zmanzzzz

the supreme court rules ...

Recommended Posts

That would be true if the debate were over. I'm waiting for a response to a couple of very simple questions.

 

 

At least admit that you didn't look at the chart correctly and missed what Ursa pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be true if the debate were over. I'm waiting for a response to a couple of very simple questions.

 

the meaning of life is 17

 

pi is 3.14 sumthing sumthing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least admit that you didn't look at the chart correctly and missed what Ursa pointed out.

 

 

I also noticed that the chart doesn't reflect that CO2 levels over 300 were documented 4,000 to 10,000 years ago, and then dropped to the 270s to 280s until 1850.

 

How does he explain the measures over 300 ppm just thousands of years ago? Diesel powered oxen that died in incrementally greater numbers until the Civil War?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also noticed that the chart doesn't reflect that CO2 levels over 300 were documented 4,000 to 10,000 years ago, and then dropped to the 270s to 280s until 1850.

 

How does he explain the measures over 300 ppm just thousands of years ago? Diesel powered oxen that died in incrementally greater numbers until the Civil War?

 

volcanoes just a hunch....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also noticed that the chart doesn't reflect that CO2 levels over 300 were documented 4,000 to 10,000 years ago, and then dropped to the 270s to 280s until 1850.

 

How does he explain the measures over 300 ppm just thousands of years ago? Diesel powered oxen that died in incrementally greater numbers until the Civil War?

 

 

I blame the spike in activity from the Scientologists alien ancestors making their regularly scheduled visits to check up on the species they planted here. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame the spike in activity from the Scientologists alien ancestors making their regularly scheduled visits to check up on the species they planted here. :D

 

 

That would have just as much validity as some of the claims of the global warming alarmists crying wolf right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is NO consensus of climate scientists that the global warming is due in a large (or only) part to the influence of man.

 

Wrong. Stick to Mike Bell projections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean this chart?

 

LINK

 

Tell me, if humans caused the CO2 levels to rise so much in the past 150 yrs, what caused them to rise to almost the exact same amounts 130,000 years ago, 240,000 years ago, and 330,000 years ago? Mammoth crap decay? The graph I'm looking at that you referenced show a very repeatable pattern, and we're now at a point where CO2 levels ought to be as high as they are now according to those patterns. Have you actually looked at the chart that you're talking about & have no way of identifying easily discernable patterns, or are you just repeating someone's else's baseless assertion?

 

How about the documented increase in the Antarctic ice levels? Have you read about those facts also? Oh, that's right, that's due to the same global warming that has caused the melting of the Arctic ice. :D

 

Scientists do NOT agree with the causation of the data collected - and to simply assume one group is right because you feel the need to blame the progress of man for everything bad in the natural world is assinine.

 

 

Umm, maybe you are looking a little too low on that chart to notice that the Co2 levels in our atnosphere are at 377ppm. The chart stops at 310... at no point in the history of the earth have co2 levels been that high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean this chart?

 

LINK

 

Not that I dispute the overall trend that the figure is showing, but it would've been really nice if somebody had bothered to include error bars for the CO2 measurements. It's difficult to draw conclusions from data when the uncertainty in the measurements is not reported. This is compounded by the fact that the technique(s) used to measure the CO2 levels was not reported in the figure, either. It's also possible that the techniques used to measure recent levels and levels from 100,000+ years ago vary tremendously in accuracy and precision.

 

That said, whichever side of the argument one is on, common sense dictates that it's probably not a good idea to dump massive amounts of fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere and that we should phase this out ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, maybe you are looking a little too low on that chart to notice that the Co2 levels in our atnosphere are at 377ppm. The chart stops at 310... at no point in the history of the earth have co2 levels been that high.

 

 

 

Wrong. Levels have been as high as 7,000 ppm during the "history" of the Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Levels have been as high as 7,000 ppm during the "history" of the Earth.

 

For reference, the level of atmospheric oxygen at sea level is 219,000 ppm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Levels have been as high as 7,000 ppm during the "history" of the Earth.

 

 

Was that when Adam and Eve were riding the dinosaurs? Or pre-man, when the earth was inhabitable by anything but some single cell organisms in the primordial ooze?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it was back when the same expert scientists thought you'd sail right off into space if you went over the horizon in yer boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that when Adam and Eve were riding the dinosaurs? Or pre-man, when the earth was inhabitable by anything but some single cell organisms in the primordial ooze?

 

 

 

It was back when you had a decent haircut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, whichever side of the argument one is on, common sense dictates that it's probably not a good idea to dump massive amounts of fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere and that we should phase this out ASAP.

 

 

high five you hippie tree hugger

 

 

It was back when you had a decent haircut.

 

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Stick to Mike Bell projections.

 

 

:D

 

I can find a climatologist who has world wide acclaimed expertise & is not more than 70 miles from here who would tell you otherwise. There are literally thousands of scientists who do not draw the same conclusions that Gore & company do. They are in the minority, but it is not an overwhelming minority by any means.

 

So stick your cute little Mike Bell comments in your pipe & smoke it. It's funny that little weasels like you love to repeatedly bring up progostication errors of players, when it is an admittedly error prone task, no matter what the subject matter is, but you never have the balls to put your own neck on the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, maybe you are looking a little too low on that chart to notice that the Co2 levels in our atnosphere are at 377ppm. The chart stops at 310... at no point in the history of the earth have co2 levels been that high.

 

 

You have no clue what you are talking about. CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past than they are now.

 

Unless, of course, you believe that the chart shows the entire timeline of the history of the Earth and the planet is only 400,000 years old...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are in the minority, but it is not an overwhelming minority by any means.

 

 

Wrong again. :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That said, whichever side of the argument one is on, common sense dictates that it's probably not a good idea to dump massive amounts of fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere and that we should phase this out ASAP.

 

 

Now I can't disagree with that argument. Idealistically, it would be more desirable not to put fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere than to do so. However, economic practicality and the nature of how dire the situation is should be critical factors when weighing how quickly man needs to make the transition.

 

If we were 25 years from being extinguished as a species, as some misguided fools would have people believe, we ought to be doing it posthaste regardless of the economic impact. Nothing supercedes survival as a species. If it is something that can be safely eliminated gradually with less economic impact, or with the onset of a discovery of a practical alternative method of substitution, then that would justify a less than "The Sky is Falling!" response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again. :D:D

 

 

The only thing that you are proving with your cute little replies is what an amazingly undereducated ass that you are. Now sign off the computer, it's time to go to pre-Algebra class.

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait...bushwhacked is a 17-year old female going to class? Hawt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now sign off the computer, it's time to go to pre-Algebra class.

 

 

 

Do they teach you how to accuratley comprehend data presented as a simple chart in pre-Algebra class? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait...bushwhacked is a 17-year old female going to class? Hawt.

 

 

:D

 

Being a freshman has been the greatest 3 years of her life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.