"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

[twostrokenut]

like you said, it probably just naturally happened.

i'd rather talk about your racist birtherism instead. i sold that weed to three toothed, sister fucking, sheet wearing south carolinians like you years ago.

No you didn't. You were so proud of it you posted pictures. Like to see?

 

[doublejj]

I like the science of your car. Like the developments in 18650 batteries, which begs the question. How are you charging them?

I buy green power only option with my elect company & will be installing a Tesla Power Wall & Solar panels on the roof...

 

[twostrokenut]

I buy green power only option with my elect company & will be installing a Tesla Power Wall & Solar panels on the roof...

You walk the walk sir.

 

[Fogdog]

What was the level of CO2 250 million years ago during the time of the dinosaurs again?

it was a natural increase.

why don't you want to talk about your racist birtherism?

LOL, "Strokes his nuts" knows more about Jehovah's witness mythology than his own real world. He quotes religous ideology in opposition to facts about the composition of CO2 in our atmosphere that directly links elevated levels of CO2 with burning fossil fuels:

Buck's graphic pretty much destroys the idea that CO2 is in some normal cycle of change in the atmosphere. The next argument might be that it came from volcanoes or some such ignorant musing that is treated as science by the same people who deny science, like nut-head. The CO2 increase is from plant-based matter -- fossil fuel is ancient plant matter -- and plants absorb CO2 isotopes in ratios that are different from volcanic emissions.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning.

From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

These are facts as opposed to religious mythology or science denier cherry picked time intervals that are about as valid as religious mythology. I don't know why wingnuts read that crap.

 

[doublejj]

You walk the walk sir.

I can only do my part...

 

[Fogdog]

The issue is that man causes climate change. That man is responsible for Global Warming insofaras your main issue is that sea levels rising and it is caused by man and this is catastrophic. You have stated as much:



The OP's video, in the first 25 seconds, CLEARLY demonstrates your religion's assertion that climate change is man made.

The issue you've stated is that mankind is responsible for causing and/or responsible for fixing the Earth's Climate and not doing so will result in disaster for Mankind. Yet out of the other side of your mouth you say the issue isn't catastrophe for the earth and has nothing to do with mankind.






Because Jehovah's witnesses, just like climate change cult members, have the same M.O. Follow us, this is the only true way, because we said so, we need money, or you're fucked.

That you confuse religious dogma and ideology with results from growing an understanding of the physical world, gathering data about it, then using knowledge and data to draw conclusions is a reflection on your ignorance than anything else.

The conclusion that the causes of global warming is due to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels isn't even disputed by fossil fuel industry. What those industries are doing is using cherry picked crap graphics like the one you posted about sea ice to create doubt and delay any action to reduce emissions. They do this because it makes tons of money for them. I don't know why you would allow yourself to be a tool of theirs but that's what you are.

 

[twostrokenut]

LOL, "Strokes his nuts" knows more about Jehovah's witness mythology than his own real world. He quotes religous ideology in opposition to facts about the composition of CO2 in our atmosphere that directly links elevated levels of CO2 with burning fossil fuels:

Buck's graphic pretty much destroys the idea that CO2 is in some normal cycle of change in the atmosphere. The next argument might be that it came from volcanoes or some such ignorant musing that is treated as science by the same people who deny science, like nut-head. The CO2 increase is from plant-based matter -- fossil fuel is ancient plant matter -- and plants absorb CO2 isotopes in ratios that are different from volcanic emissions.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning.

From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

These are facts as opposed to religious mythology or science denier cherry picked time intervals that are about as valid as religious mythology. I don't know why wingnuts read that crap.

Do you need assertion from others? That's part of religion. Do you need to name call in lieu of constructing an objective argument? That's part of religion. I don't do religion. I will read about it though. Your inability to have a conversation without a meltdown is very telling.I do economics, not religion. I choose to ride a single cylinder bike most of the time. Not because its the best emission reducing option next to doublejj's approach, because its fun and cheap.

Buck went back 800,000 years with his graph, you went back 10,000 years with tree rings plus sundry insults strewn about from you and him did not answer the question: What were CO2 levels 250,000,000 years ago?

 

[UncleBuck]

Do you need assertion from others? That's part of religion. Do you need to name call in lieu of constructing an objective argument? That's part of religion. I don't do religion. I will read about it though. Your inability to have a conversation without a meltdown is very telling.I do economics, not religion. I choose to ride a single cylinder bike most of the time. Not because its the best emission reducing option next to doublejj's approach, because its fun and cheap.

Buck went back 800,000 years with his graph, you went back 10,000 years with tree rings plus sundry insults strewn about from you and him did not answer the question: What were CO2 levels 250,000,000 years ago?

you totally nailed the birther issue and now you are saving us all from making the horrible mistake of doing anything about a manmade catastrophe.

pretty good for an economics buff like yourself (read: federal reserve conspiracy theorist).

 

[twostrokenut]

That you confuse religious dogma and ideology with results from growing an understanding of the physical world, gathering data about it, then using knowledge and data to draw conclusions is a reflection on your ignorance more than anything else.

The conclusion that the causes of global warming is due to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels isn't even disputed by fossil fuel industry. What those industries are doing is using cherry picked crap graphics like the one you posted about sea ice to create doubt and delay any action to reduce emissions. They do this because it makes tons of money for them. I don't know why you would allow yourself to be a tool of theirs but that's what you are.

Since you brought up education I though I would correct that for you.

I am not confusing religious dogma and your cause. I am demonstrating the similarities.

I'm actually a big fan of alt energy and energy independence in general. " Fossil fuel industry is trying to make money". I'm glad your superior education affords you such sensible statements. Green energy is trying to make money also.

So lets get down to simplest terms with no name calling or meltdown hissy fits as you've demonstrated in the last couple threads you have interacted with me in. I think our basic disagreement is how to accomplish your goals. I think your goals are noble and want you to accomplish them. With what funding do you wish to accomplish your goals?

 

[twostrokenut]

@Fogdog

I am asking you two questions.
What were the CO2 levels 250 million years ago and what is your plan for funding to accomplish your goals of saving the earth from man?

 

[greasemonkeymann]

NOAA scientists admit in private that they can’t name any place affected by ocean acidification



actually the opposite in Antarctica, where there is record high ice levels.

fancy graphs, not sure where ya got them, but I got these from NASA, you know, that one part of the government that uses satellites and such

they seem to conflict each other, and considering that many towns and villages built near the water for DECADES are now having to move...
hmm...
who do you believe?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

regarding your claim on the ice.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

and your claims on the acidification of the water, oh, and have ya ever seen a coral reef??
if not, ya might wanna see one soon, cuz they are MELTING because of the PH and temp increase.

As I said...
selectively obtuse.

http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

 

[twostrokenut]

you totally nailed the birther issue and now you are saving us all from making the horrible mistake of doing anything about a manmade catastrophe.

pretty good for an economics buff like yourself (read: federal reserve conspiracy theorist).

But did you check your privilege? You've nailed body shaming female RIU members and supporting racism towards black RIU members. We get it, you have special hate privileges.

What was the CO2 leven 250 million years ago again?

 

[whitebb2727]

LOL, "Strokes his nuts" knows more about Jehovah's witness mythology than his own real world. He quotes religous ideology in opposition to facts about the composition of CO2 in our atmosphere that directly links elevated levels of CO2 with burning fossil fuels:

Buck's graphic pretty much destroys the idea that CO2 is in some normal cycle of change in the atmosphere. The next argument might be that it came from volcanoes or some such ignorant musing that is treated as science by the same people who deny science, like nut-head. The CO2 increase is from plant-based matter -- fossil fuel is ancient plant matter -- and plants absorb CO2 isotopes in ratios that are different from volcanic emissions.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning.

From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

These are facts as opposed to religious mythology or science denier cherry picked time intervals that are about as valid as religious mythology. I don't know why wingnuts read that crap.

What are your thoughts on the link of rising co2 and 100 and something countries outlawing cannabis at the same time as the usa?

Bringing back large cannabis farms around the world would help.

 

[whitebb2727]

I buy green power only option with my elect company & will be installing a Tesla Power Wall & Solar panels on the roof...

Have you seen the lotus prototype?

Sustainable materials used.
http://www.hemp-technologies.com/page33/page33.html

@Fogdog check the link out. A bit of info on the benefits of growing cannabis.

The only thing I disagree with is that mj is hemp to. Mj is just slang. Cannabis is cannabis to me.

 

[OddBall1st]

like you said, it probably just naturally happened.

i'd rather talk about your racist birtherism instead. i sold that weed to three toothed, sister fucking, sheet wearing south carolinians like you years ago.

Income tax free of course...........

 

[UncleBuck]

But did you check your privilege? You've nailed body shaming female RIU members and supporting racism towards black RIU members. We get it, you have special hate privileges.

What was the CO2 leven 250 million years ago again?

it's so cute how you try to pretend like you are a respectable member when everyone can clearly see what a racist, hate filled loser you are.

 

[UncleBuck]

Income tax free of course...........

that makes me smart.

 

[OddBall1st]

that makes me smart.

Correct if you do it legally,...if not it makes you a Hillary supporter.

 

[UncleBuck]

Correct if you do it legally,...if not it makes you a Hillary supporter.

don't worry, i lost a billion dollars. so that makes me a good businessman. brilliant. genius. stamina.

 

[OddBall1st]

don't worry, i lost a billion dollars. so that makes me a good businessman. brilliant. genius. stamina.

No, It makes you eligible for Federal tax exemption. Listen more often than thinking. Thinking makes you dumb, trust me I do it all the time.