Current Carbon Dioxide Emission Highest Ever in Earth History

[Yukon Jack]

Those who take pleasure in bitching about carbon dioxide should stop exhaling.

[Michael Hardner]

Those who take pleasure in bitching about carbon dioxide should stop exhaling.

That really isn't helpful. There are solutions to our problems, and not talking or breathing isn't one of them.

[waldo]

Firstly, the report didn't use the word "primary." It was used by WIP. The report said, "The chief causes for extinctions at the moment are overfishing and habitat loss, but global warming is "increasingly adding to this," the report said." Global Warming was not named a chief/primary/principal cause.

yes... that's right... but clearly, your assholy, pedantic, anal, wordsmithing, parser extraordinaire self has let you down. As you can read, I make pointed reference to the fact you... you... put the emphasis on primary. Let me reacquaint you:

"A" or "the" doesn't matter.

The word that matters is "primary."

They might consider global warming a secondary cause or a contributor, but they're very clear they don't consider it to be a primary cause.

as you can clearly read in the following quote, I no where stated exactly what word the report used... because you put the emphasis on the word "primary". In what I actually said, you can read I pointedly avoided mentioning the exact word used in the report; again, since you fell right in line and put your complete focus on the word "primary".

as

you put the emphasis on the word "primary"

, the very fact

the report statement's first sentence references to

two (2)

entities (

1

. overexploitation (over fishing) &

2

. habitat loss), affecting an increasing threat to extinction, shows that the report's applied use was not intended to mean, "first or principal".

in any case, the report actually used the word... "main" - same difference, everything I stated applies equally for the words main or principal. Pull your dictionaries out if you feel otherwise. In balance, rather than muddle through the subtleties of the word mix-up you fell into, I felt rather than clear up the mix-up, the potential to see you come back and fail, big time, on your fumbling and bumbling over the use of, 'main vs. principal', was worth more, much more! Obviously, you obliged and look even sorrier than before... good on ya! But it gets better... clearly, to this date, you haven't yet read the actual report. In this, your latest reply, you write:

The report said, "The chief causes for extinctions at the moment are overfishing and habitat loss, but global warming is "increasingly adding to this," the report said." Global Warming was not named a chief/primary/principal cause.

of course, the actual report wording reads the following... far be for your assholy, pedantic, anal, wordsmithing, parser extraordinaire self to have actually read the report!

The

main

causes of extinctions of marine species to date are overexploitation and habitat loss (Dulvy et al., 2009). However climate change is increasingly adding to this, as evidenced by the recent IUCN Red List Assessment of reef-­‐forming corals (Carpenter et al., 2008).

so yes, clearly... most evidently... my summation holds and prevails - big time!

as

you put the emphasis on the word "primary"

, the very fact

the report statement's first sentence references to

two (2)

entities (

1

. overexploitation (over fishing) &

2

. habitat loss), affecting an increasing threat to extinction, shows that the report's applied use was not intended to mean, "first or principal". Rather, as there can only be

one

"first" or

one

"principal", with the

plurality

of entities mentioned, the report's applied use was intended to mean "essential"... or "fundamental"... or "relating to". The report then also immediately follows this up with a second sentence emphasizing an increasing contributory threat impact to extinction associated with climate change (as in, acidification & warming which are causal links to coral bleaching as affects reef colonizing fish).

Thanks for clearing up what the reports intended meaning was for a word it didn't use. I appreciate your wisdom.

no, thank you. Thank you for failing to read the actual report... thank you for emphasizing the word "primary"... thank you for highlighting your assholy, pedantic, anal, wordsmithing, parser extraordinaire self. Oh ya... and thanks for failing - big time! Would you like another try? I'd relish nothing more exposing you further - go for it... this time, make sure to really bring your dictionaries and quote from them - hey?

[lukin]

Al Gore cracks me up. He's becoming as delusional as waldo. :lol:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/08/20/rex-murphy-global-warming-runs-out-of-gas/

[lukin]

agree on that...I've been cautioned for calling out racists for blatant racism, for naughty language and even hurting some drama queen's feelings...but the racists along with their hate speech continue on...

But it is OK for YOU(wyly) to spew hate against Christians. I guess that type of gutlessness is acceptable nowadays eh, wyly you old seadog.

[lukin]

This is the only time I am going to mention this.... because it really is off topic. And you, by replying to his thread are actually contributing to thread drift and threads being derailed.

The only ones that look bad are the ones who continually mock others, which may not be against forum, rules, but in fact are, because these same few individuals try to derail threads all the time, and little if anything is done about it. They do not add anything to the discussion. I get a month vacation from the site, for swearing, while we have others openly advocating genocide. But I guess hate speach is allowed and not against the rules here. Seems kind of backwards.

What some do in here, is not discussion at all. I'd hope you have understood that by now, but yet those individuals are allowed to still post here. Call a troll a troll and deal with them.

Hey gosthacked, I am also a proud member of the 1 month banned club.

Can't get caught in the endless circle ring of stupidity.

[Oleg Bach]

Al Gore cracks me up. He's becoming as delusional as waldo. :lol:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/08/20/rex-murphy-global-warming-runs-out-of-gas/

Gore is a big plastic doll - with a homeing device set for glory.

[waldo]

He's becoming as delusional as waldo. :lol:

post reported for trolling

[Oleg Bach]

post reported for trolling

What is this? Has someone been given the job as the hall monitor? This is not grade 4. Find something important to "report"

[Michael Hardner]

Anybody can report a post that falls outside of the rules. It's the forum equivalent of picking up litter.

You don't need to post that you have done so, though. Just report it and move on. The moderators are conscientious about looking into these things.

[noahbody]

in any case, the report actually used the word... "main" - same difference, everything I stated applies equally for the words main or principal.

Okay, global warming is not a main source. That was my point. Main meaning primary/chief/principal. Main not meaning "relating to." Thanks for clearing that up for yourself.

[waldo]

as

you put the emphasis on the word "primary"

, the very fact

the report statement's first sentence references to

two (2)

entities (

1

. overexploitation (over fishing) &

2

. habitat loss), affecting an increasing threat to extinction, shows that the report's applied use was not intended to mean, "first or principal".

in any case, the report actually used the word... "main" - same difference, everything I stated applies equally for the words main or principal. Pull your dictionaries out if you feel otherwise. In balance, rather than muddle through the subtleties of the word mix-up you fell into, I felt rather than clear up the mix-up, the potential to see you come back and fail, big time, on your fumbling and bumbling over the use of, 'main vs. principal', was worth more, much more! Obviously, you obliged and look even sorrier than before... good on ya! But it gets better... clearly, to this date, you haven't yet read the actual report. In this, your latest reply, you write:

The report said, "The chief causes for extinctions at the moment are overfishing and habitat loss, but global warming is "increasingly adding to this," the report said." Global Warming was not named a chief/primary/principal cause.

of course, the actual report wording reads the following... far be for your assholy, pedantic, anal, wordsmithing, parser extraordinaire self to have actually read the report!

The

main

causes of extinctions of marine species to date are overexploitation and habitat loss (Dulvy et al., 2009). However climate change is increasingly adding to this, as evidenced by the recent IUCN Red List Assessment of reef-­‐forming corals (Carpenter et al., 2008).

so yes, clearly... most evidently... my summation holds and prevails - big time!

as

you put the emphasis on the word "primary"

, the very fact

the report statement's first sentence references to

two (2)

entities (

1

. overexploitation (over fishing) &

2

. habitat loss), affecting an increasing threat to extinction, shows that the report's applied use was not intended to mean, "first or principal". Rather, as there can only be

one

"first" or

one

"principal", with the

plurality

of entities mentioned, the report's applied use was intended to mean "essential"... or "fundamental"... or "relating to". The report then also immediately follows this up with a second sentence emphasizing an increasing contributory threat impact to extinction associated with climate change (as in, acidification & warming which are causal links to coral bleaching as affects reef colonizing fish).

Thanks for clearing up what the reports intended meaning was for a word it didn't use. I appreciate your wisdom.

no, thank you. Thank you for failing to read the actual report... thank you for emphasizing the word "primary"... thank you for highlighting your assholy, pedantic, anal, wordsmithing, parser extraordinaire self. Oh ya... and thanks for failing - big time! Would you like another try? I'd relish nothing more exposing you further - go for it... this time, make sure to really bring your dictionaries and quote from them - hey?

Okay, global warming is not a main source. That was my point. Main meaning primary/chief/principal. Main not meaning "relating to." Thanks for clearing that up for yourself.

you're delusional - your failing assholy, pedantic, anal, wordsmithing, parser extraordinaire self not only fumbled on the actual word used in the report... the report you still haven't read... you haven't the chops to actually trundle forward with your parcel/packet of dictionaries. Dammit man, you can't bring nuthin to a dictionary fight!!! Of course... your emphasis on the word "primary" had some actual misplaced happenstance on your part... since "primary" is a synonym for the reports actual word used, "main". In any case, as I said, everything I stated applies equally for both words, "primary or main". "Main: the chief or principal part or point". Which, of course, was MLW member WIP's point... again, MLW member WIP is most certainly correct in stating increased acidity is a primary cause of rapidly declining fish stocks and coral bleaching. "a, not the"...

The oceans are becoming more acidic, and this is

a

primary cause of rapidly declining fish stocks, coral bleaching, documented in a new IPSO report on the state of the World's oceans.

as you put the emphasis on the word "primary", the very fact the report statement's first sentence references to two (2) entities (1. overexploitation (over fishing) & 2. habitat loss), affecting an increasing threat to extinction, shows that the report's applied use was not intended to mean, "first or principal". Rather, as there can only be one "first" or one "principal", with the plurality of entities mentioned, the report's applied use was intended to mean "essential"... or "fundamental"... or "relating to". The report then also immediately follows this up with a second sentence emphasizing an increasing contributory threat impact to extinction associated with climate change (as in, acidification & warming which are causal links to coral bleaching as affects reef colonizing fish).

in the combined context of those two sentences, MLW member WIP is most certainly correct in stating increased acidity is a primary cause of rapidly declining fish stocks and coral bleaching.

but, of course, out of all of this dickin about, you accomplished your aim - you so totally pissed off MLW member WIP with your trivial bullshit, that he appears to have taken a 'walk in the snow'. MLW member WIP, whether one agreed with his views or not, was a well read, well researched and passionate poster, offering lengthy points for discussion and debate. You, on the other hand, revel in your pissant best... offering nothing of substance... simply sitting back and lobbing bullshit. Certainly, as I can ever recall, you have nothing of relevance to say... or offer... in regards to climate change related discussion. Parse away, oh wondrous noahbody!

[noahbody]

but, of course, out of all of this dickin about, you accomplished your aim - you so totally pissed off MLW member WIP with your trivial bullshit, that he appears to have taken a 'walk in the snow'.

I'm sure Al Gore didn't like it when his claims of ocean levels rising were confronted and proven wrong. All I did was point out an error made by WIP, politely.

MLW member WIP, whether one agreed with his views or not, was a well read, well researched and passionate poster, offering lengthy points for discussion and debate.

He was passionate.

You, on the other hand, revel in your pissant best... offering nothing of substance... simply sitting back and lobbing bullshit. Certainly, as I can ever recall, you have nothing of relevance to say... or offer... in regards to climate change related discussion. Parse away, oh wondrous noahbody!

Like when you tried to clarify the use of a word the author never even used, again you're ranting without any knowledge. FYI, I've posted plenty on global warming. I just took a walk in the snow for a bit.

[waldo]

All I did was point out an error made by WIP, politely.

MLW member WIP made no error, whatsoever... you have been, most clearly, most plainly and most explicitly shown why MLW member WIP made no error.

of course, the actual report wording reads the following... far be for your assholy, pedantic, anal, wordsmithing, parser extraordinaire self to have actually read the report!

The

main

causes of extinctions of marine species to date are overexploitation and habitat loss (Dulvy et al., 2009). However climate change is increasingly adding to this, as evidenced by the recent IUCN Red List Assessment of reef-­‐forming corals (Carpenter et al., 2008).

"

Main: the chief or principal part or point

". Which, of course, was MLW member WIP's point...

again, MLW member WIP is most certainly correct in stating increased acidity is

a

primary cause of rapidly declining fish stocks and coral bleaching.

"a, not the"

...

The oceans are becoming more acidic, and this is

a

primary cause of rapidly declining fish stocks, coral bleaching, documented in a new IPSO report on the state of the World's oceans.

[Guest Peeves]

First, you need to understand the problem before you can provide solutions! You don't even recognize a problem, so what solution is there?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2345291/posts

Excerpt. I choose to believe the glass is half full.

There’s good news on the global climate change front: All that carbon dioxide blamed for global warming is actually good for our planet, says Cody scientist and writer Leighton Steward.

“The earth’s atmosphere needs more carbon dioxide,” he said at a recent Rotary Club meeting. “That ought to get everyone’s attention.”

The CO2 level now is about 385 parts per million. It’s been as high as 7,000 during the earth’s history. *

“Climate is always changing,” he said. “You should never expect climate at an equilibrium, and history shows it’s not.”

More CO2 means better crops and forests, Steward says, but not necessarily a warmer planet since other factors play a bigger role in heating the planet.

“This relates directly to the food supply,” he said. “Green is good, and CO2 is very green.”

CO2 boosts plant growth, making them larger, faster-growing and more drought tolerant with better roots. Steward calls that good news in a world with a growing population.

“When you’re deciding what ought to be done, think about what this could do for mankind,” he said.

Taking CO2 back to pre-industrial levels would degrade habitats and push people into starvation, Steward said.

“CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s the stuff of life. I can’t find anything that’s not beneficial,” he said. “This comes from thousands of studies – mainly from the agricultural community, and these are not casual observers.”

[waldo]

Excerpt. I choose to believe the glass is half full.

bloody hell... you offer up a freeper link!!! Clearly, your described glass is full of utter and complete nonsense... nonsense that has been soundly thrashed/debunked. We've pretty much covered your links bullshit points through an assortment of previous MLW climate change related threads. If you're inclined why not bear down on any of those... pick one even - go for it... fill your glass even further!

perhaps we should start with some perspective on just who your article's referenced Leighton Steward is: surprisingly... a quick search doesn't find any relevant published science, from Steward... well... make that anything published at all - go figure!

[jbg]

bloody hell... you offer up a freeper link!!!

How about this more reputable source? Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled (link, excerpts below):

Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled

Lawrence Solomon Aug 26, 2011 – 11:37 PM ET | Last Updated: Aug 27, 2011 10:08 PM ET

New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

At least this isn't a blood and Gore hysterics.

[waldo]

How about this more reputable source? Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled (link, excerpts below):

At least this isn't a blood and Gore hysterics.

no need for you to post the same link twice, in separate threads... to call me out on the same link twice, in separate threads. Let's play over here... c'mon, bring it! You do have something to say, right?

[Michael Hardner]

It's utterly irresponsible of these newspapers to allow political spinmeisters to print misinterpretations of these papers.

[GostHacked]

It's utterly irresponsible of these newspapers to allow political spinmeisters to print misinterpretations of these papers.

And that is just not restricted to the climate change debate.

[Michael Hardner]

And that is just not restricted to the climate change debate.

True that ! - What are you thinking about ?

[GostHacked]

True that ! - What are you thinking about ?

I think we need to win the conversation.

[waldo]

It's utterly irresponsible of these newspapers to allow political spinmeisters to print misinterpretations of these papers.

\

standard practice/routine for the National/Financial Post... they've always given their stable-house denier crew free reign, particularly Solomon. They've truly become a cliche, following... and obliging... the oft described anti-science mantra of the Conservative/right, lock-step!

[jbg]

no need for you to post the same link twice, in separate threads... to call me out on the same link twice, in separate threads. Let's play over here... c'mon, bring it! You do have something to say, right?

Are you challenging me to go out in the back alley and fight or something? You sound like a schoolyard bully.

[waldo]

Are you challenging me to go out in the back alley and fight or something? You sound like a schoolyard bully.

so says the guy who went out of his way to find quotes of mine, in two separate threads, and threw down a link to that Solomon tripe... in two separate threads... the exact same linked/quoted post from you, challenging me. You clearly wanted a response/reaction... were you, as you say, "challenging me to go out in the back alley and fight or something? You sound like a schoolyard bully"?