Author Topic: Tree Hugger Test (Read 1448 times)

storch · « **Reply #30 on:** August 17, 2007, 11:38:25 AM »

the facts are in on global warming. it's a ploy to further weaken the united states and the west. the catastrophic end crowd are sheep. the real danger is posed by the ever growing intrusion into our daily lives by the nanny state under the pretext of save the chickens save the pitbulls and save the ecology tards.

isn't there a save my civil rights organization the sane can join?

SkyRock · « **Reply #31 on:** August 17, 2007, 12:00:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
when we get somewhere close to 6% co2 (impossible) then I will worry.

lazs

No need to worry when you're dead!

jfyi, I do not attempt to reduce my co2 output in any way, I see it as futile. I do think only a moron would not see that we do add to the CO2 levels and that the threat of raising the level to a dangerous one is a real possibility if not a fact that is in progress.

lazs2 · « **Reply #32 on:** August 17, 2007, 12:06:57 PM »

skyrock.. you are worrying about something that is not even possible.

Who is the moron here? You admit that it is futile to try to reduce co2 but then you go on to say that only a "moron" would raise co2 levels?

only a moron like a farmer who raises co2 to get better crop yeild? that kind of moron?

greenhouses won't kill you... you can walk in and breath just fine... the levels of co2 are 5 times higher than what we are at right now.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #33 on:** August 17, 2007, 12:16:03 PM »

cpxx... sorry.. maybe I didn't understand you entirely but...

If you see a worldwide regulatory board based on junk science and "the end justifies the means" as being a good thing or even... having a good result despite being dishonest...

I would have to disagree. I seen smog laws pushed through on junk science that made things worse until computer controlled fuel injection came along.... I seen mtbe forced on us and ending up poisoning the water supply...

that is a perfect example... they said we had to do something now... what could it hurt? no time to study it... scientists agreed.... but... they put it in and it poisoned the water.. it is costing billions to undo... it cost billions to put it in the fuel... then it cost billions to take it out... now it is costing billions to undo the damage.

DDT... tens of thousands died from malaria because of a feel good ban.

yeah... it can hurt a lot more than it can help. Loss of economic freedom...everyone doing with less... just making ends meet to pay for junkscience?

Even if they manage to reduce mans tiny little co2 contribution by 30%... millions will be driven into poverty... land will be taken away from food production for biofuels... eat or drive...

Yeah... I can see lots of reasons why the end does not justify the means...

The means are all that counts... you don't know if you are even working toward the end of anything ever...

Lots of people died in firing squads to put castro into power... was that end worth it?

lazs

SkyRock · « **Reply #34 on:** August 17, 2007, 12:28:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
only a "moron" would raise co2 levels?

lazs

Thats not what I said! I said, " I do think only a moron would not see that we do add to the CO2 levels and that the threat of raising the level to a dangerous one is a real possibility if not a fact that is in progress."

Mark

lazs2 · « **Reply #35 on:** August 18, 2007, 09:44:30 AM »

ok... then what is a "dangerous level". I guess that is the crux of our disagreement.

We have a 15% increase in crop production right now... No one is having trouble breathing... there is no proof that the co2 we are adding has any negative affect at all.

There is no proof that we will ever reach a point that is harmful in any way. No one knows what the co2 level will be in 10 years much less 100.

It is more than a tad early to worry about harmless co2. It is also a waste of time and resources and... very very very dishonest.

lazs

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #36 on:** August 18, 2007, 11:22:20 AM »

There has got to be research out there that determines whether or not higher CO2 levels cause a rise in temperature. Shoot, it would be an easy experiment too.

Have two sealed containers. One has an atmospheric content like that of the earth, the other has a much higher CO2 level. Use some type of heating source that simulates the sun, and see which gets hotter.

SkyRock · « **Reply #37 on:** August 18, 2007, 11:27:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
ok... then what is a "dangerous level". I guess that is the crux of our disagreement.

We have a 15% increase in crop production right now... No one is having trouble breathing... there is no proof that the co2 we are adding has any negative affect at all.

There is no proof that we will ever reach a point that is harmful in any way. No one knows what the co2 level will be in 10 years much less 100.

It is more than a tad early to worry about harmless co2. It is also a waste of time and resources and... very very very dishonest.

lazs

I guess if you are only looking at inhaling it, it would be that simple. There is, however a much bigger picture here. For now, it seems you would be much more helpful to the world worrying about lefties.

SkyRock · « **Reply #38 on:** August 18, 2007, 11:28:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
There has got to be research out there that determines whether or not higher CO2 levels cause a rise in temperature. Shoot, it would be an easy experiment too.

Have two sealed containers. One has an atmospheric content like that of the earth, the other has a much higher CO2 level. Use some type of heating source that simulates the sun, and see which gets hotter.

Bro, there are studies and they aren't hypothetical. Don't get sucked into the politics..........facts are facts!:aok

McFarland · « **Reply #39 on:** August 18, 2007, 05:23:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
DDT... tens of thousands died from malaria because of a feel good ban.

Yeah, and more would have died when the levels in the water and environment became high enough to kill US. As it were, thousands of birds of prey were killed, and many became almost extinct. Including: bald eagle, peregrine falcon, osprey, red tailed hawk, etc. We were lucky to ban it when we did. Otherwise we could have lost those species, and many more, and also began affecting people with it. DDT doesn't break down very quickly in the environment, and can remain in soil and water for years, constantly building up as more is applied. It remains in body tissues as well, building up as the animal eats more animals, plants, and/or water that have come in contact with it. When someone says banning DDT was a bad thing, I begin to wonder about their other oppinions.

lazs2 · « **Reply #40 on:** August 19, 2007, 09:48:10 AM »

ddt is bad. that does not mean that an instant world wide ban with no substitute was good. If you can't see that mcfarland no wonder you can't get it.

skyrock... why don't you tell him that there are 108 computer models and that all them show something different because none of them can simulate the complexity of the interaction of natural and man made events and elements?

I talked about inhaling co2 because that is what you were talking about. I will be glad to discuss how our 0.02% addition to greenhouse gas is harmful.

You do agree tho that people do better in warm weather than cold? that we have seen a 15% increase in crop production mainly because of co2 and...

That no real harmful effects of co2 or global warming have yet been felt?

NONE. that any bad effects are only on some computer or in the head of backwoods yahoos and alarmists? Nothing real yet... nada.. zip..

No one has drown... no one has starved.. no one has been incinerated.

more people die in the winter still of cold than do in the summer of heat..

But.... you want to change everyones life because you believe that bad things are on the way... you can't prove it and your models are sillly (one has no clouds.. none take into consideration solar or axis shifts or sea floor spreading)...

lazs

68Hawk · « **Reply #41 on:** August 19, 2007, 01:58:50 PM »

I was wondering at this point in time if there's anyone out there with a degree in a related science field.

Could we please get some scholarly input from someone who has actually studied the related science and can offer a well rounded and objective opinion?

Angus · « **Reply #42 on:** August 19, 2007, 02:10:42 PM »

Scored just fine on the test. Can't beat 100% though. But if Lazs inhales some amont of CO I will beat him.
(that statement is also a test)

AKH · « **Reply #43 on:** August 19, 2007, 02:54:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68Hawk
I was wondering at this point in time if there's anyone out there with a degree in a related science field.

Could we please get some scholarly input from someone who has actually studied the related science and can offer a well rounded and objective opinion?

Unfortunately, that isn't very likely to happen. If you were a climatologist, would you waste your time in a futile effort to convince the legions of self professed 'experts' on global warming? What are they going to get from it, other than:

ITS THE SUN STUPID

If you are interested in the actual science, rather than ignorant opinion try http://www.realclimate.org

lazs2 · « **Reply #44 on:** August 20, 2007, 09:14:25 AM »

angus... I am inhaling some amount of co2 as we speak... my guess is that it is the same amount that you are.

There are lots of links to "real science" but the fact remains.... no one can prove that any amount of co2 will have any real effect on the warming of the planet in anything but a flawed computer model.

Even the most rabid (except akh) are backing off of co2 as the great demon.

lazs

Author Topic: Tree Hugger Test (Read 1448 times)

storch