- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CO2 Levels rise even faster according to UN report
Posted on 9/9/14 at 9:38 pm to Wild Thang
Posted on 9/9/14 at 9:38 pm to Wild Thang
quote:yeah, nobody else on the board ever posts about race.
Stick to racism.....that's your bread and butter
I'm it. I'm the guy.
2
Posted on 9/9/14 at 9:39 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
yeah, nobody else on the board ever posts about race.
I'm it. I'm the guy.
Yeah, you are.
Whitey = bad.
Republican = bad.
You paint with a broad brush. I'll assume you're a race baiting piece of shite.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 9:44 pm to doubleb
quote:what is your source of 12%?
despite the US cutting 12%
I find some 12% reduction up to 2012 basically due to the shitty economy. 2% increaese 2013. I'm guessing the rest is the switch to natural gas (due to economics not due to Obama).
But are you saying that we're good if we reduced? I think that's kike telling the cop "but sir I was going 95, for 90 you should let me go."
Or you don't dispute the issue but think the international issues are too hard?
Posted on 9/9/14 at 9:46 pm to Srbtiger06
quote:no need to bait on this board. The wildlife is ever so abundant
race baiting
Posted on 9/9/14 at 9:48 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
no need to bait on this board
Yet you continue to do it.
Bring some substance and quit being a troll and maybe...just maybe...your opinion will be respected.
Until then, shut the frick up.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 9:51 pm to Tigah in the ATL
My source ? The same source that told me global CO2 emissions are up.
This board.
This board.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 9:58 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
I'm it. I'm the guy.
No doubt you are racist
Posted on 9/9/14 at 10:03 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
red meat to the flat earth crowd.
I would like to think that this remark is primarily an attempt to elicit a response (like I'm doing I guess ), but this, or a similar remark with a hashtag, is always your retort in these threads. People that truly believe that there is an equivalence between the climate debate and the debate on the shape of the earth are refusing to use, or lack altogether, critical-thinking skills. I would like to believe that you do not fall into this category, but the consistency of your responses makes me?and I'm sure others as well?question that. I'm sure you don't care, but there is pure ignorance in this flat-earth representation.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 10:11 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:It is hyperbole, but not by much.
People that truly believe that there is an equivalence between the climate debate and the debate on the shape of the earth are refusing to use, or lack altogether, critical-thinking skills.
Most similar to evolution deniers, which is driven by ideology, not science.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 10:26 pm to Tigah in the ATL
So...that means 800000 years ago, without a single power plant, or SUV, CO2 levels were as high as they are now?
That's unpossible.
That's unpossible.
This post was edited on 9/9/14 at 10:29 pm
Posted on 9/9/14 at 10:31 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
no, 800,000 is 800,000 years.
We have more co2 in the atmosphere than there has been for 800,000 years. You knew that probably, being the science god you are,
Oh good, your back, bigot.
Three article in your OP claims CO2 is . Higher than 1750, not I'm the last 800,000 years. Did you even read the report the Wapo linked in your OP, bigot?
Oh, and why.did you stop at 800k ybp? Are you a young earther too, bigot?
Posted on 9/9/14 at 11:05 pm to CptBengal
Regardless,it does state that "In 2013, concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 142% of the pre-industrial era (1750), and of methane and nitrous oxide 253% and 121% respectively." Not to alarm you.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 11:08 pm to honeytigre
It does. But so what?
Why 1750? Why not a million years ago? 50?
Choosing two data points in an oscillating system and comparing the difference is so pathetically wrong it is even with discussion.
Why 1750? Why not a million years ago? 50?
Choosing two data points in an oscillating system and comparing the difference is so pathetically wrong it is even with discussion.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 11:14 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
look seriously at these guys in Washington state who have a plan to mimic volcanic atmospheric cooling
So your cure to man influencing the climate is... having man influence the climate? Brilliant!
Posted on 9/9/14 at 11:17 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
The weather systems would be stable with an oft put extreme event
I mean really. That's just silly.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 11:29 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
It is hyperbole, but not by much.
Most similar to evolution deniers, which is driven by ideology, not science.
I also see the ideology and the ignorance on the other side of the debate. And while there is probably an association between their ignorance in the climate debate and their ignorance in evolution, there is still a fundamental difference scientifically: the sample size. Climate data is based on an N of 1 with no capacity to test hypotheses through experiment. No matter how many data points exist, it is still a purely correlational study of one subject (Earth). Although there are limitations in the study of evolution (any anything else for that matter), the scientific tools (e.g., diverse samples, experimentation) that is not possible, at least at this time, in the study of climate change. Maybe most importantly though, the definition of causation in he study of evolution does not have such restive bounds' the study of climate change has defined the causal causal mechanisms in very specific and absolute terms. Some don't even believe that causation is ever possible to prove; regardless, it is still arguably the highest and most difficult standard to attain, yet it's so casually accepted in the scientifically-limited study of climate change.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 11:44 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:Troof. In genetics random stochastics are good enough to explain an almost infinite number of variations in all living creatures. In the climate... CO2 causes almost all the storms (see above). While ignoring things like differential heating, ocean currents, wind patterns, and the stochastic events that cause crazy and anomalous weather.
Maybe most importantly though, the definition of causation in he study of evolution does not have such restive bounds' the study of climate change has defined the causal causal mechanisms in very specific and absolute terms.
I think everyone should try to build a weather model. Once. It will humble you. And despite all your knowledge, it will show you... you don't know isht.
This post was edited on 9/9/14 at 11:47 pm
Posted on 9/9/14 at 11:56 pm to udtiger
quote:people understand quite well why CO2 levels have gone up & down in the past
That's unpossible.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 11:59 pm to CptBengal
quote:if your going two bee the grammar Nazi-parrot, ewe should get you're own house inn order.
your back, bigot.
so you didn't kn ow about the 800,000 year thing?
I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 12:01 am to Tigah in the ATL
Tell me, bigot...Why are you taking about 800k ybp, when your OP talks about a 1750 baseline?
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News