Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#1,101
#1,101
Persian Vol said:
What exactly is the myth on carbon?
Click to expand...

That carbon dioxide, a necessary and absolutely vital trace gas, is the main driver of climate change. There have been very long periods in earth's history with less carbon dioxide (in terms of ppm) in the atmosphere with higher temperatures and periods with much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with lower temperatures. Life thrived when co2 levels were much, much higher than they are today. We've literally de-gassed the planet over the last 50 million years.

Every living thing on the planet is carbon-based you idiot. But don't let facts get in the way of the green agenda. You know these people are full of s*** when they start referring to co2 as "pollution."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,106
#1,106
Gannon Goodson said:
That carbon dioxide, a necessary and absolutely vital trace gas, is the main driver of climate change. There have been very long periods in earth's history with less carbon dioxide (in terms of ppm) in the atmosphere with higher temperatures and periods with much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with lower temperatures. Life thrived when co2 levels were much, much higher than they are today. We've literally de-gassed the planet over the last 50 million years.

Every living thing on the planet is carbon-based you idiot. But don't let facts get in the way of the green agenda. You know these people are full of s*** when they start referring to co2 as "pollution."
Click to expand...

No one is saying co2 is pollution. The argument is that it causes a greenhouse effect that would raise temperatures. So let me get this straight. What does carbon based living organisms have to do with ANYTHING. What an outright illogical post to make. Yes I am aware carbon is the essence of organic chemistry and the creation of life, but what does increasing Co2 levels have to do with anything in DIRECT relation to living organisms. Diamond is a form of carbon, are diamonds essential to life? The chemistry of CO2s presence in our athmosphere and living organisms' composition of carbon are completely unrelated in the point you are trying to make. Increasing CO2 emissions through fossil fuel combustion in large amounts will cause a greenhouse effect.
It's a simple process. Take Methane (CH4), expose it to another reactant most notably oxygen to undergo combustion, in the product the reactant O2 from the lone oxygen molecule and the C from the methane atom will then react to form carbon dioxide(CO2) that will be exposed into the athmosphere while the other product will be used for manufacturing of energetic purposes. This accounts for all fossil fuel combustions. Now Account for the billions of combustion reactions undergoing in factories, cars, ect, then you can calculate the 20+ gigatons of CO2 that surely does create an obvious greenhouse effect that has been confirmed by nasa and others. Chemistry class ain't a joke. Factor in deforestation of the amazon rainforest, and we have an even bigger problem considering trees are what we need to absorb the CO2 in the athmosphere in the first place. To make it simple. Increasing level of CO2, Decreasing amounts of trees, results in an increasing greenhouse effect that results in increasing global temperatures at the Earth's surface. It's ok to be cynical. But to be cynical about every damn issue that is
not affiliated with your Political ideology is a bit ridiculous. This conspiracy theory that liberals are brainwashed uneducated hippies under control of rich men in Washington is getting old. Getting sick of this illuminati ****.
 
#1,110
#1,110
volinbham said:
EPA has classified it as pollutant.

Sorry for the interruption - carryon
Click to expand...

Well if we define pollutant as harmful chemicals in our environment and if increasing CO2 results in a greenhouse effect that results in global warming, then I guess I can see what they are going with this.
 
#1,111
#1,111
Persian Vol said:
Well if we define pollutant as harmful chemicals in our environment and if increasing CO2 results in a greenhouse effect that results in global warming, then I guess I can see what they are going with this.
Click to expand...

I have never in my life seen someone argue so much about something that is a lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,113
#1,113
Persian Vol said:
Well if we define pollutant as harmful chemicals in our environment and if increasing CO2 results in a greenhouse effect that results in global warming, then I guess I can see what they are going with this.
Click to expand...

I pray for your mind and soul.
 
#1,114
#1,114
Persian Vol said:
No one is saying co2 is pollution. The argument is that it causes a greenhouse effect that would raise temperatures. So let me get this straight. What does carbon based living organisms have to do with ANYTHING. What an outright illogical post to make. Yes I am aware carbon is the essence of organic chemistry and the creation of life, but what does increasing Co2 levels have to do with anything in DIRECT relation to living organisms. Diamond is a form of carbon, are diamonds essential to life? The chemistry of CO2s presence in our athmosphere and living organisms' composition of carbon are completely unrelated in the point you are trying to make. Increasing CO2 emissions through fossil fuel combustion in large amounts will cause a greenhouse effect.
It's a simple process. Take Methane (CH4), expose it to another reactant most notably oxygen to undergo combustion, in the product the reactant O2 from the lone oxygen molecule and the C from the methane atom will then react to form carbon dioxide(CO2) that will be exposed into the athmosphere while the other product will be used for manufacturing of energetic purposes. This accounts for all fossil fuel combustions. Now Account for the billions of combustion reactions undergoing in factories, cars, ect, then you can calculate the 20+ gigatons of CO2 that surely does create an obvious greenhouse effect that has been confirmed by nasa and others. Chemistry class ain't a joke. Factor in deforestation of the amazon rainforest, and we have an even bigger problem considering trees are what we need to absorb the CO2 in the athmosphere in the first place. To make it simple. Increasing level of CO2, Decreasing amounts of trees, results in an increasing greenhouse effect that results in increasing global temperatures at the Earth's surface. It's ok to be cynical. But to be cynical about every damn issue that is
not affiliated with your Political ideology is a bit ridiculous. This conspiracy theory that liberals are brainwashed uneducated hippies under control of rich men in Washington is getting old. Getting sick of this illuminati ****.
Click to expand...

That is a hypothesis not a fact. Conventional wisdom used to think the Earth was the center of the solar system, that it was flat, that there was an ether until someone intelligent came along and disproved it. Cynical is usually right. If we are globally warming why is Greenland no longer green? If we cause global warming what made the ice age melt? Don't believe every damn thing some pointy headed elitist tells you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,115
#1,115
Persian Vol said:
No one is saying co2 is pollution. The argument is that it causes a greenhouse effect that would raise temperatures. So let me get this straight. What does carbon based living organisms have to do with ANYTHING. What an outright illogical post to make. Yes I am aware carbon is the essence of organic chemistry and the creation of life, but what does increasing Co2 levels have to do with anything in DIRECT relation to living organisms. Diamond is a form of carbon, are diamonds essential to life? The chemistry of CO2s presence in our athmosphere and living organisms' composition of carbon are completely unrelated in the point you are trying to make. Increasing CO2 emissions through fossil fuel combustion in large amounts will cause a greenhouse effect.
It's a simple process. Take Methane (CH4), expose it to another reactant most notably oxygen to undergo combustion, in the product the reactant O2 from the lone oxygen molecule and the C from the methane atom will then react to form carbon dioxide(CO2) that will be exposed into the athmosphere while the other product will be used for manufacturing of energetic purposes. This accounts for all fossil fuel combustions. Now Account for the billions of combustion reactions undergoing in factories, cars, ect, then you can calculate the 20+ gigatons of CO2 that surely does create an obvious greenhouse effect that has been confirmed by nasa and others. Chemistry class ain't a joke. Factor in deforestation of the amazon rainforest, and we have an even bigger problem considering trees are what we need to absorb the CO2 in the athmosphere in the first place. To make it simple. Increasing level of CO2, Decreasing amounts of trees, results in an increasing greenhouse effect that results in increasing global temperatures at the Earth's surface. It's ok to be cynical. But to be cynical about every damn issue that is
not affiliated with your Political ideology is a bit ridiculous. This conspiracy theory that liberals are brainwashed uneducated hippies under control of rich men in Washington is getting old. Getting sick of this illuminati ****.
Click to expand...

Hey, I never said they were uneducated hippies. Hippies actually mean well; they just have s*** for brains. It's a parenting issue, not an education issue.

And there are dozens of factors that affect global temperatures. The idea that co2 is the main driver, which is what the Alarmists claim, is simply false. I'm far more terrified of water vapor, volcanic activity, and solar cycles. We need more carbon dioxide. Do me a favor: go burn some fossil fuels. All the plants and vegetation in the world will thank you for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,116
#1,116
Sandvol said:
That is a hypothesis not a fact. Conventional wisdom used to think the Earth was the center of the solar system, that it was flat, that there was an ether until someone intelligent came along and disproved it. Cynical is usually right. If we are globally warming why is Greenland no longer green? If we cause global warming what made the ice age melt? Don't believe every damn thing some pointy headed elitist tells you.
Click to expand...

A bit of a stretch comparing the notion with the round being flat and molecuar chemistry altering the global climate. I hope you were joking about the Greenland no longer green statement.
 
#1,117
#1,117
Persian Vol said:
Well if we define pollutant as harmful chemicals in our environment and if increasing CO2 results in a greenhouse effect that results in global warming, then I guess I can see what they are going with this.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And to reverse this trend "before time is up" and we "reach the point of no return," we'll need to tax you out of business and regulate what little you have left over.

We just want to save you.

Sincerely,

The U.S. Government
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,119
#1,119
Gannon Goodson said:
Hey, I never said they were uneducated hippies. Hippies actually mean well; they just have s*** for brains. It's a parenting issue, not an education issue.

And there are dozens of factors that affect global temperatures. The idea that co2 is the main driver, which is what the Alarmists claim, is simply false. I'm far more terrified of water vapor, volcanic activity, and solar cycles. We need more carbon dioxide. Do me a favor: go burn some fossil fuels. All the plants and vegetation in the world will thank you for it.
Click to expand...

The emphasis on CO2 is based upon the idea that it can be controlled through human intervention. Sure if a super volcano erupts then were all pretty much ****ed and no amount of H2 hummers can account for that. But we can't prevent such an occurrence.But if CO2 does play a significant role in the greenhouse effect, and which it does, it should come under debate.
 
#1,121
#1,121
Persian Vol said:
The emphasis on CO2 is based upon the idea that it can be controlled through human intervention. Sure if a super volcano erupts then were all pretty much ****ed and no amount of H2 hummers can account for that. But we can't prevent such an occurrence.But if CO2 does play a significant role in the greenhouse effect, and which it does, it should come under debate.
Click to expand...

Okay, that's fair. Tell me, what is the optimal amount of parts per million of co2 that we should strive to achieve? We're approaching 400ppm right now.

Lemme ask you this: Would you feel comfortable if we reduced the amount of co2 in the atmosphere to, say, 200ppm?
 
#1,124
#1,124
Gannon Goodson said:
Okay, that's fair. Tell me, what is the optimal amount of parts per million of co2 that we should strive to achieve? We're approaching 400ppm right now.

Lemme ask you this: Would you feel comfortable if we reduced the amount of co2 in the atmosphere to, say, 200ppm?
Click to expand...

Sure
 
#1,125
#1,125
Persian Vol said:
First of all it is a scientific fact.
Second of all, I think your forgetting another crucial member of this board.
Click to expand...

But it isn't. A scientific fact would be saying something like Argon is a noble gas or a water molecule is made up of three atoms-one oxygen and two hydrogen. Those are scientific facts. Man made global warming is only an hypothesis that hasn't been proven. There isn't even a lot of evidence right now.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top