SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> CO2
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1543200198

Message started by thumperclone on 11/25/18 at 18:43:18

Title: CO2
Post by thumperclone on 11/25/18 at 18:43:18

too much in our blood can cause
hypercapnia
nerve damage
asphyxiation

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/25/18 at 19:53:40

Look up
Oxygen toxicity.
You're so butthurt over getting schooled that you're determined to Not learn.
How very lefty of you.
CO2 is Part of the NATURAL atmosphere.
It's been higher than it is now.
There is more green in the last twenty years.
You lefties have been screaming about the Dire consequences just around the corner for over TWENTY FUKKING YEA
And not one, no, not ONE MUTHERFUKKING THING you've been screaming about
Has HAPPENED.
But you're right about it all.
Talk about living in fear.
You crack me up.

I'll give you one thing.
You ACTUALLY asked a good question.
Where Does the CO1 go?
Why do all the cars and gas heaters not kill us?
Gaaw Lee,, Sergeant, Howcumizzit we aren't all dead?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by thumperclone on 11/25/18 at 20:19:33

sticking your head in the sand does not change what's happening

im not a "lefty" or a con
I am not butt hurt
co2 is natural
it is becoming excessive
our planet and our bodies are having harder times processing it
the are less glaciers,higher sealevels, less coral
more respiratory ailments
more green are algae blooms attempting to absorb the excess co2

why are we not all dead is the same as saying there is no climate change because its cold outside
it is an on going process

tweetys own administration just released their findings on climate change its "bigly" bad

I don't live in fear
stop calling me names and trying to pigeon hole me you are clueless as to what and who I am
your foul language is not necessary to get your point across
try being civil for once
those who resort to that type of brogue magnifies their lack of vocabulary

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/25/18 at 20:26:15

more green are algae blooms attempting to absorb the exce

No.
It's not
I posted a link to satellite proof of increased FOLIAGE a while ago.
You Really Need to understand WHY they pump CO2 into greenhouses.
You are aware of the fact that vineyards existed further north in the past than they do now, right?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by thumperclone on 11/28/18 at 18:26:42

none so blind as those who refuse to see

you are old enough to remember love canal
that was called a farce at the beginning how did that turn out?

you relish in conspiracies could it be possible your opinion is influenced
by the fossil fuel conglomerate?

think of your grandkids man
you have a logical thought process

the fuse is lit ..
the clock is ticking

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/28/18 at 18:33:28

You really don't get it,do you?
All the increased CO2 is responsible FOR the
Increase in FOLIAGE.
Plants
EAT
CO2
And
Create OXYGEN.
You're too ignorant to see how forgiving the planet is. LIFE happens here.

Title: Re: CO2
Post by thumperclone on 11/29/18 at 04:21:56

what foliage? where?
ignorance is not the same as having a different view than yours

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/18 at 05:44:23

Opinion? No,

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50563

Certainly not the only place to find information.
I would ask, though
Since CO2 is
Pumped into greenhouses
Exactly what DO you expect from
Higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
Since it's a
Known plant food,
Why believe that the world is in trouble
When it's getting more green?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/18 at 06:17:42

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/28/failed-oregon-solar-equipment-plant-leaves-behind-millions-in-taxpayer-losses/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/28/failed-oregon-solar-equipment-plant-leaves-behind-millions-in-taxpayer-losses/

Closer to love canal than having CO2 , which IS naturally occurring and preexisted all of mans activities.
You're determined to believe CO2 is some toxin, but it's not.
Drink too much water
Die.
Did you look up
Oxygen toxicity?
Just because too much is bad doesn't mean it's a toxin.

Toxic Waste Site

In an audit of the company Oregon’s Secretary of State pointed out although “Multnomah County had the legal right to seize the borrower’s equipment for delinquent taxes,” it was unlikely to do so because the plant was heavily polluted with cadmium and hydrochloric acid.

Seizing the equipment may not be an option given the level of pollution at the plant.

This stuff is very caustic,” Michael Vaughn, Multnomah County accessor told Oregon Live. “And there’s lots of it. It’s one big mess.”

Must not allow CO2, ,

What gases make up the atmosphere?
Atmosphere is made up of :

Nitrogen (N2) - 78.084%
Oxygen (O2) - 20.946%
Argon (Ar) - 0.9340%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) - 0.0397%
Neon (Ne) - 0.001818%
Helium (He) - 0.000524%
Methane (CH4) - 0.000179%
Water vapor (H2O) - 0.25% by mass over full atmosphere. Locally, it accounts for about 0.001%–5% of the atmosphere by volume.

The number to watch for is 45 mm Hg of CO2 in the air, or 6% or 60,000 PPM – that is the concentration of CO2 that needs to be reached for the humankind to become extinct. If my math is serving me right, if we divide 60,000 PPM with 400 PPM we get the ‘kill factor’ for CO2: 150.

In other words, the concentration of CO2 needs to inc
rease 150-fold for the CO2 to become toxic.

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=SOWI&form=AMZNS2&q=gases+in+the+atmosphere

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=SOWI&form=AMZNS2&q=gases+in+the+atmosphere

Title: Re: CO2
Post by WebsterMark on 11/29/18 at 06:39:48

Here's what I don't understand. The reports issued by the IPCC since the beginning have over estimated the increase in temperature. Every single one. You would think with all the variables involved in the climate that at least one of their reports would under estimate the temperature, but no, they all over estimate. Does that point to research looking to prove a conclusion? Sounds like it. There are also serious questions over which method of recording temperatures is most accurate. (ground based recorders have had their figures adjusted to account for non-climate change increases which is rife for unscrupulous behavior....) If you say you cannot trust scientist who question climate change because they are 'funded by big-oil', then are you saying all climate change proponents are above reproach? That published papers, academic honors, tenure etc... are not motivation enough for corruption to take hold? You'd be a fool to think that.

We've been told for the past 20 or more years, disaster is right around the corner yet none of us, absolutely none of us can point to anything different now than 20 years ago. Zero.

I don't doubt humans impact the climate. With 7 billion people spread over the entire planet, it would be folly to assume we don't, but is it significant? Is it negative? Is it irreversible? These are the questions that we cannot trust the current Climate Change Industry (and yes, it's an industry) to answer truthfully.

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/18 at 06:52:30

It's all about control and taxes.
Why is Paris burning?
Carbon Tax..
It's a scam..
Funny, the caravan at the border?
That was nonexistent.
Trump just driving his ignorant lemmings to the polls
Using FEAR,,,

But after now three studies, about ten years apart, each declaring we have
Ten Years to get it right,
Or ELSE,,
And NOTHING, none of the Dire Consequences have been seen,
But I'm the one who is acting out of FEAR, (which is not stupid to do, as long as the Fear is based in REALITY ).
The Warmlarmists have been Wrong, over and over, and
Never correct, not once.

But I'm supposed to call it
Settled Science?

Cameras SHOW the caravan.
History proves the Warmlarmists
Always Wrong
Never in Doubt.

Title: Re: CO2
Post by MnSpring on 11/29/18 at 08:15:17

More Ultra Liberal Socialistic, ’Screw You, and Pay Me”
All in the voice of, ‘Progressiveness’, ‘Global Warming’, ’Save The Planet”, “Be Green”, ‘Carbon Footprint’.

In the case of this Hudge Screwing, (thanks for the link JOG) Anybody with 1/2 a brain, KNEW, that it was started, Just For The Purpose, of Steeling Money. Just like the Flood of Illegals, turned DOWN Mexico's offers/help/grants/, because they KNOW, that the USA’s will be Much Better.

It is the same as: https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/failed-oregon-solar-equipment-plant-leaves-behind-millions-in-taxpayer-losses?fbclid=IwAR0exYUi0AjeS3PzUTzUylc1Y3Hlk4LcxLeZ0P1zKmmtggkA5ZgWGbigEwU
They KNEW, all the Kum-By-You singers will give them TONS of money.
Proof, not gonna spend the time and dig for it. (perhaps eegore or tt will).
Yet here is the very simple recipe. FOIA all the top people’s Income Taxes. And the DMV records of what kind of cars, And the Real-Estate records for the kind of houses. Then correlate the huge, ‘GIMMIE’ money they received from the Fairy Dust Sprinklers, to the, ‘bonuses’, the top people got.
99.98% certain what you will find. Have seen the same thing over, and over, and over again.

Next: A Elect Company is going to, ’TAX’ costumers that have Solar Panels.
Simply because, some have received subsidizes. (HEAR THAT WORD SOME, Homeowners)
Yet the extra Tax will be for ALL, homeowners with Solar Panels.

Hmmm, Gosh, Golly, Gee, No, ‘EXTRA”, Tax for a, ’Solar Farm’.
GOLLLLLLLLLLY GEEEEEEE

This is the power Companies reason: Which have to be approved,
by who ?????????
“Solar power equipment is already heavily subsidized,” said Taylor. “People who demand and receive, for example, 100 units of subsidies, but then are required to give four of those 100 units back, have no standing to complain they are being treated badly”

Wonder what would happen if someones bill was 100.00 a month. Then they went out, and brought ALL new LED light bulbs. put in a wood stove and stopped using the elect heater, and other things.
Now their bill is 42.50 a month.
Will THEY get hit with the new, ’Solar’ TAX

(Said in the voice of Fred Rogers) ‘Boys and Girls, can you say, Socialism”

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/kansas-solar-customers-to-contribute-to-electric-grid-maintenance

And now this one, which is GOING TO HAPPEN.
And they are SO Arrogant they say up front, they are going to STEEL.
BECAUSE, the ‘Klick the heals together three times, while sprinkling Fairy dust, and singing KUM-By-You singers, SAY they should !

From the article: "What is it about green energy that induces government officials to pay far above market prices?
It is doubtful that Northam or Virginia Assembly members would pay 25 times the market price for food, clothing or housing.
But they are quick to approve a project that will soak Virginia electricity ratepayers.”

More:
The estimated project cost is a staggering $300 million, to be paid for in the electricity bills of Virginia businesses and households.

According to the Wind Technologies Market Report, U.S. wind turbine market prices in 2016 were just under $1,000 per kilowatt, or about $6 million for a six-megawatt turbine. Virginia will pay 25 times the U.S. market price for the CVOW turbines.

The wholesale price for electricity in Virginia is about 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. This is the price received by coal, natural gas or nuclear-generating facilities. The electricity produced from the two offshore turbines will receive 78 cents per kWh, or a staggering 26 times the wholesale price.

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/taxpayers-are-being-ripped-off-by-new-green-energy-project

A corse it ain'y got nuting to do with any of the contractors, getting the job, and buying a new ... for their, 'friend', on the energy commission.
And it ain'y got nuting to do with the fact the the Fairy Dust Sprinklers are all umping up and down wid Joy, cauz it gonna ’save’ the plan-it from CO2.

Title: Re: CO2
Post by T And T Garage on 11/29/18 at 08:20:33

1509140C110413020D0E0F04610 wrote:

too much in our blood can cause
hypercapnia
nerve damage
asphyxiation

Thumper - I think you may be on to something....

mn's posts show all those signs!!!

;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: CO2
Post by LostArtist on 11/29/18 at 09:22:14

JOG is right, there is more foilage and greenery than before due to increased CO2

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

however, it's not enough

We can’t possibly plant enough trees to stop climate change
http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/05/we-cant-possibly-plant-enough-trees-to-stop-climate-change/

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/18 at 11:02:05

You're 100% correct. We can't.
Since the Only constant is
Change, we can't stop it. Volcanoes spew it by the ton.
It's time to look at what we've been told. Look at how the Ohhh so terrible CO2 has actually caused a cooler earth, or would you sit in the sun, or in the shade?
Whose SUV's caused the end of the ice age?
Why the disconnect from the sun?
How do these climatologists NOT consider the solar activity?

How is it even possible to continue to have such cold, if and since everyone KNOWS it's been getting continually Hotter for over twenty years?

I know,I know, weather, not climate, local, not global,
But let's think about it..

In a continually warming global environment,
How is it that pockets of record setting cold can exist?
At some point, it's not possible to believe that as the skillet heats up, some part of it can drop in temperature.

Since Carbon Taxes have been put forward as a solution,
And it's obvious that is what is wanted,
Wouldn't it be prudent to study the whole thing and ask
Gee, since exactly NOTHING they have told me was gonna happen has happened,
Maybe they were conning us???

Title: Re: CO2
Post by LostArtist on 11/29/18 at 12:25:14

7A656364797E4F7F4F77656922100 wrote:

you're really showing your, for lack of a better word, ignorance on this.

First Climatologists DO consider the sun and solar activity in all of this and taking that into consideration, and...... guess what?

for some reason you won't listen... sounds like you complaining about me now doesn't it...

here's a playlist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

he really goes into all the science and is very balanced and non-judgmental, just straight up science.

and for the record, I'm not for carbon taxes. I just want to see some movement away from carbon fuels, mainly causeI think it's neat, I like that new innovation and technology. why can't we have electric trucks, or even just more hybrid stuff. And why can't America do it better than anyone else?

oh, and the Earth ISN'T A SKILLET THAT'S WHY!!!!!!

It really does seem like conservatives have to simplify everything down to the simplest, stupidest, lowest common denominator for them to understand it, that's why they are all econ 101!!! well, yeah, but there's also econ 400 level classes, CAUSE SOMETIMES SH!T IS ACTUALLY COMPLICATED you fukwits

Title: Re: CO2
Post by Serowbot on 11/29/18 at 14:31:12

JoG,... you seem to be arguing that it's not really happening,.. at the same as you argue there's nothing we can do about it.

You need to pick a position.
Do you agree with yourself,.. or not?...
Are you half wrong, or half right?...
Are we not the cause of what isn't happening?...
;D

Title: Re: CO2
Post by LostArtist on 11/29/18 at 14:33:49

7264736E76636E75010 wrote:

he's a half-wit is what he is...... sorry, couldn't help it . :-*

Title: Re: CO2
Post by MnSpring on 11/29/18 at 16:21:58

0F2C30370231372A3037430 wrote:

he's a half-wit is what he is......
... you fukwits...

Title: Re: CO2
Post by thumperclone on 11/29/18 at 16:41:47

co2 acts as a reflector trapping heat in our atmosphere and sending it back to the surface
hence the term greenhouse gas
410ppm at this point that is 3200 gigatons of co2
the earth and the oceans are able to absorb only 40%
burning fossil fuels contribute 28% of the total
we are 60 ppm above the safe point and climbing

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/18 at 17:29:35

Paying Carbon Taxes will surely solve the problem.

Title: Re: CO2
Post by verslagen1 on 11/30/18 at 07:37:34

77686E6974734272427A68642F1D0 wrote:

Paying Carbon Taxes will surely solve the problem.

How we going to get the fish to pay carbon tax?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by LostArtist on 11/30/18 at 08:10:34

684B7655574C4B42250 wrote:

[quote author=0F2C30370231372A3037430 link=1543200198/15#17 date=1543530829]
he's a half-wit is what he is......
... you fukwits...

BOT, send me a pen will ya !
I'm running of ink, writing down all those things I, can, say.

It was easy to write down the fact I cannot call the tt a he/she.
Got that.

It's all these OTHER things/names, (that the people you say do NOT do this), are saying, (like above), I have to keep track of, so I know I CAN say them.

[/quote]

the difference is, I say things like that as a joke, with love sometimes even... hence the smiley face emoji, you're just mean, and how many times has Bot let you call people snowflake and whiney and libtard... Bot's pretty fair, get over it, quit playing the victim all the time

Title: Re: CO2
Post by MnSpring on 11/30/18 at 10:43:36

7A5945427744425F4542360 wrote:

the difference is, I say things like that as a joke, with love sometimes even... hence the smiley face emoji,

Title: Re: CO2
Post by LostArtist on 11/30/18 at 10:52:39

1734092A2833343D5A0 wrote:

[quote author=7A5945427744425F4542360 link=1543200198/15#22 date=1543594234] the difference is, I say things like that as a joke, with love sometimes even... hence the smiley face emoji,

Putting a smiley face on a post, in connection with, “… you fukwits…”
means it is said, "…with love…” ?
So shall I put a ’smiley’ face in front of, or behind, the word, ’snowflake’ ?
Because clearly, “…the difference is, I say things like that as a joke, with love sometimes even… hence the smiley face emoji, …”

yes, it means I'm not seriously insulting that person, just a friendly play on words, or just kidding, get with the times man! 8-) why so serious? [smiley=evil.gif] also, a half-wit is also half-smart..... see oh, and see how I misspelled fukwit... isn't that the trick so you all take it as a joke? I thought that was the conservative code... make a funny spelling and if anyone is insulted by it they just don't get your humor... isn't that right?

Getting back to the post.
(Little cleaning of the office, came accost a photo, with a comment)
Photo of a rock formation, in the Petrified Forrest of AZ.
It said:
225 Million years ago this was a forested region.
100 Million years ago, this was the bottom of lake Triassc.
60 Million years ago it was pushed up by tectonic forces.
8 Thousand years ago, Humans arrives.
2 Thousand years ago, corn was grown in the area.
[/quote]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.... it seems very irrelevant

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/18 at 11:31:22

I've never, not EVER, said the climate isn't changing. What kinda idiot can't see the obvious history of the earth?
I also agree that we have influenced it.
The question is
Compared to all the other variables and contributing factors, what
Percentage of the change is on us?
What happens IF we warm a bit?
Longer growing seasons?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by LostArtist on 11/30/18 at 12:42:17

4A555354494E7F4F7F47555912200 wrote:

all that is answered by the climatologists that have spent their LIVES studying this that you are so skeptical of. watch that playlist, if you get nothing else out of it, you'll get an actual appreciation and understanding of REAL science, vs the crap used to justify your position.

this playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Title: Re: CO2
Post by Eegore on 11/30/18 at 13:12:46

Opinions from professionals in their fields are pointless as they are either corrupt, or I will just select which parts of their lifelong peer-reviewed research I want to acknowledge, and what parts I don't.

Get with the program man.

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/18 at 15:49:38

Once again,
Tell me which of the
Dire Consequences we've been being told were right around the corner have actually come to be.
The Professional people who have been raising the alarm
Have DESTROYED their Credibility because

THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY OPENED THEIR MOUTHS.
Yet you believe?

?????
WTF is WRONG with You?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by LostArtist on 11/30/18 at 15:59:00

617E787F62655464546C7E72390B0 wrote:

give me an example

I think what you'll find is that politicians and activists have over hyped the climatologists actual scientific work.

oh and the GOP has been WRONG ABOUT TRICKLE DOWN economics EVERYTIME but you still believe that dontcha! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!! putz ;)

Title: Re: CO2
Post by thumperclone on 11/30/18 at 16:00:24

746B6D6A7770417141796B672C1E0 wrote:

Paying Carbon Taxes will surely solve the problem.

pure supposition on my part here
I've not done any research on this topic

carbon tax may work, tax the big carbon emitting processes if taxes were high enough they may change their ways
kinda like how the gas guzzler tax works

one draw back is the consumer foots the bill

I own the vehicles I have for their mpg ratings

if products were labeled with their carbon footprint it would allow consumers to pick and choose as they see fit
as we are a consumer driven economy.

jog
from the research I have done a
partial answer to your question of our contribution to co2
28% by burning fossil fuels

Title: Re: CO2
Post by MnSpring on 11/30/18 at 16:04:46

00233F380D3E38253F384C0 wrote:

"... climatologists that have spent their LIVES studying this ..."

Title: Re: CO2
Post by thumperclone on 11/30/18 at 16:26:15

just like tweety
if you don't agree with it
it must be fake news because after all
"the truth isn't the truth"

Title: Re: CO2
Post by Eegore on 11/30/18 at 16:28:27

"Tell me which of the
Dire Consequences we've been being told were right around the corner have actually come to be."

I believe the same number as there have been government agencies kicking in doors taking our guns.

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/18 at 16:29:04

No.
After
DECADES of warnings about the
Dire Consequences
And
NOT ONE OF THEM HAS HAPPENED
I don't believe them.
Why the FUKK do you?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by thumperclone on 11/30/18 at 17:12:18

6E7177706D6A5B6B5B63717D36040 wrote:

No.
After
DECADES of warnings about the
Dire Consequences
And
NOT ONE OF THEM HAS HAPPENED
I don't believe them.
Why the FUKK do you?

why do you resort to the foul language when your ideals are challenged

I showed you the facts and all you could do was mention carbon tax

you have said over the
years(12)you are here to teach
so why resort to gutter lingo when you are unable to come up with any true reasonable statements?

your proclaimed 140 IQ is not apparent in your postings

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/18 at 18:45:11

I'm frustrated with you.
So
After the years of warnings about the Dire consequences
And
Exactly NONE of them have come true
Why do you still believe them?
How perfectly incorrect does someone need to be before you stop believing them?
Isn't 100% enough?
Again
WHY do you continue to believe?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by thumperclone on 12/01/18 at 06:32:27

road sign warning of danger ahead.

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/01/18 at 09:07:50

Looks like you're stumped.
You have exactly No logical argument to support continuing to believe they have a clue about what is actually happening.
You may not support carbon taxes, but plenty of people who would Spend those taxes do. Legislators ...
Those
Warning Signs
Have been Wrong for over TWENTY years.
So, you just keep believing them?
And you people point to gun owners and call them names..

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/01/18 at 10:19:10

4458455D405542535C5F5E55300 wrote:

road sign warning of danger ahead.

You're aware of those warnings about
More and bigger hurricanes
Oceans rising
And all the other scary things were gonna get us if we didn't have our act together in ten years, right?
That ten years has passed
Twice

So
Driving down the road
Sign says

Bad road ahead

Miles pass

Another
Warning sign

Bad road ahead

Miles pass

The road is good

Warning sign

Bad road ahead

You fully believe THAT?
Why?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by thumperclone on 12/02/18 at 04:56:51

we don't agree that's fine
spend some time and research the numbers or continue believing the big oil naysayers
because of your location maybe its unsafe for you to come to the logical conclusion the data leads to

I am finished with this topic..

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/02/18 at 05:13:53

I don't blame you.

Title: Re: CO2
Post by LostArtist on 12/03/18 at 10:37:56

5448554D504552434C4F4E45200 wrote:

you still haven't given me an actual example of a "dire consequence" that hasn't happened. if they are so plentiful, how hard is that?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by LostArtist on 12/03/18 at 10:45:07

597A4764667D7A73140 wrote:

[quote author=00233F380D3E38253F384C0 link=1543200198/15#26 date=1543610537] "... climatologists that have spent their LIVES studying this ..."

Climatologists/Scientists get paid, by the, (mostly), teaching organization they are employed by.

They write grants, and proposals to, ‘fund’ their projects/field of study/s.

They say the things they know the people who pay them, want to hear, so they have a much better chance of getting paid.

If they say things they know people who pay them, do not want to hear, they have a much better chance of not getting paid.

What do you think they 'say' ?

[/quote]

so, they've been doing that under both republican and democratic administrations....

and the same thing is true for the climate deniers that are paid for by conservatives and big oil companies right?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by LostArtist on 12/03/18 at 10:57:06

746B6D6A7770417141796B672C1E0 wrote:

[quote author=4458455D405542535C5F5E55300 link=1543200198/30#37 date=1543674747]road sign warning of danger ahead.

You're aware of those warnings about
More and bigger hurricanes
Oceans rising
And all the other scary things were gonna get us if we didn't have our act together in ten years, right?
That ten years has passed
Twice

and they are happening, just look at the size of the storms or Harvey and Florence and Ike vs the storms of the same category 20 years ago, look it up

the oceans are rising, more and more.

so, all of that HAS HAPPENED, and can be and has been confirmed with actual MEASURABLE data, but you don't trust the data, that's YOUR issue, not mine,

people actually have been displaced from their homes from oceans rising

you are too stubborn to see the facts

So
Driving down the road
Sign says

Bad road ahead

Miles pass

Another
Warning sign

Bad road ahead

Miles pass

The road is good

Warning sign

Bad road ahead

You fully believe THAT?
Why?
[/quote]

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/03/18 at 11:33:17

people actually have been displaced from their homes from oceans rising...

Oceans that rise along a few miles of coastline would probably be more likely to be falling land.

Again, change is the ONLY constant.

Oceans rising is a historic normal.

You're looking at big storms.
You're not looking back very far.

The
More and Bigger claim is busted.
Florida went around ten Years without even getting hit.

The dire consequences that would befall us in ten years, that they were hollering about around thirty years ago
Didn't happen.
They then Reupped on them, gave us ANOTHER ten years,
Still didn't happen
And Now, after pushing proven mathematically incorrect Results of more studies, we get
Another ten years
Or ELSE..

You're Wanting to see carbon taxes by continuing to swallow proven lies, whether YOU support carbon taxes or not.
By being one of the Warmlarmists, you support the scammers who Want carbon taxes.

That someone ATTRIBUTES something to your SUV doesn't make it so.
Exactly what happens to something that has things removed from it? Does it get smaller? If you remove huge volumes of dirt from below your lawn and don't support it, would you expect it to sink a little?

Have you done any calculations on barrels of oil removed from the ground since we started driving cars?
How is it possible for That to Not allow the earth to change shape?

Gosh,, what a concept.

least since 1880, the average global sea level has been rising, with about an 18 cm rise from 1897 to 1997. More precise satellite based data show about a 7.5 cm accelerating rise in sea level from 1993 to 2017. This is due mostly to anthropogenic global warming that is driving the thermal expansion of seawater while melting land-based ice sheets and glaciers. This trend is expected to accelerate during the 21st century. Projecting future sea level has always been challengin

I am not saying removing oil is THE cause.
Like the climate, many variables are in play.
Do we own some of it? It's impossible to say no.
The question is
How much
And
What is the price of doing nothing?

What IS the main driving force of the climate?
The sun?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/03/18 at 11:49:24

A barrel of oil is 6.7 cubic feet.
Since 1965 the world has averaged around Sixty Million barrels of production
Per DAY.
Tell me That is inconsequential.

And what mechanism IS getting rid of all the tons of CO?
Dammifino, but it's a good question.
Such a forgiving planet. We haven't asphyxiated ourselves with SUV exhaust.
After all these years of making it, gee, Wally, shouldn't we be dead by now?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by LostArtist on 12/03/18 at 14:26:39

JOG, seriously man, if you don't want to read the TONS of real hard scientific journals about this, I get it, I don't either, at least WATCH SOME of that freaking playlist!!!!! JUST F U C K I N G WATCH IT!!!!!! it'll go over 85%-95% of everything you're asking about, and if you don't understand that good science IS THE LEADING DRIVER, not some agenda, then that's on you,

Listen, some of the science got exaggerated for political purposes, absolutely, but the reality is there WATCH THE PLAYLIST!!!

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Title: Re: CO2
Post by LostArtist on 12/03/18 at 14:28:42

3A252324393E0F3F0F37252962500 wrote:

you have no idea the scale of the Earth do you?

Title: Re: CO2
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/03/18 at 19:02:54

Very aware of the size.
What's 6.7 X 60,000,000 X 365 X the number of years in my other post?
You don't think that's something to consider?