Global Warming or Over Population - Earths Biggest Threat?

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
Actually canndo, for the same reason you argue in defense of it.:lol:




That answer sure didn't sound very scientific, why not be honest and say you don't know?
Click to expand...
I am both capabable and willing to understand global warming Beenthere, and I do my homework.


I am sorry I didn't sound scientific. You already stated that it was not your forte, so why should I be anything but conversational with you about this?

No, I don't "know" in the sense that I cannot demonstrate either to you or myself with 100 percent certainty that the globe is warming and that we are the single cause. It is pretty damn likely though, regardless of what you have managed to post to the contrary. A Dentist? really?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
We are carbon based life forms. Carbon is one of the basic building blocks of life. It is one of the most plentiful materials on the planet. Carbon Dioxide is one of the gasses that is recycled by plant and animal life in a constant circle.

Yes, I honestly believe that since there appears to be no correlation to the CO2 levels and global warming that it will not have any significant effect on the weather.
Click to expand...

If it is and always has been this constant circle, then how do you explain coal and oil? It is believed that one of the reasons that the earth cooled enough for animals like us to be happy here is the very fact that all that carbon was placed into the ground and kept out of that convenient circle you speak of.

And you want to put it back in.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
If it is and always has been this constant circle, then how do you explain coal and oil? It is believed that one of the reasons that the earth cooled enough for animals like us to be happy here is the very fact that all that carbon was placed into the ground and kept out of that convenient circle you speak of.

And you want to put it back in.
Click to expand...
WE ARE CARBON BASED LIFE FORMS.... Carbon is in almost everything... It is not being kept inside the ground as you speculate....

It is one of the most common building blocks of life. It is what you get after a fire.

Someone is trying to feed you bullshit and you are happily eating it up... Carbon is not a poison, it is not a danger and it is not causing man made global warming.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
If it is a natural cycle then why can't we dig up carbon and use it? We are natural.

What is natural about enriching Uranium, in the first place?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
WE ARE CARBON BASED LIFE FORMS.... Carbon is in almost everything... It is not being kept inside the ground as you speculate....

It is one of the most common building blocks of life. It what you get after a fire.

Someone is trying to feed you bullshit and you are happily eating it up... Carbon is not a poison, it is not a danger and it is not causing man made global warming.
Click to expand...
Concentrations of 7% to 10% may cause suffocation, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen - that would make it a danger. Now how exactly do you know that carbon dioxide - which is a molecule made up of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. It Is a greenhouse gas. the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up by over 100 ppm in the last hundred or so years. MUCH of it is being kept in the ground, more is kept in the sea. When you burn coal, the resultant carbon dioxide is placed into the air. That is the very same carbon that was absorbed by plants millions of years ago and kept there, under the ground.

Now what about that "cycle" give you a problem?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
If it is a natural cycle then why can't we dig up carbon and use it? We are natural.

What is natural about enriching Uranium, in the first place?
Click to expand...
We CAN dig it up and use it, but it would be best if we take about 100 million years to do so, not 100 years.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Now Buck, if you can produce anything where I predicted Mitty would win, I will eat a 1/4 gram of your best hash.
Click to expand...
is that what i claimed, betty?

NOPE.

i claimed you were an adherent of the skewed polls theory. you called the NYT, specifically nate at 538, a "partisan rag", one day before he predicted the outcome of the election with 100% success.

i can find other quotes very easily if i want to. here are a few of you losing your cool because the facts were not on your side.

Doer said:
Oh, no ego here. No rebuke. NOT. What happens if you are wrong? Will that big ego, burst?

Quoting the News York Times and not realizing that is a partisan rag like the LA times? The joke is on you, no matter what happens. You are sittiing far back in the peanut gallery and can swallow only slant.
Click to expand...
Doer said:
No one cares what rocks you throw at us, you foreigner. No one cares about this hate spew from the Left. No one cares if you
think this is about hurt feelings. Go asks you mommy about that.
Click to expand...
Doer said:
Self proclaimed intelligence is arrogance, you dolt.
Click to expand...
but you're probably oh so right about this much more complex issue, especially since you are citing roy spencer (who is the dean chambers of global warming).

you are a fucking embarrassment on issues like this. just give it up.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
is that what i claimed, betty?

NOPE.

i claimed you were an adherent of the skewed polls theory. you called the NYT, specifically nate at 538, a "partisan rag", one day before he predicted the outcome of the election with 100% success.

i can find other quotes very easily if i want to. here are a few of you losing your cool because the facts were not on your side.







but you're probably oh so right about this much more complex issue, especially since you are citing roy spencer (who is the dean chambers of global warming).

you are a fucking embarrassment on issues like this. just give it up.
Click to expand...
I knew it! Let the fun begin. I still think the NYT is a partisan rag. And I would like it, quite a bit, if I was actually able to embarrass you....but, I doubt it.:)

Don't worry. I learned my lesson. I did fall for the Dick Morris Express for a little while, I do so hate the DEMS. But, I'm still here. And Morris is on RT, at best.

I think the DEMs will hold the Congress. Are you trying to say I'm wrong?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Anyway. I do wonder why you care? Since you were right about it and didn't believe those polls I am quite sure I already congratulated you.

See Post # 8843265a-subpart b, para. 6

"...congratulation...."

Besides, I'm feeling much better, now. Thanks.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
A clock is right when it is right....otherwise wrong..

When was it so personal for you...I mean not so? You know that I think all media is partisan rag, don't you? My railing against the News-Joke, in general? My essays on the Lobby-Advertizing-Congress-News-Entertainment Industrial Complex the LACNEIC?

Oh...I see. You were forgetting I don't take sides....nope. I just vote against the DEMS. Old grudges. Don't take it personal.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
A clock is right when it is right....otherwise wrong..

When was it so personal for you...I mean not so? You know that I think all media is partisan rag, don't you? My railing against the News-Joke, in general? My essays on the Lobby-Advertizing-Congress-News-Entertainment Industrial Complex the LACNEIC?

Oh...I see. You were forgetting I don't take sides....nope. I just vote against the DEMS. Old grudges. Don't take it personal.
Click to expand...
you need to reconcile your inability to discern perfectly accurate analysis of scientific data and your citation of an evangelical creationist with respect to your ridiculous and demonstrably false and stupid view on AGW.

nothing personal, but credentials are important.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you need to reconcile your inability to discern perfectly accurate analysis of scientific data and your citation of an evangelical creationist with respect to your ridiculous and demonstrably false and stupid view on AGW.

nothing personal, but credentials are important.
Click to expand...
Ah. Your credentials. I forgot. Yes, you too are part of a well tuned voting block with powers only second to the mob itself.

I am in opposition...loyal, but opposed..not to you.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Ah. Your credentials. I forgot. Yes, you too are part of a well tuned voting block with powers only second to the mob itself.

I am in opposition...loyal, but opposed..not to you.
Click to expand...
you oppose reasoned, accurate analysis.

you support evangelical creationists.

reconcile that. go on, reconcile.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Thusly. Opposition is not support. It is the 2 Party system.

Hey...no pushing on the diving board. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top