Civil Discourse

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
MichiganSpinDoctor said:
With commercial interruption from people who don't know how to have a discussion!
Click to expand...
Oh Hi!!!

I'm so glad we met. Hey, I asked you a question and you must have gotten really busy and just forgot to answer. We were talking about global warming and how even though you couldn't offer any good reason you just disbelieved people who studied the subject of global warming and advise us that it's caused by industrial emmissions of greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide, methane and such. Because you voted for Trump, I guess you might have other ideas than what people who actually study the subject have. This is all very much a stimulating and interesting conversation we are having.

I asked if you rejected the very basic concept the earth's atmosphere and has heat trapping properties and keeps the earth's surface temperature much warmer than if it didn't have an atmosphere. It's kind of a fundamental reason for how life is able to exist on earth so I'm curious why you might reject that idea.

This is all about having a civil discussion.
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Tangerine_ said:
And there you have it.
Sock exposed. :clap:
I actually thought you'd stick to your new script longer than this.

BTW, you might want to rethink your position of agreeing with RobRoy
:spew:
Click to expand...
It might've not been saquach who posted the pic, but I thought since UncleBuck posts about socks so much, and I love me some Sifl and Ollie. Someone did post a pic of scraggly weed dried with cat litter and a fan which was hilarious.
 
Tangerine_

Tangerine_

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
I posted the pic that is now the biggest joke on multiple weed forums.
Click to expand...
No it isn't, lol. Why do u lie so much. I've seen the forums where you posted it. Its you, chemphlem and couple others who had their asses handed them in the politics forum.

Actually, its more of joke to see insecure growers running down another grower.
 
Last edited:
MichiganSpinDoctor

MichiganSpinDoctor

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Oh Hi!!!

I'm so glad we met. Hey, I asked you a question and you must have gotten really busy and just forgot to answer. We were talking about global warming and how even though you couldn't offer any good reason you just disbelieved people who studied the subject of global warming and advise us that it's caused by industrial emmissions of greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide, methane and such. Because you voted for Trump, I guess you might have other ideas than what people who actually study the subject have. This is all very much a stimulating and interesting conversation we are having.

I asked if you rejected the very basic concept the earth's atmosphere and has heat trapping properties and keeps the earth's surface temperature much warmer than if it didn't have an atmosphere. It's kind of a fundamental reason for how life is able to exist on earth so I'm curious why you might reject that idea.

This is all about having a civil discussion.
Click to expand...
I thought I explained that I do not reject the concept of the greenhouse effect. Maybe I did not. I am pretty busy. Despite some of the libel on this thread, I work full time and grow a small forest of huge dank cannabis trees.

Any thoughts on today's topic?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
MichiganSpinDoctor said:
I thought I explained that I do not reject the concept of the greenhouse effect. Maybe I did not. I am pretty busy. Despite some of the libel on this thread, I work full time and grow a small forest of huge dank cannabis trees.

Any thoughts on today's topic?
Click to expand...
I think we should make today's topic ones that are left unfinished from yesterday.

Let's recap how we got here. You support Trump. Trump rejects climate science. I asked if you also rejected climate science and if so, what alternate theory do you think is a better explanation for the current rise in average worldwide temperature. You responded with the statement that you disbelieved the explanation given by scientists but have no alternative. I am now trying to understand what part of climate science you disbelieve. Just to restate what you just said, you understand that gas molecules absorb heat and radiate it later, which, according to climate science IS the basic mechanism behind the earth's climate.

digging a little deeper into the theory,

Do you disagree that some gas molecules have higher heat capacity than other gas molecules? For example, oxygen molecules cannot absorb as much heat as water vapor molecules or carbon dioxide molecules. Do you disbelieve that?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
It might've not been saquach who posted the pic, but I thought since UncleBuck posts about socks so much, and I love me some Sifl and Ollie. Someone did post a pic of scraggly weed dried with cat litter and a fan which was hilarious.
Click to expand...
Invalid post. You don't think, you read from a script. Or at least, you should go back to it. You have become a defective Russian paid troll and we want to talk to your supervisor about replacing you with an intelligent one.

Is this where throw out disinformation and bad arguments to distract?
 
MichiganSpinDoctor

MichiganSpinDoctor

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I think we should make today's topic ones that are left unfinished from yesterday.

Let's recap how we got here. You support Trump. Trump rejects climate science. I asked if you also rejected climate science and if so, what alternate theory do you think is a better explanation for the current rise in average worldwide temperature. You responded with the statement that you disbelieved the explanation given by scientists but have no alternative. I am now trying to understand what part of climate science you disbelieve. Just to restate what you just said, you understand that gas molecules absorb heat and radiate it later, which, according to climate science IS the basic mechanism behind the earth's climate.

digging a little deeper into the theory,

Do you disagree that some gas molecules have higher heat capacity than other gas molecules? For example, oxygen molecules cannot absorb as much heat as water vapor molecules or carbon dioxide molecules. Do you disbelieve that?
Click to expand...
Every day so far, you want to talk about "yesterday's topic," which in this case is what you wanted to talk about for the past several days. Climate change.

I understand the greenhouse effect. Are you going somewhere with this?

Feel free to comment on today's topic: How can we tell when the left goes too far?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
MichiganSpinDoctor said:
Every day so far, you want to talk about "yesterday's topic," which in this case is what you wanted to talk about for the past several days. Climate change.

I understand the greenhouse effect. Are you going somewhere with this?

Feel free to comment on today's topic: How can we tell when the left goes too far?
Click to expand...
Well, you ran away yesterday. It's an interesting topic so why not continue it.

You do support Trump's position about rejecting the conclusions from 98% of all climate scientists worldwide, don't you? This is a civil discussion to help people understand your reasoning behind your rejecting science.

Do you disagree that some gas molecules have higher heat capacity than other gas molecules? For example, oxygen molecules cannot absorb as much heat as water vapor molecules or carbon dioxide molecules. Do you disbelieve that?
 
MichiganSpinDoctor

MichiganSpinDoctor

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Well, you ran away yesterday. It's an interesting topic so why not continue it.

You do support Trump's position about rejecting the conclusions from 98% of all climate scientists worldwide, don't you? This is a civil discussion to help people understand your reasoning become more rejecting science.

Do you disagree that some gas molecules have higher heat capacity than other gas molecules? For example, oxygen molecules cannot absorb as much heat as water vapor molecules or carbon dioxide molecules. Do you disbelieve that?
Click to expand...
That is a part of the greenhouse effect, which as I have stated several times, I understand.

Yes that is correct, I agree with trump rejecting those conclusions. I don't find the evidence that the warming is man made to be compelling, despite my good understanding of the greenhouse effect.

Feel free to comment on today's topic: How can we tell when the left goes too far?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
MichiganSpinDoctor said:
That is a part of the greenhouse effect, which as I have stated several times, I understand.

Yes that is correct, I agree with trump rejecting those conclusions. I don't find the evidence that the warming is man made to be compelling, despite my good understanding of the greenhouse effect.

Feel free to comment on today's topic: How can we tell when the left goes too far?
Click to expand...
So, then, you agree that carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, sulfur dioxide all absorb more heat than hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen? I think that's what you said so I'll move on.

How many tons of carbon of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere each day? Answer: 21 billion tons

Scientists in several countries are measuring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and they see it increasing along the same rate as we generate it from fossil fuels. They have also looked at the isotopes of carbon in the carbon dioxide molecule. The post industrial isotope signature shows enrichment for carbon dioxide that matches fossil fuels, not geologic emissions such as volcanoes.

Do you disagree that carbon dioxide is increasing in our atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels? If not, what alternative explanation can you offer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top