typical markprinc retort when presented with logic.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

its the liberal way.

So explain it?

Why is one island that barely breached the surface for an immeasurably small period of time in geological terms, disappearing and 1,000,000 others not "disappearing" at the same rate?

The planet is warming overall. it's been happening for over 10,000 years. That's not a debatable fact and not disputed by anyone. Everyone understands we are coming out of an ice age and the planet is warming.

What i am talking about is the hysteria and horrible science... and impossibly shitty examples like the one cited in this thread which is backed up with absolutely ZERO science or even logic whatsoever.

So... what is this atoll all about? Every single article about it says its sinking due to "global warming" and "rising sea levels". Some passively mention as a footnote the horrible series of storms that wiped out a huge portion of the vegetation, leading to severe erosion. Some mention as a footnote, the dropping water table due to human pressure, under the atoll causing it to fall. Are these not contributing factors? So if its ONLY "rising sea levels"... then is the argument that there is a magical low pressure system hovering over ONLY this particular atoll? Islands rise out of the water adn sink constantly. The trailing end of the Hawaiian islands are sinking back into the sea as we speak. Plate tectonics can't possibly be a contributing factor?

There are literally countless numbers of atolls that are similar. Why is one disappearing because of "rising sea levels"? Why is only one in the news? Why aren't hysterical alarmists showing the other many 1000s which are very similar in terms of barely being above the water which also must be disappearing to make a solid case?

I can understand logic and reason aren't your strong points given your incessant, one sided political rants... while insisting you are not biased at all... but surely this very simple logical dilemma is one you can understand.


Also... funny to note that the world got involved trying to relocate these people and in typical hippie asshole fashion where we are only allowed to see good in everyone... they relocated them into the middle of a civil war on a nearby island that left over 10,000 people dead.

sucks, i was going to buy island.

:1orglaugh thanks

here you go, Ron:

http://i.imgur.com/ersAB7p.png

http://mashable.com/2014/04/08/carbo...VlYzcxcWNlZiJ9

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/c...-a-month-17189

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5

Zero impact on climate? Is that your official position, and is it based on fanciful belief

oh my god! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! from a high of 300 parts per 1,000,000 to 400 parts per 1,000,000. And yet NOTHING has changed.
Also, just for fun, you have a chart that measures ice core samples for CO2 without knowing that it is a reflection of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its a theory, not a proven fact. Odder still, you and the alarmists want to switch from measuring ice to measuring atmosphere and pretending its the same.

I applaud your attempt but as I said, The small change in CO2 from 300 parts per 1,000,000 to 400 parts per 1,000,000 has not changed the climate one little bit. :thumbsup

and i am assuming you base that on your extensive education, research, and experience.

For the rest of us, however, we are left to wonder what happens when the atmosphere matches what it was when giant lizards roamed the earth, and what happens when the BRIC matches the pollution output of the rest of the world.

btw, the only person saying 'the sky is falling', is you.

CO2 is not pollution.

http://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=233

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/html/PlantPPM2.jpg

http://plantsneedco2.org/html/WoodyF...Enrichment.jpg

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pa...s/image277.gif

i see.

so you're saying, that because CO2 exists in nature, it is 'not pollution'

with that logic, nothing is pollution, because it was always 'a part of nature'?

The definition of pollution is:

the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

and your position is, because it already exists, the massive increase we are causing 'isn't pollution'.

please feel free to correct me where i am mistaken.

we, this tiny fucking blip in the earth's timeline, have both destroyed the earth, and are capable of saving it and changing the course of nature even in the face of the grand scheme of things. that about right?

You are mistaken in believing that CO2 has harmful or poisonous effects. The three images I posted above demonstrate the exact opposite.

The fact that the alarmists and their acolytes in the media have convinced people that CO2 is a pollutant will go down as one of the greatest feats of propaganda of our time.

i see.

enjoy your conspiracy theory then.

Where is the conspiracy theory? These people, like you, actually believe what they preach. The problem is that what they preach is wrong. CO2 is not pollution.

the global devious plot to fool the world that there is something called global warming?

the fact you believe that CO2 is not pollution, is terrifying.

I agree, CO2, by itself, as it occurs naturally, is not pollution.

however, human activity increasing it in our atmosphere? do you seriously believe that isn't pollution?

The plants on Venus would disagree with you.

let him work through it.

Who said anything about a devious plot? Those are your words not mine. I don't believe in grand conspiracy theories.

Where do you suppose the CO2 we are releasing comes from? Do you think god put it there? Or do you think it too occurred naturally, was once in the air, and it has just been trapped underground for a few million years? Look at the graph I posted above. CO2 used to be around 2000ppm at the time of the dinosaurs. Was there a runaway greenhouse effect with catastrophic global warming? No there wasn't. Life survived and flourished.

That's genius. Except for the fact that we are not even anywhere near the same concentration of CO2 that exists on Venus and we never will be. At the levels we are at now plants will thrive with lots of extra CO2. Besides that CO2 is not the sole determining factor of temperature on Venus. The atmospheric pressure is 95 times higher there than here and a similar pressure here might also raise temps above 400 degrees C.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/0...ting-on-venus/

Also don't forget that the atmosphere of Mars is also 95% CO2. Where is the greenhouse effect there?

No, I think you need to work through a few things. Stop toeing the line and look at some facts for yourself. The catastrophe that you hope and pray for isn't unfolding like they promised you and it isn't going to.

so you loop the conversation around, reiterate your beliefs, and feel good about yourself.

ok.

you assume a great deal.

The child like alarmists in this thread will ignore the fact that very few if these SI called scientists' predictions have come thru.
Near her will the one that started this thread. When nothing bad continues to happen, the Richards and **********s of the world will just move into the next lie as if the previous lies never happened

... :thumbsup

Personally, I was really disappointed that the start of a new ice age predicted in the 70's didn't happen. I was really upset when the "hole in the ozone layer" didn't cause us all to fry as predicted. I was certain that all that Aquanet being used by everyone in the 80s was going to end the world as we knew it. I mean.. thats what we were told day in and day out..............

We can't destroy the earth, we are very capable though of making the earth uninhabitable for human life. We are nothing but accidents, there is no intelligent design, the planet won't miss us any more than it misses the millions of other species who've come and gone before.

I don't consider global warming to be one of our biggest problems. So even if I accept the vast majority of scientific opinions that man is warming up the planet I think the hysteria is out of perspective and some of the motivation for the hysteria is there's money to be made from it.

Sure Dyna Mo, whatever you say. Go ahead and keep denying what people are doing to the planet. I'll bet you $100 that within you lifetime, children you know will be sick or dying of lung disease, someone you know will have lost their homes to flooding or fire, and that the world will be a much shittier place thanks to Hummer-driving assholes.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but stupid-ass fucking asshole brain-dead moron republicans will be the ones responsible for choking the shit out of your children and grandchildren's lungs. "Liberals" are the only ones who care about the future and have learned about the long-term profit that the future brings.


The answer is in the article I quoted.

No, that is completely not true at all. You are accepting the crap that is being spoon fed to you.

The incredible lack of basic science knowledge you are displaying here is downright depressing. It doesn't matter what I say. In fact, a credible scientist probably would not even make an impression on you either. Sorry dude nothing personal, but...


Finally, someone who paid attention in science class.


OMG, OMG, OMG...

"Too Much" CO2, *IS* Pollution. If you want instant proof, put a plastic bag over your head and seal it around your neck, then breathe normally. Get it now?



Jel, *WE* are the tiny blip. *WE* are the only industrial mamels who have ever lived on the planet. *WE* are the ones causing the damage. We are pumping greenhouse gasses including CO2 into the air, and at the same time, taking away the planets ability to suck that CO2 back and put it into the ground thanks to deforestation. It's us, us us.

Lol! Just keep sucking the floppy tit of the right wing coal and oil money shriveldicks. When you find yourself choking for air between sucks, maybe you'll realize you were wrong all along.

I was "spoon fed" crap that we are coming out of an ice age? Was I also lied to about the mini ice age of the middle ages... or previous ice ages? I'm ignorant?

Are you on fucking drugs?

Funny how kooks always view themselves as the enlightened ones and everyone else is usually explained as being "brainwashed".... because of course, there can't be more than one theory, idea, hypothesis etc that doesn't perfectly fit the panic narrative or the paranoid narrative. And what ever you do... don't ever make the mistake of questioning the self professed "tolerant" and "open minded" liberal or you'll be labeled racist, hateful, small minded, brainwashed by fox news etc.

So we should not worry because? You raise the sea level 9 feet and we have a lot of issues.so just ignore it as it might have happened before?

dear child, I've been hearing this clap trap since the 70s. Once you mature, you'll have a better understanding of the world around you and the fake hysteria you currently believe.



contrary to the hysteria of uneducated youth like yourself, our air is actually getting cleaner. but prattle on, its entertaining.

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html
"""EPA creates air quality trends using measurements from monitors located across the country. The table below shows that air quality based on concentrations of the common pollutants has improved nationally since 1980."""

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

The hysteria and overwrought knee-jerk reactions to the claimed problem will be more harmful to society than the "problem" itself.


I'll fix it for you - social science class.


Ummmmm, ok. Are you done hyperventilating yet? Unbunched your panties?

1. Define "too much" CO2 as it relates to the atmosphere and not your ridiculous "bag over the head" BS. Keep in mind that CO2 is a trace gas in the atmospehere. It is nowhere near becoming anything but a trace gas.

2. The "bag over the head" analogy is ridiculous at best. If that is your criteria for labeling something a pollutant then you might as well label water a pollutant since people can die from dilutional hyponatremia. Oxygen too must then be labelled a pollutant - Oxygen toxicity. For that matter just about everything would be a pollutant because everything can be toxic at high enough doses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Oh the horror!

3. By your logic water vapour is also pollution since it is the most powerful and abundant greenhouse gas.

4. Greenhouses utilize CO2 generators to raise the levels of CO2 in their grow-houses up to 1500ppm for the benefit of the plants. Do you ever hear of grow-house workers dropping dead? Didn't think so.


You can worry if you want. But so far all of their predictions have been wrong. What makes you think any of their future apocalyptic ones will be right?

dodge and deflect like a conspiracy nutter. Not sure why you can't admit your opinion on this atoll needs support. try it sometime. perhaps when you're not pointing your finger at hummers whilst driving your v8 camaro muscle car.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/up...fuck-in-it.jpg

Lots of good arguments in this thread... :error :helpme :1orglaugh

:stoned

ADG