Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yea, and that's why pumping millions of metric tons of it into our atmosphere must be a good thing, right?
Nice try, but monumentally ignorant.
I don't know.
Obama has access to the best scientific minds in the world, so if flying an armada of aircraft nearly half away around the globe each year to sit on a beach has no effect at all, surely carbon emissions aren't a problem, right?
Yea, and that's why pumping millions of metric tons of it into our atmosphere must be a good thing, right?
Nice try, but monumentally ignorant.
Did I say it was a good thing?
No I didn't.
All I pointed out was that Sanspeur's analogy - one I've seen erroneously used by other zealots of the AGWism - was monumentally wrong, as the two compounds cannot be compared in any way, shape, form, or fashion, in the manner in which these religious zealots attempt. This I know, for I teach chemistry and physics at the college level.
IOW, don't put words into my mouth. Don't attempt to tell me what I'm saying, for it's fairly obvious to the literate among us to what my post was referring.
Ignorance is not knowing what one is talking about. Now who is exemplifying it in this situation, hmm?
Nice try at deflection, but again, another epic fail.
Originally Posted by Starman71 Quite a pretty stupid analogy, as you well know.
For CO2 is a compound that is absolutely required for existence by virtually every organism on the face of the planet, and cyanide isn't.
Nice try. But epic fail.
My point in the post you are dissing was that a small amount of CO2 can have a large effect.....OK, you don't like that analogy...How about this one...
Do you agree that ozone is an important part of the atmosphere? It is only 0.000004% percent of the atmosphere, but without the layer of ozone in the atmosphere, it would be very difficult for anything to survive on the surface.
So, you get the point I was making that a tiny amount of a substance, be it cyanide or CO2 can do a lot of damage, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman71
Quite a pretty stupid analogy, as you well know.
For CO2 is a compound that is absolutely required for existence by virtually every organism on the face of the planet, and cyanide isn't.
Nice try. But epic fail.
thank you starman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
My point in the post you are dissing was that a small amount of CO2 can have a large effect.....OK, you don't like that analogy...How about this one...
Do you agree that ozone is an important part of the atmosphere? It is only 0.000004% percent of the atmosphere, but without the layer of ozone in the atmosphere, it would be very difficult for anything to survive on the surface.
but your analogy is in fact rubbish. as i said before, with tiny amounts of cyanide introduced into the body, the body builds up a tolerance for it. thus in order to get the same effect of that tiny amount, you would need larger amounts of the poison. rather like if you were to ingest cocaine or heroine, a small amount would give you a high, but over time you would need more of the drug to get the same high.
CO2 on the other hand is necessary for life, and we would need far more CO2 in the atmosphere, roughly 4-5 times the amount there now, before humans were negatively affected. and that has been pointed out to you many times before.
as for the ozone layer, you do realize that our own star is far more dangerous to the ozone layer than anything man has done right? it also creates ozone DAILY.
My point in the post you are dissing was that a small amount of CO2 can have a large effect.....OK, you don't like that analogy...How about this one...
Do you agree that ozone is an important part of the atmosphere? It is only 0.000004% percent of the atmosphere, but without the layer of ozone in the atmosphere, it would be very difficult for anything to survive on the surface.
Life as we know it now, but who's to say that evolution wouldn't have allowed for organisms to develop without said protection?
You know about evolution, right? That topic that you claim all of those "deniers" also deny?
Except for those of us that teach it for a living....
The adaptation (or lack thereof) to changes in the environment is what we should be focusing on, but instead we continue to focus on the who's to blaim. We quibble over the cause, but not the fact that, if the environment is changing, then adaptation is necessary.
We - or I should say some of you religious AGWists - ignore that the environment had always changed, necessitating constant adaptations. Sometimes slow, sometimes fast - and sometimes not at all, resulting in potential extinction. But we're not discussing this. We're discussing some incomprehensible and completely unobtainable static situaton, kind of like setting the world's thermostat and walking away.
Life as we know it now, but who's to say that evolution wouldn't have allowed for organisms to develop without said protection?
You know about evolution, right? That topic that you claim all of those "deniers" also deny?
Except for those of us that teach it for a living....
The adaptation (or lack thereof) to changes in the environment is what we should be focusing on, but instead we continue to focus on the who's to blaim. We quibble over the cause, but not the fact that, if the environment is changing, then adaptation is necessary.
We - or I should say some of you religious AGWists - ignore that the environment had always changed, necessitating constant adaptations. Sometimes slow, sometimes fast - and sometimes not at all, resulting in potential extinction. But we're not discussing this. We're discussing some incomprehensible and completely unobtainable static situaton, kind of like setting the world's thermostat and walking away.
Please... the climate of the Earth has been quite stable since the end of the last glaciation, and all of human civilization has developed during this stable period. Adaptation to a radically different climate might be doable but it will be a huge challenge.
Please... the climate of the Earth has been quite stable since the end of the last glaciation, and all of human civilization has developed during this stable period. Adaptation to a radically different climate might be doable but it will be a huge challenge.
It will be more easily doable if it is warmer rather than colder.
It will be more easily doable if it is warmer rather than colder.
Maybe, but any radical change will be tough to handle. And just embracing big changes in climate instead of doing whatever can be done to prevent them is hardly a conservative approach.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
