WE used to call "readjust expectations" flip flopping just a few years ago.

How can you co from proclaiming the Polar icecaps going to disappear due to global warming... to we have more Polar Ice than ever recorded in history due to global warming? In one breath?

I'm wondering when the projections of the onset of another ice age will reemerge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

i'm wondering when the projections of the onset of another ice age will reemerge

---

I think the entire Global Warming cult is bipolar.

Well done smoothy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

We readjust expectations and course correct with the new data that suggest we are on a good path. You still have to collect the data.

---

I assume that after all this good news you'll "readjust" your agenda?

Hello again,

So, NOBODY wants to tell me why it's OK to throw your trash into the air?? It's OK if you want to call it CO2 instead of trash... I like wondergas myself. But, it's doing the same thing no matter what you call it.

Do you DENY that CO2, I mean wondergas, in the atmosphere warms the planet? Do you DENY that burning fossile fuels PRODUCE CO2?

Nobody, huh? You just want to call names, don't you?

excon

I've said this for a long time... let the democrats curtail their OWN CO2 emmissions first... and if it works then we will consider it.

But since Al Gore the Founder of this Cult doesn't care (based on his own actions)... why should we.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

So, NOBODY wants to tell me why it's ok to throw your trash into the air??? It's ok if you wanna call it CO2 instead of trash... I like wondergas myself. But, it's doing the same thing no matter what you call it.

Do you DENY that CO2, I mean wondergas, in the atmosphere warms the planet?? Do you DENY that burning fossile fuels PRODUCE CO2?

Nobody, huh? You just wanna call names, don't you?

excon

---

Ex you've been sticking with this same line for years even though no one here that I know of is arguing on behalf of pollution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

ex you've been sticking with this same line for years even though no one here that I know of is arguing on behalf of pollution.

---

speech the point is it isn't pollution, that is a very dumb expression of policy. If you want to regulate emissions of certain gasses, fine, but don't define a natural substance as pollution. Carbon Dioxide is not the same as Sulphur Dioxide although they may be produced by similar processes. Carbon Dioxide makes plants grow, Sulphur Dioxide kills plants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

speech the point is it isn't pollution, that is a very dumb expression of policy. If you want to regulate emissions of certain gasses, fine, but don't define a natural substance as pollution. Carbon Dioxide is not the same as Sulphur Dioxide although they may be produced by similiar processes. Carbon Dioxide makes plants grow, Sulphur Dioxide kills plants

---

I know this, but ex insists on calling it "trash." I keep suggesting that if he wants to do his part he should stop breathing but so far he resists that kind of commitment.

Are you two saying that the stuff that belches from factories is good for you and the plants? Go ahead, put your petunias in a room filled with emissions and see what happens to you and the petunia.

Emission are not natural, they are man made and a bi product of burning fossil fuels. You both flunk elementary science classes I see.

Nature balances, humans do NOT.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Quote:

---

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

---

*The debate at the bottom is some fascinating stuff, and also the data from the studies on the side links. Like this one.

CAIT 2.0: WRI's climate data explorer GHG Emissions Excluding LUCF&indicator=Total GHG Emissions Including LUCF&year=2010&sortIdx=&sortDir=&chartType=#

Oxygen is the essential component of all breathing gases.

The air we inhale is roughly composed of (by volume):
78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
0.96% argon
0.04% carbon dioxide, helium, water, and other gases

The permanent gases in gas we exhale are 4% to 5% by volume more carbon dioxide and 4% to 5% by volume less oxygen than was inhaled. This expired air typically composed of:
78% nitrogen
13.6% - 16% Oxygen
4% - 5.3% Carbon dioxide
1% Argon and other gases

If plants cannot replace the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, and oceans cannot absorb it, you will suffocate if not for mother natures own way of cleaning the atmosphere. Storms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

If plants cannot replace the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, and oceans cannot absorb it, you will suffocate if not for mother natures own way of cleaning the atmosphere. Storms.

---

And there are those who want to tell us there is no intelligent design, what I am saying to you there is a difference between a confined space and open atmosphere, we are talking about small concentrations of CO2 400 parts per million not the 20% oxygen represents.

Have you seen China lately? The visibility is almost nil where there industry is concentrated. 400 parts per million is a danger to certain humans when the temperature is a 100+ for extended periods or why issue health alerts to the population?

No big deal huh? What's a few deaths among billions.

Hey... if you are allergic to green and want to pave everything over like the city dwellers do... they should learn to breath less as a result. They don't own any property or plants that put out oxygen.. they are 100% CO2 generators and that needs to stop. THey are using more than their fair share of the planets oxygen.

We should get rid of all the city dwellers then... have the EPA do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Hey... if you are allergic to green and want to pave everything over like the city dwellers do... they should learn to breath less as a result. They don't own any property or plants that put out oxygen.. they are 100% CO2 generators and that needs to stop. THey are using more than their fair share of the planets oxygen.

We should get rid of all the city dwellers then... have the EPA do it.

---

Quote:

---

you seen China lately?

---

this is nothing new it is a few years since I have been to China but even then I didn't see the sun for any of the time I was there and I travelled extensively. That is not CO2 pollution it is photochemical smog caused by transferring western industry to China.

Yes smoothy we need to stop the growth of cities without consideration of proper balance. Who invented the skyscraper and wall to wall concrete I wonder seems there are a lot of bad ideas in the name of progress. How do we do this? Population control. It was tried very unsuccessfully in China so I expect we will have to allow nature to do it for us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

this is nothing new it is a few years since I have been to China but even then I didn't see the sun for any of the time i was there and I travelled extensively. That is not CO2 pollution it is photochemical smog caused by transferring western industry to China.

Yes smoothy we need to stop the growth of cities without consideration of proper balance. Who invented the skyscraper and wall to wall concrete I wonder seems there are a lot of bad ideas in the name of progress. How do we do this? population control. It was tried very unsuccesfully in China so I expect we will have to allow nature to do it for us

---

We sound start by sterilizing the dumb kids around the time they are old enough to procreate.

Bet academic achievements make a huge leap then...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

We sound start by sterilizing the dumb kids around the time they are old enough to procreate.

Bet academic achievements make a huge leap then...

---

Seems to me such Ideas have been tried, but perhaps a licence to procreate would not be a bad idea as would compulsory birth control if you cannot find somethingelse for those dumb kids to do. It might give a new meaning to the term marriage

Smoothy I don't agree with the idea of sterilizing people on the basis of IQ but you could impose severe fines for breaking birth control laws and having a child under a certain age.
I think we would be better off if we didn't have coed schooling, at least there would be less opportunity for contact and more likelihood of concentration on lessons. So strict segregation of the sexes, if we can ban alcohol until 21 we can ban sex too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Seems to me such Ideas have been tried, but perhaps a licence to procreate would not be a bad idea as would compulsory birth control if you cannot find somethingelse for those dumb kids to do. It might give a new meaning to the term marriage

Smoothy I don't agree with the idea of sterilizing people on the basis of IQ but you could impose severe fines for breaking birth control laws and having a child under a certain age.
I think we would be better off if we didn't have coed schooling, at least there would be less opportunity for contact and more likelyhood of concentration on lessons. So strict segregation of the sexes, if we can ban alcohol til 21 we can ban sex too

---

I said that tongue in cheek because the Left here do everything to encourage teen sex... free condoms etc and keeping everything from the parents...

You don't have to encourage a teen to have sex. You do have to encourage them to use a condom.

Handing them condoms and birth control pill and telling them have at it... it will be our secret is encouraging them. And explains why HPV is epidemic in the young today.