- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Sen. Brandon Smith- America's new dumbest Senator
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:52 pm to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:52 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
PLASTICS DON'T EMIT CO2 YOU frickING MORON - THEY JUST SIT THERE
How are plastics made, genius? You telling me my computer monitor just appeared out of nothing? or that the paint on my car just appeared? or the shoe string caps just appear that way. They are melted and formed and molded to make these items, which all produce CO2 as a byproduct. All of which, is a composite of oils. Just like your precious green energy vehicles, that are so costly (environmentally speaking...and monetarily) to produce.
ETA: Nice edit, too bad i caught it before you had a chance to remove your ignorance.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 3:53 pm
2
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:54 pm to BugAC
quote:
No, WE couldn't. First off, CO2 is a miniscule component to our atmosphere. Secondly Americans are a miniscule component to the total output of "man mande" global warming, as you call it.
The amount of carbon we've actually put into the atmosphere through fossil fuel consumption actually exceeds the amount the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased.
... and you're saying the observed increased wasn't due to that carbon?
So let me get this straight - the > 120 ppm that we've added magically disappeared somehow - and was replaced with 120 ppm from a natural source?
Wow. Its amazing that you could really be that dumb.
I suppose it wouldn't help to inform you that the isotopic abundances of fossil fuel Co2 are different from the rest of the Co2 in the air - and thus we can directly detect the Co2 from fossil fuel consumption in the atmosphere. Simply understanding things like isotopes probably would just make your head explode.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:56 pm to BugAC
quote:
How are plastics made, genius? You telling me my computer monitor just appeared out of nothing? or that the paint on my car just appeared? or the shoe string caps just appear that way. They are melted and formed and molded to make these items, which all produce CO2 as a byproduct. All of which, is a composite of oils. Just like your precious green energy vehicles, that are so costly (environmentally speaking...and monetarily) to produce.
shite for brains -
you can make plastic with energy from any source
Posted on 7/11/14 at 3:57 pm to SpidermanTUba
oh, so by potential you mean there are some mental gymnastics you're still working out to lessen the sting of exposing yourself as moron? Keep digging, I'm enjoying it...I'm glued to the screen
let's call earth's present atmospheric content X
so X can be whatever the frick it is, but it's a value and the amount is insignificant.
for each year of carbon emissions we'll assign the value 1, putting our emissions at .03 per year
so after 33 (let's leave off the .333 and just round...you know how to round up and down right?) years the earth's co2 is x+33. Our contribution over that 33 years is 1
so prescribe whatever number you would like to x, I give you free reign to just make any fricking number up in the world. show me how the party contributing .03 doubled earth's atmospheric co2. Show me how it could POTENTIALLY double
oh shite, I know what I'm doing tonight.
quote:
Obviously if you add 3 parts in 100 to the present amount and it doesn't go anywhere - it doubles in 33 years
let's call earth's present atmospheric content X
so X can be whatever the frick it is, but it's a value and the amount is insignificant.
for each year of carbon emissions we'll assign the value 1, putting our emissions at .03 per year
so after 33 (let's leave off the .333 and just round...you know how to round up and down right?) years the earth's co2 is x+33. Our contribution over that 33 years is 1
so prescribe whatever number you would like to x, I give you free reign to just make any fricking number up in the world. show me how the party contributing .03 doubled earth's atmospheric co2. Show me how it could POTENTIALLY double
oh shite, I know what I'm doing tonight.Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:00 pm to BugAC
oh no, don't hurt his little head
he's trying to figure out how he can spin this
he's trying to figure out how he can spin this
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:01 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
shite for brains -
says the guy who uses simple mathematic equations that yield POTENTIAL values
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:02 pm to DelU249
quote:
for each year of carbon emissions we'll assign the value 1, putting our emissions at .03 per year
1+
1.03+
1.06+
1.09+
1.12+
1.15+
1.18+
1.21+
1.24+
1.27+
1.30+
1.33+
1.36+
1.39+
1.42+
1.45+
1.48+
1.51+
1.54+
1.57+
1.60+
1.63+
1.66+
1.69+
1.72+
1.75+
1.78+
1.81+
1.84+
1.87+
1.90+
1.93+
1.96+
-------------
= 1.99
I'd like to say I've never met anyone as dumb as you Fox, but I wouldn't want to hurt BugAC's feelings.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:05 pm to BugAC
quote:
Nice edit
his ego is so out of whack...he could've walked away and perhaps only I'd know how fricking stupid he is, but he can't let it go...he's a liberal...he knows everything and by virtue of espousing different values (one he holds as superior) he is thus more intelligent.
It stings his e rep when he can't multiply or add, or divide or anything.
What makes him really fricking stupid is he can't just say...I misspoke, or yeah my bad, and then rephrase, redirect, move on...but he's just stuck on doubling...he has to show it...
This is great. I've often said he posts sarcastic replies because he is probably borderline fricking retarded and now I have confirmation. I'm relishing his TD embarrassment, not the victory (Hercules doesn't pump his fists when swats a fly)
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:05 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The amount of carbon we've actually put into the atmosphere through fossil fuel consumption actually exceeds the amount the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased.
no, it hasn't. Humans produce roughly 29 gigatons of CO2, while life forms and planetary activity produce roughly 768 gigatons of CO2.
quote:
I suppose it wouldn't help to inform you that the isotopic abundances of fossil fuel Co2 are different from the rest of the Co2 in the air - and thus we can directly detect the Co2 from fossil fuel consumption in the atmosphere. Simply understanding things like isotopes probably would just make your head explode.
I see you read that other posters post, and copy pasted. I read it too. What you are all failing to realize is this.
You claim that "change must be had" to address climate change/global warming/global cooling/whatever bullshite name you want to give it. Your solution is leftist legislation aimed at American energy. America makes up 4% of the human population. Co2, makes up roughly .04% of the atmosphere. America's portion of that .04% is .016%. Now, it's estimated that 4% of that CO2 that is tallied comes from "man made" sources. So that would mean that man made CO2 makes up approximately .0064% of the Earth's atmosphere.
I repeat. America's CO2 output, which is the target here, makes up approximately .0064% of the world's atmosphere. And in your mind, that is why global climate change is happening?
6 one-thousandths of a percent...
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:07 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I'd like to say I've never met anyone as dumb as you Fox, but I wouldn't want to hurt BugAC's feelings.
Yet another liberal admitting defeat. OMLandshark did it yesterday, and you've done it today. Congrats.
Again, namecalling is the #1 sign you lost the argument, especially when it comes from a debate that is contrary to yours.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:10 pm to SpidermanTUba
so the x gets to stay static...its value changes every year captain dipshit...you just showed me how we could POTENTIALLY double it if we were responsible for 100% of earth's carbon emissions nice try super genius
and that is with me letting you pick the value for x a years worth of carbon emissions is 1 and yet after trillions of years the earth's atmospheric carbon is 1 This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:14 pm to BugAC
quote:
Yet another liberal admitting defeat
no, it's great because he's not...he's going to keep going. I would like to step away, but I will love you forever if you can keep him going on my behalf...don't stop until he shows us how we're doubling it.
quote:
OMLandshark
is no idiot. Liberal? I don't know. I find him to be sharp, but regardless, he's reasonable...and should never be equated with a someone who is fat AND stupid
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 4:16 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:16 pm to DelU249
quote:
is no idiot. Liberal? I don't know. I find him to be sharp, but regardless, he's reasonable...and should never be equated with a someone who is fat AND stupid
Go read page 3 and your thoughts may change.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:18 pm to BugAC
I cannot, spidey kept me here longer than I should be. I need a long, long TD break.Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:23 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
SpidermanTUba
By the way, that graph you linked at the Mauna Loa observatory. What do you think that proves?
I've just read the report on it. Did you? Also, have you noticed any geographic features there, that might be different from other places in the U.S.?
But before you get to these questions, please address my previous posts.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:27 pm to BugAC
quote:
no, it hasn't. Humans produce roughly 29 gigatons of CO2, while life forms and planetary activity produce roughly 768 gigatons of CO2.
We produce 29 gigatons PER YEAR. That's not the TOTAL we've produced.
quote:
quote:
quote:
I suppose it wouldn't help to inform you that the isotopic abundances of fossil fuel Co2 are different from the rest of the Co2 in the air - and thus we can directly detect the Co2 from fossil fuel consumption in the atmosphere. Simply understanding things like isotopes probably would just make your head explode.
I see you read that other posters post, and copy pasted. I read it too. What you are all failing to realize is this.
You claim that "change must be had" to address climate change/global warming/global cooling/whatever bullshite name you want to give it. Your solution is leftist legislation aimed at American energy. America makes up 4% of the human population. Co2, makes up roughly .04% of the atmosphere. America's portion of that .04% is .016%. Now, it's estimated that 4% of that CO2 that is tallied comes from "man made" sources. So that would mean that man made CO2 makes up approximately .0064% of the Earth's atmosphere.
What in the hell does any of that have to do with isotopes?
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 4:28 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:29 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
We produce 29 gigatons PER YEAR. That's not the TOTAL we've produced.
and earth produces 768 gigatons per year. Your point?
quote:
What in the hell does any of that have to do with isotopes?
Did that go too far over your head spidey?
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:29 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
HVAC is about 40% of all electric usage. I'll look for a citation in a bit. But bottom line, unless we are going to stop traveling and transporting goods, and go without A/C we aren't going to put a dent in CO2 production.
This doesn't prove what you say it does. You're saying that we need to stop traveling and transporting goods entirely to "put a dent" in CO2 production. Transport is 22-32% of the pie depending on your graph. Cutting that by, say, a third, that wouldn't "put a dent" in CO2 production? And transport is the hardest part of the pie to cut. Electricity is 38-41% of the pie. Replacing coal grids with nuclear (and the non-bullshite renewables where viable) wouldn't put a dent in CO2 production?
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 4:30 pm to DelU249
quote:
is no idiot. Liberal? I don't know. I find him to be sharp, but regardless, he's reasonable...and should never be equated with a someone who is fat AND stupid
OML practically has the same positions that you and I have with a slight few differences in policy preference. I'm right leaning libertarian, OML may be a left leaning libertarian.
A few days ago, I posted a rebuttal of why amnesty is just a pipe dream for republicans that will end in disaster for this country after he said the GOP is stupid for not targeting Hispanics. He never responded, I think he reconsidered his position.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News