UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i brilliantly lost a billion dollars. it was genius. many people are saying so.
(check out sex tape)
"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
(check out sex tape)
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
Study: CO2 “acidification” does not harm Coral
Inconvenient: Giant Coral Reef That ‘Died’ In 2003 Teeming With Life Again
Coral expert prosecuted by Aussie university for noticing that a coral reef still exists
Oops! It may not be ‘ocean acidification’ killing coral after all – common chemical found in sunscreen is poisonous to coral reefs
Expert: Scientists exaggerated coral bleaching story
greasemonkeymann
Well-Known Member
wow, you win, cuz your font is larger than mine.
however..
I have an ace up my sleeve..
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
That`s better, when you have that much risk capital, use it wisely.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
No one cares about your indulgent fantasies about others. The important issue at hand is how much faster french fries cook at your new altitude.
Free Market in private, Socialism in public; your inconvenient truth.
It makes you a hypocrite actually, the one thing you excel at.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
remember when you said that you didn't think civil rights was a good idea because it would make racists like you more bitter?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Light up a Camel Buck, and celebrate. I suggest an organic American Spirit, much more tasty.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Funniest shit I have seen in a MINUTE.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's sad how you used to have such strongly held racist beliefs, and just abandoned them all once i pointed out how racist they made you.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
<yawn>
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
ahh, the UncleBuck school of argument
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Dude, you are the one who started with comparing religious mythology to climate science. It was a completely ignorant and decidedly incorrect analogy. You are still hung up on this idea of a "cause" or a noble goal" as if there is no cost that will be paid by current and future generations if we continue to dump industrial waste products into the atmosphere.
My responses to you have been along the lines of -- "WTF? You must either be kidding or an ignoramus." I'm still not sure which is true. So tell me, in case I misinterpreted your message, why did you post the increased arctic sea ice as evidence that AGW is a fraud?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
ThaFux?
Arctic is in the North, Antarctic is in the South. Quote me the post I referred to arctic sea ice or used the word fraud. Then speak more of remedial education,would you like a quote?
Earth is 4.5 billion years old. You have gone back 10k years. What were the CO2 levels 250 million years ago?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If the point you're trying to make by asking what the CO2 level 250 million years ago was, is to claim that it was much higher in the past and that all happened without humans around burning fossil fuels, so obviously it can rise naturally, I would agree with you. That's correct, CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and there are natural mechanisms that can cause it to rise, but we know that the current warming trend is not natural. How do we know this? 1. CO2 that is natural, like from volcanoes or thermal vents under the ocean is a heavier isotope of carbon, carbon that enters the atmosphere via pollution when we burn fossil fuels has a signature, we have a pretty good idea how much CO2 is attributable to human energy consumption
Another reason we know the current warming trend is not natural is that we've been collecting accurate scientific measurements of CO2 levels since the 1880s. Since at least 450,000 years ago until then, it had never breached 300 ppm, today it's already past 400 ppm;
In other words, there is no known natural mechanism that can match the rate of the increase from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, indicated by the vertical line on the right side of the graph, in less than 200 years. Natural increases of CO2 emissions are very slow and take a really long time, as you can see, on each of the peaks and valleys, it takes an average of about 45,000 years to go from 180 ppm to 300 ppm. By burning fossil fuels, humanity has done what it takes the planet to do naturally in less than 200 years.
So unless you know of some natural mechanism that can increase the amount of CO2 by 100 ppm in less than a century, you must accept the fact that it can only be attributable to humans
Antarctica has some increases of ice in some areas, but Greenland is losing ice at an unprecedented rate, not exactly sure on the numbers, but more ice is lost in Greenland than is gained in Antarctica. And the sea ice that shrinks and grows with the seasons in the Arctic doesn't affect sea level rise and is measurably thin
Another reason we know the current warming trend is not natural is that we've been collecting accurate scientific measurements of CO2 levels since the 1880s. Since at least 450,000 years ago until then, it had never breached 300 ppm, today it's already past 400 ppm;
In other words, there is no known natural mechanism that can match the rate of the increase from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, indicated by the vertical line on the right side of the graph, in less than 200 years. Natural increases of CO2 emissions are very slow and take a really long time, as you can see, on each of the peaks and valleys, it takes an average of about 45,000 years to go from 180 ppm to 300 ppm. By burning fossil fuels, humanity has done what it takes the planet to do naturally in less than 200 years.
So unless you know of some natural mechanism that can increase the amount of CO2 by 100 ppm in less than a century, you must accept the fact that it can only be attributable to humans
Antarctica has some increases of ice in some areas, but Greenland is losing ice at an unprecedented rate, not exactly sure on the numbers, but more ice is lost in Greenland than is gained in Antarctica. And the sea ice that shrinks and grows with the seasons in the Arctic doesn't affect sea level rise and is measurably thin
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
OK, thanks. Lets be agreeable that Human CO2 contribution is increasing the PPM and the rate at which CO2 rises unnaturally. What will the PPM be when fossil fuels are depleted? Is another 100ppm safe to assume in the midst of reasonable discussion? I am hoping we agree fossil fuels are about half gone.If the point you're trying to make by asking what the CO2 level 250 million years ago was, is to claim that it was much higher in the past and that all happened without humans around burning fossil fuels, so obviously it can rise naturally, I would agree with you. That's correct, CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and there are natural mechanisms that can cause it to rise, but we know that the current warming trend is not natural. How do we know this? 1. CO2 that is natural, like from volcanoes or thermal vents under the ocean is a heavier isotope of carbon, carbon that enters the atmosphere via pollution when we burn fossil fuels has a signature, we have a pretty good idea how much CO2 is attributable to human energy consumption
Another reason we know the current warming trend is not natural is that we've been collecting accurate scientific measurements of CO2 levels since the 1880s. Since at least 450,000 years ago until then, it had never breached 300 ppm, today it's already past 400 ppm;
In other words, there is no known natural mechanism that can match the rate of the increase from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, indicated by the vertical line on the right side of the graph, in less than 200 years. Natural increases of CO2 emissions are very slow and take a really long time, as you can see, on each of the peaks and valleys, it takes an average of about 45,000 years to go from 180 ppm to 300 ppm. By burning fossil fuels, humanity has done what it takes the planet to do naturally less than 200 years.
So unless you know of some natural mechanism that can increase the amount of CO2 by 100 ppm in less than a century, you must accept the fact that it can only be attributable to humans
Antarctica has some increases of ice in some areas, but Greenland is losing ice at an unprecedented rate, not exactly sure on the numbers, but more ice is lost in Greenland than is gained in Antarctica. And the sea ice that shrinks and grows with the seasons in the Arctic doesn't affect sea level rise and is measurably thin
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I couldn't tell you the answer to that question. I don't know how much fossil fuels are left or left to be discovered. I do know that the amount it has already risen will have pretty serious consequences for the planet, different areas will be affected differently, and if we don't do anything about it, it'll only get worse.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
According to some website I just looked at with a pic of Al Gore in it, we have till 2088 to run out. 72 years. So, in the last 200 years, we are up to 400ppm of CO2 and I have no reason not to believe you. We have 72 years left and there's no reason not to believe that. Lets say volcanoes remain pretty calm and man raises another 100ppm again in the next 72 years to 500ppm. Worst case scenario don't you think?
Illinois Enema Bandit
Well-Known Member
Does will smith or dicaprpio have doctorates in climatology or any other of the earth sciences ? not that I or anybody else knows about,so why are they talking about and giving hard line speaches about an issue they are ignorant about ?
Bobbleheads from Hollywood excite bubblehead radical leftists & that's it,everything I posted here holds more relevance than anything DiCaprio said because its 100% assured I'm not receiving payments,or favors for my comments,Hollywood does nothing for free .
I'm a bit more concerned about Americas rapidly deteroiating relationship with Russia than I am with fucking climate change,idiots are stomping their feet about the climate while Obamas generals are making anti Russian comments that are bringing us closer to war than we ever have been .
You Lefty's stay worried about climate change while normal people worry about the lunatics in office now starting ww3 before Obama leaves office .
Illinois Enema Bandit
Well-Known Member
Notice we haven't heard Ole Leo offer up any news conferences speaking about Obamas lunitic generals making threatening statements against Russia & China,this maniac general speaks very bluntly how this administration views the world & these radicals here are A OK with it .
I haven't heard any military official speak in such threatening terms against Russia since I was a kid in the 50's,we have much greater problems than this climate change stupidity these guys love to blab about,I fear this muther fucker below & Obama more than I do an iceberg melting .
Illinois Enema Bandit
Well-Known Member
Since were just tossing out reasons why a person shouldn't be allowed to hold public office one of my 1st issues would be god,how about we deny a citizen elected to office because he does or don't believe in god ?
The entire premise DiCaprio is spewing is utter nonsens,using DiCaprio's logic its perfectly OK to elect a war hawk that has the USA at severe odds with the worlds only nuclear superpower for the 1st time in 3 decades,but if Trump don't buy climate change he shouldn't hold office,of all people here doesn't the shit happening with our administration & Russia right now worry you more than climate change ?
I think you guys not growing up with the cold war has left most without a perspective acknowledging the USA can actually enter a war with Russia,I'm more worried about Russia's severing ties with the USA & modernizing their nukes than climate change,watch Obamas general give a mad mans speach to Russia & china I posted,then tell me if that shit sounds more dire than climate change .