triassic and Jurassic periods yet plant and animal life still thrived. CO2 was 5x higher during that period due to massive super volcanoes and subduction yet life still thrived.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sure its good for you and you must be typing that with your mouth on an exhaust pipe

You do know that plants breathe co2, don't you? You do know that plants exhale O2 right?

You do understand that without plants we'd run out of o2, right?

You do understand that the higher the amount of co2 the more plants we'll have and the bigger they will grow and the less water they will need as well right?

Yes Yes

Yes

You do know that we are cutting down vast amounts of trees that would usually clean our air tho right? And some of the GW plans is planting trees right? Right?

That still doesnt show that CO2 is good for you **** face or you would be huffing your exhaust pipe right now.

Listen, moron, I said plants breathe co2 and that is why co2 is good for us. We exhale co2. Saying co2 is bad for us is equivalent to saying breathing is bad for the environment. It's beyond moronic.

Yes, planting trees is good, cutting down forests is bad. But cow shit and cow farts are good for the environment, comprende? Cycle of life. Learn it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Without CO2 there would be no plant or animal forms.

And without water there wouldnt be life but you dont want a tsunami.

What about it? We are talking about levels. Too much CO2 and plants and animals die...

Is this what you are reduced too? CO2 good because breathing

The level of CO2 required to cause plants and animals harm is only achievable in isolated environments. To put it bluntly, you are crying wolf.

According to what? Science?

 

[Yurt]

why is closedminded still ignoring the graphs?

oh wait...he hates science

 

[LordBrownTrout]

And without water there wouldnt be life but you dont want a tsunami.

What about it? We are talking about levels. Too much CO2 and plants and animals die...

Is this what you are reduced too? CO2 good because breathing

The level of CO2 required to cause plants and animals harm is only achievable in isolated environments. To put it bluntly, you are crying wolf.

According to what? Science?

I know it must be difficult to tear away from the glowarm cult/religion. They even had to change the name of it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Without CO2 there would be no plant or animal forms.

And without water there wouldnt be life but you dont want a tsunami.

What about it? We are talking about levels. Too much CO2 and plants and animals die...

Is this what you are reduced too? CO2 good because breathing

The oxygen, nitrogen, and CO2 levels were vastly different in the Triassic and Jurassic periods yet plant and animal life still thrived. CO2 was 5x higher during that period due to massive super volcanoes and subduction yet life still thrived.

Because we are just like Dinosaurs and plants is your angle?

Also, according to what the CO2 levels were different? Science or your gut? Because you keep quoting science but when I quote science you dismiss it for your gut and I'm trying to understand how you go with one or the other. Do you go eenie meany miney moe? Random? What?

 

[RKMBrown]

And without water there wouldnt be life but you dont want a tsunami.

What about it? We are talking about levels. Too much CO2 and plants and animals die...

Is this what you are reduced too? CO2 good because breathing

The level of CO2 required to cause plants and animals harm is only achievable in isolated environments. To put it bluntly, you are crying wolf.

According to what? Science?

The theory was proposed and proven through experimentation. Life, plant life in this case, has learned to take advantage of co2, to thrive. Introducing excess co2 into our environment is like injecting steroids into plant life. They grow twice as big and twice as fast. Further you'll find the additional co2 will result in additional o2, which will make animals grow faster and bigger as well, but that's just my random theory I don't know if anyone has tested effects of excess o2 on animals.

 

[Desperado]

Miami and other parts of south Florida, where streets routinely flood at lunar high tides, comprise one of the nation's most vulnerable hot spots for climate change.

I have lived in Miami since the the late 50's and it's been doing for as long as I can remember. Spring and Fall full moons would help flood the streets at high tide.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You do know that plants breathe co2, don't you? You do know that plants exhale O2 right?

You do understand that without plants we'd run out of o2, right?

You do understand that the higher the amount of co2 the more plants we'll have and the bigger they will grow and the less water they will need as well right?

Yes Yes

Yes

You do know that we are cutting down vast amounts of trees that would usually clean our air tho right? And some of the GW plans is planting trees right? Right?

That still doesnt show that CO2 is good for you **** face or you would be huffing your exhaust pipe right now.

Listen, moron, I said plants breathe co2 and that is why co2 is good for us. We exhale co2. Saying co2 is bad for us is equivalent to saying breathing is bad for the environment. It's beyond moronic.

Yes, planting trees is good, cutting down forests is bad. But cow shit and cow farts are good for the environment, comprende? Cycle of life. Learn it.

Oh ok, since we are removing those trees then you realize there is less recylcing of CO2 as well correct? Or this is where you jump off the logic train?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Flooding has been going on for centuries. Add the fact that the region has an outdated drainage system in need of repair and you've got problems.

Nothing the liberals are proposing will change any of this. Redistributing wealth does not stop floods, tornadoes or change temps. Scientists revealed that during the Renaissance era, the core temp was slightly hotter than it is today.

Taking care of the planet is good. The stupid cap and trade plot is all about wealth redistribution and gaining control and has nothing to do with saving the earth.

Very true

We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not

Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it

And blaming Obama.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The level of CO2 required to cause plants and animals harm is only achievable in isolated environments. To put it bluntly, you are crying wolf.

According to what? Science?

I know it must be difficult to tear away from the glowarm cult/religion. They even had to change the name of it.

Yes they just changed the name of it Captain America. 40 years ago.

 

[Yurt]

[MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes Yes

Yes

You do know that we are cutting down vast amounts of trees that would usually clean our air tho right? And some of the GW plans is planting trees right? Right?

That still doesnt show that CO2 is good for you **** face or you would be huffing your exhaust pipe right now.

Listen, moron, I said plants breathe co2 and that is why co2 is good for us. We exhale co2. Saying co2 is bad for us is equivalent to saying breathing is bad for the environment. It's beyond moronic.

Yes, planting trees is good, cutting down forests is bad. But cow shit and cow farts are good for the environment, comprende? Cycle of life. Learn it.

Oh ok, since we are removing those trees then you realize there is less recylcing of CO2 as well correct? Or this is where you jump off the logic train?

Let me get this straight, I say planting trees is good, and cutting down forests is bad. And in response you think I said planting trees is bad, and cutting down forests is good.

You are confusing two separate issues. Destroying forests is one issue, and I don't know anyone arguing that we should be doing that. Punishing animal life to spite animal life for breathing and excreting the food that plant life needs to recover from said destruction of forests is another issue, and the main problem intelligent people have with this global warming witch hunt.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The level of CO2 required to cause plants and animals harm is only achievable in isolated environments. To put it bluntly, you are crying wolf.

According to what? Science?

The theory was proposed and proven through experimentation. Life, plant life in this case, has learned to take advantage of co2, to thrive. Introducing excess co2 into our environment is like injecting steroids into plant life. They grow twice as big and twice as fast. Further you'll find the additional co2 will result in additional o2, which will make animals grow faster and bigger as well, but that's just my random theory I don't know if anyone has tested effects of excess o2 on animals.

not according to science. Maybe now you're using your gut

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Show me where anyone says more CO2 is better for plants across the board. You cant because its not true. At least, according to science

 

[LordBrownTrout]

And without water there wouldnt be life but you dont want a tsunami.

What about it? We are talking about levels. Too much CO2 and plants and animals die...

Is this what you are reduced too? CO2 good because breathing

The oxygen, nitrogen, and CO2 levels were vastly different in the Triassic and Jurassic periods yet plant and animal life still thrived. CO2 was 5x higher during that period due to massive super volcanoes and subduction yet life still thrived.

Because we are just like Dinosaurs and plants is your angle?

Also, according to what the CO2 levels were different? Science or your gut? Because you keep quoting science but when I quote science you dismiss it for your gut and I'm trying to understand how you go with one or the other. Do you go eenie meany miney moe? Random? What?

CO2 has to reach 30,000 ppm to be considered deadly. CO2 was approx 1500 ppm when the dinosaurs roamed. It wouldnt have been the CO2 that killed us back then. Are you saying dinosaurs werent carbon based?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Listen, moron, I said plants breathe co2 and that is why co2 is good for us. We exhale co2. Saying co2 is bad for us is equivalent to saying breathing is bad for the environment. It's beyond moronic.

Yes, planting trees is good, cutting down forests is bad. But cow shit and cow farts are good for the environment, comprende? Cycle of life. Learn it.

Oh ok, since we are removing those trees then you realize there is less recylcing of CO2 as well correct? Or this is where you jump off the logic train?

Let me get this straight, I say planting trees is good, and cutting down forests is bad. And in response you think I said planting trees is bad, and cutting down forests is good.

You are confusing two separate issues. Destroying forests is one issue, and I don't know anyone arguing that we should be doing that. Punishing animal life to spite animal life for breathing and excreting the food that plant life needs to recover from said destruction of forests is another issue, and the main problem intelligent people have with this global warming witch hunt.

No I didnt say that...I'll jsut copy and paste it for you:

Oh ok, since we are removing those trees then you realize there is less recylcing of CO2 as well correct?

You acknowledge we are cutting down the CO2 recyclers (aka trees) but still think this has no effect on cleaning our air? Or less trees mean nothing? what?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

According to what? Science?

I know it must be difficult to tear away from the glowarm cult/religion. They even had to change the name of it.

Yes they just changed the name of it Captain America. 40 years ago.

Is that when moynihan was telling nixon, in the early 70s, that we must act to stop glowarm or the earth temps will increase by 7 degrees and new york and DC will be under water by the year 2000? Lol. Complete gullible loonbats.

 

[RKMBrown]

According to what? Science?

The theory was proposed and proven through experimentation. Life, plant life in this case, has learned to take advantage of co2, to thrive. Introducing excess co2 into our environment is like injecting steroids into plant life. They grow twice as big and twice as fast. Further you'll find the additional co2 will result in additional o2, which will make animals grow faster and bigger as well, but that's just my random theory I don't know if anyone has tested effects of excess o2 on animals.

not according to science. Maybe now you're using your gut

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Show me where anyone says more CO2 is better for plants across the board. You cant because its not true. At least, according to science

I've read the link you posted. It agrees with what I said 100%, though it downplays the effects by switching gears to talk about yield. Then it goes off on a tangent proposing that the good effects may not apply to "all" plant yields and "may" cause harm due to "possible" acidity of the ocean. IOW the link is attempting to disprove facts by making baseless suppositions.

 

[ClosedCaption]

[MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]

I dont typically respond to drive by posts such as these when you dont have a point. Plus why are you showing science graphs when you dismiss science?