waldo Posted October 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 I see where you are struggling. You don't know the definition of insignificant. Here: in·sig·nif·i·cant ˌinsiɡˈnifəkənt/ adjective adjective: insignificant too small or unimportant to be worth consideration you're still failing and still refusing to answer the question! again, the size of the significance is irrelevant... there is no consideration to be made in the first place. There is no relationship that allows you to presume to compare and draw any significance, whatever the degree of that signficance. This is your absolute big-time fail - and you realize it and you know it. It's the reason you continue to avoid answering the question, why you won't even acknowledge it, why you deflect away from it, why you runaway, runaway! again, simply answer the question you refuse to even acknowledge... the question you keep running from, you keep avoiding, you keep deflecting away from. Again, given your absolute fixation on human breathing produced CO2, does human breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere? just answer the question... don't runaway, runaway!!! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 just answer the question... don't runaway, runaway!!! Yes...the Monty Python clip accurately mirrors your unwillingness and or inability to answer the very basic question being discussed....do humans produce CO2. Of course, instead of answering the question you decide to ask a new question to protect yourself from having to side with a so called denier. How sad!! Having said that, I have no problems saying that human breathing does not build up in the atmoshphere as the capabilities of natural carbon sinks are large enough to handle the CO2 output by respiration. See waldo...that's how you answer a question as an adult. Of course, this has NOTHING do to with the fact that your warmies didn't even know that humans produce CO2. NOTHING! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 The largest sources of CO2 are naturally occurring, as are the causes for large CO2 "fluxes" over thousands/millions of years. You are welcome...warmies and alarmists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 If people don't know something as simple as human produced CO2 then what purpose do they serve in talking about global warming? I guess that's why it's a sensible idea to rely on experts and scientists to guide people in the event they have to make a decision about things that are unclear to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 I have no problems saying that human breathing does not build up in the atmoshphere as the capabilities of natural carbon sinks are large enough to handle the CO2 output by respiration. See waldo...that's how you answer a question as an adult. when you're finally trapped and can't run any longer... sure, you finally answer and prove your nonsense about human breathing had no bearing, means nothing, is irrelevant. Good on ya for finally fessing up... the question only had to be put to you a brazillion times before you would finally answer. At the end of the day, you simply chose to shit on this thread and derail to the nth degree over something that has no relationship to your claimed want for an "intellectually honest discussion" on global warming. Again, thanks for showcasing your fake-skeptic/denier mindset... the only useful thing to contribute to this thread! . Of course, this has NOTHING do to with the fact that your warmies didn't even know that humans produce CO2. NOTHING! I certainly didn't read anyone stating that, disputing that... that sir, that is your strawman... your failed strawman! Again, one MLW member called your BS "phony"; and with you finally answering the question you acknowledge just how phony your charade was! Again, another member spoke to you in terms of the carbon cycle... schooled you on the carbon cycle. It simply made you more belligerent, made you throw more insults and ramped up your juvenile display. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 The largest sources of CO2 are naturally occurring, as are the causes for large CO2 "fluxes" over thousands/millions of years. so what? Jeezaz, another guy who doesn't know what the carbon cycle is... and what it means when the balance is lost by external non-natural sources! Perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 when you're finally trapped and can't run any longer... That's not true as proven by your constant deflection from my question of do humans produce CO2. I just gave up asking as I knew your dishonesty was not worth tackling. you finally answer and prove your nonsense about human breathing had no bearing, means nothing, is irrelevant. You asked a couple times...and that's a brazillion? What is a brazillion anyway? Another cool term the kids are using now a days? Like I said waldo, I answered the question like an adult would. I hope you will do the same when you finally grow up. I certainly didn't read anyone stating that, disputing that... that sir, that is your strawman... your failed strawman! Again, one MLW member called your BS "phony"; and with you finally answering the question you acknowledge just how phony your charade was! Again, another member spoke to you in terms of the carbon cycle... schooled you on the carbon cycle. It simply made you more belligerent, made you throw more insults and ramped up your juvenile display. I've already shown you the two posts consisting of Wilber and On Guard. Wilber has come back and shown that he gets it but your mini me still insists that we don't produce CO2.....DO WE WALDO???? DO WE???? And of course you say you see no one disputing these comments either?????? Here's a good start on what has transpired since you obviously can't keep up in the conversation. The carbon was ultimately created through fusion in stars. However, more immediately it comes from glucose in the food we consume. Cellular Respiration: C6H12O6 + O2 =======> H2O + CO2 + Energy Is your point that we don't manufacture carbon, we consume it and convert it into a gaseous form? The food and drink we eat can be broken into carbon compounds, one of the most simple being glucose (C6H12O6). When that reacts with oxygen (O2) in the cells, it produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). C6H12O6 plus 6O2 gives 6CO2 plus 6H2O plus energy. We use the energy and the carbon dioxide is breathed out as gas. How much CO2 do humans - and other mammals produce in relation to fossil fuels? Tough question - but likely only a small contribution from what I've gathered. From the nature of your posts, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent poster - yet you did not know/believe that humans actually produce CO2 (along with On Guard for Thee). That's not really that surprising and should serve as a good example of the general population's lack of perspective on CO2. The point is that in any popularly understood sense people do make CO2, and trees do make oxygen. @Accountability Now - I feel your pain about trying to explain basic chemistry to the various climate alarmists in this thread, but you probably won't be successful. Perhaps it is because they are high school drop outs, perhaps it is because they were asleep during basic chemistry and only passed because of our terrible education system, perhaps their egos are too big to admit being wrong, or perhaps something else. Who knows. As for the initial 'phony' comment, that was made by your mini me to different member...not me. The only thing phony in here is your excuses for being such a hypocrite. My intervention in all of this was to correct the misunderstanding that certain members had regarding CO2 production from humans. I made no inference of this being any sort of cause or relationship to global warming....AT ALL. In fact I went on record as stating the amount was INSIGNIFICANT....a word that you can't seem to find in your dictionary. The only strawman is on your end assuming that I was making such a connection. Seriously....you suck at this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 That's not true as proven by your constant deflection from my question of do humans produce CO2. I just gave up asking as I knew your dishonesty was not worth tackling. You asked a couple times...and that's a brazillion? What is a brazillion anyway? Another cool term the kids are using now a days? Like I said waldo, I answered the question like an adult would. I hope you will do the same when you finally grow up. I've already shown you the two posts consisting of Wilber and On Guard. Wilber has come back and shown that he gets it but your mini me still insists that we don't produce CO2.....DO WE WALDO???? DO WE???? And of course you say you see no one disputing these comments either?????? Here's a good start on what has transpired since you obviously can't keep up in the conversation. As for the initial 'phony' comment, that was made by your mini me to different member...not me. The only thing phony in here is your excuses for being such a hypocrite. My intervention in all of this was to correct the misunderstanding that certain members had regarding CO2 production from humans. I made no inference of this being any sort of cause or relationship to global warming....AT ALL. In fact I went on record as stating the amount was INSIGNIFICANT....a word that you can't seem to find in your dictionary. The only strawman is on your end assuming that I was making such a connection. Seriously....you suck at this. I see you are still struggling with the basics, but at least you "sort of" fessed up about human production. Now if you can just unpack that whole closed cycle thingy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 I see you are still struggling with the basics, but at least you "sort of" fessed up about human production. Now if you can just unpack that whole closed cycle thingy. Fessed up about human production??? Where??? Are you on drugs or just following your mentor's dishonest ways? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Fessed up about human production??? Where??? Are you on drugs or just following your mentor's dishonest ways? Neither. Just trying to help you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 My intervention in all of this was to correct the misunderstanding that certain members had regarding CO2 production from humans. I made no inference of this being any sort of cause or relationship to global warming....AT ALL. In fact I went on record as stating the amount was INSIGNIFICANT....a word that you can't seem to find in your dictionary. The only strawman is on your end assuming that I was making such a connection. oh... you're an... "intervenor"!!! Again, continuing to claim an "INSIGNIFICANT" amount is most significant... it shows you still haven't got it. There is no significance to be drawn; there is no relationship that allows you to claim significance. Again, natural sourced human breathing output has absolutely nothing to do with non-natural sourced fossil-fuel burned output. You can't compare the two, there is no significance to be drawn... why is this so hard for you to fathom? It's called the carbon cycle... read up on it; save yourself further embarassment! Your Mr. Wizard strawman act means nothing, has no bearing, is unrelated and was simply an expression of your purposeful want to derail this thread. Again, as much as you continue to try to claim so, as much as you continue to make shit up, no one disagreed with the output of human breathing. I personally made numerous references to human production CO2... you're just too deluded and fixated in your denier mindset to draw inference, even when I repeatedly play those statements back to you... your junkyard dog act with the "YES, NO" was most humourous in how you couldn't... or wouldn't... draw that inference. Watching you dangle on my string, watching your raised belligerance, your increasing insults, your juvenile act, your meltdown... all of that was too easy! Again, thanks for contributing your denier mindset to this thread - well done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 oh... you're an... "intervenor"!!! Again, continuing to claim an "INSIGNIFICANT" amount is most significant... it shows you still haven't got it. There is no significance to be drawn; there is no relationship that allows you to claim significance. Again, natural sourced human breathing output has absolutely nothing to do with non-natural sourced fossil-fuel burned output. You can't compare the two, there is no significance to be drawn... why is this so hard for you to fathom? It's called the carbon cycle... read up on it; save yourself further embarassment! Your Mr. Wizard strawman act means nothing, has no bearing, is unrelated and was simply an expression of your purposeful want to derail this thread. Again, as much as you continue to try to claim so, as much as you continue to make shit up, no one disagreed with the output of human breathing. I personally made numerous references to human production CO2... you're just too deluded and fixated in your denier mindset to draw inference, even when I repeatedly play those statements back to you... your junkyard dog act with the "YES, NO" was most humourous in how you couldn't... or wouldn't... draw that inference. Watching you dangle on my string, watching your raised belligerance, your increasing insults, your juvenile act, your meltdown... all of that was too easy! Again, thanks for contributing your denier mindset to this thread - well done! Yup....you say NOTHING once more. Wait what was that you said???? "I didn't see anyone disputing it". BAMMMM...4 examples down your throat. You honestly have no clue do you? You just spew the same broken lines repeatedly at people hoping they just give up because the reality is you have NOTHING. You sir are INSIGNIFICANT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Yup....you say NOTHING once more. no - I said a lot... you simply don't care for it showcasing your trumped up "Mr. Science" ploy. Your fake call for "intellectual honesty" is the farthest thing from anything you care about. Through all your purposeful thread derailing, you spent all your time beating down on something that has no relevance to any discussion concerning AGW/CC. Of course, getting you to admit that... to finally admit that, to finally acknowledge the carbon cycle, and in turn have you state you're only doing so... "cause you're the adult in the room", that sir was gold, real gold! what's your next act? How do intend to next showcase your denier mindset? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 what's your next act? How do intend to next showcase your denier mindset? The denier mindeset? Why would I do that when you have done such a great job of showing the 'alarmist' mindset. Let's look at this shall we. We had MightyAC who is the most logical 'warmie' on this forum also addressing On Guard regarding the idiocy being stated regarding humans producing CO2. It took eyeball one post to come out and say that yes humans produce it. Even Wilber came around once it was explained. Then there are the resident 'alarmists' on the forum. On Guard still doesn't believe humans produce CO2 and the waldingo is going around with grand deflection and dishonesty so that he doesn't have to address the situation. Pure alarmist tactics. Is this what you do? Cover up shit so it doesn't make you look bad? HIDE THE DECLINE. THE HEAT IS IN THE OCEAN. Man...you guys are just full of this stuff aren't you. Throw out a few more of your waldoisms....because I have never heard you say real gold before. Again...the kids must think that one is cool hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 The denier mindeset? Why would I do that when you have done such a great job of showing the 'alarmist' mindset. no - again, this has been explained to you several times now. Another MLW member calling your fixation on human breathing "phony" is a factual assessment... you interpreted that labeling incorrectly... although it's more likely you purposely ran with it to suit your agenda. That particular 'human breathing' emphasis/BS of yours was/is phony for no other reason than it has no relevance or bearing on AGW/CC. The other MLW member you claim 'finally came around', had the carbon cycle in mind from the onset... you were simply too deluded and fixated in your purposeful derail to accept that. You know, the carbon cycle that you 'FINALLY CAME AROUND" on. Pure alarmist tactics. Is this what you do? Cover up shit so it doesn't make you look bad? HIDE THE DECLINE. THE HEAT IS IN THE OCEAN. Man...you guys are just full of this stuff aren't you. perfect! The "hide the decline" meme and disputing rising ocean heat content are two symbolic hallmarks of denial. Well done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 The denier mindeset? Why would I do that when you have done such a great job of showing the 'alarmist' mindset.Relax. The burden of proof needs to be on Chicken Little, not on the people going about their business. Otherwise nothing gets done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Relax. The burden of proof needs to be on Chicken Little, not on the people going about their business. Otherwise nothing gets done. your posting history positions you to be the king of MLW deniers in terms of being on the fringe of the fringe... no amount of 'proof' would ever, will ever meet "your burden". Having you speak to 'proof' is quite the elevated leap on your part... considering, as I recall, you've yet to provide any support/substantiation for your position/claims/statements, in spite of you being repeatedly requested/challenged to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 your posting history positions you to be the king of MLW deniers in terms of being on the fringe of the fringe... no amount of 'proof' would ever, will ever meet "your burden". Having you speak to 'proof' is quite the elevated leap on your part... considering, as I recall, you've yet to provide any support/substantiation for your position/claims/statements, in spite of you being repeatedly requested/challenged to do so.That's not true. On another topic, prior to the infection of the Dallas nurse with the Ebola virus, I had thought far more than casual contact was required to spread the germ. I have changed my mind. As for climate, I can barely contain my laughter when I read the alarmist materials. I find it hard to believe any intelligent person buys this c***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 As for climate, I can barely contain my laughter when I read the alarmist materials. I find it hard to believe any intelligent person buys this c***. spoken like the self-described, self-acknowledged denier you are. Again, as I recall, you've never supported/substantiated your claims/statements... argued your position. All you've done is ignored many questions/challenges put to you; notwithstanding you're one of the leading proponents of drive-by commentary... say something and disappear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 The denier mindeset? Why would I do that when you have done such a great job of showing the 'alarmist' mindset. Let's look at this shall we. We had MightyAC who is the most logical 'warmie' on this forum also addressing On Guard regarding the idiocy being stated regarding humans producing CO2. It took eyeball one post to come out and say that yes humans produce it. Even Wilber came around once it was explained. Then there are the resident 'alarmists' on the forum. On Guard still doesn't believe humans produce CO2 and the waldingo is going around with grand deflection and dishonesty so that he doesn't have to address the situation. Pure alarmist tactics. Is this what you do? Cover up shit so it doesn't make you look bad? HIDE THE DECLINE. THE HEAT IS IN THE OCEAN. Man...you guys are just full of this stuff aren't you. Throw out a few more of your waldoisms....because I have never heard you say real gold before. Again...the kids must think that one is cool hey? You just can't seem to comprehend that closed carbon cycle thingy eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29601644 Global climate models have underestimated the amount of CO2 being absorbed by plants, according to new research. Scientists say that between 1901 and 2010, living things absorbed 16% more of the gas than previously thought. The authors say it explains why models consistently overestimated the growth rate of carbon in the atmosphere. But experts believe the new calculation is unlikely to make a difference to global warming predictions. NEW EVIDENCE TO PUSH BACK ON GLOBAL WARMING SUPPORTERS .. but it's not important, just like all other major notes. I think I did say somewhere that planting trees would help. But some still poo-poo'd the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 I find it hard to believe any intelligent person buys this c***.What is a c***? I'm serious. I've gone through my complete vocabulary of censorable c-words and none of them make any sense in this context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29601644 NEW EVIDENCE TO PUSH BACK ON GLOBAL WARMING SUPPORTERS .. but it's not important, just like all other major notes. I think I did say somewhere that planting trees would help. But some still poo-poo'd the idea. "a push back"??? Why would you feel this study reference warrants such an odd declaration? As a single study, if it holds up, this is new learning that will better model projections. For perspective, accepting to the study's estimate figure, I've read the amount of additional estimated absorbed CO2 for the totality of the 20th century equates to less than 4 years of fossil-fuel sourced emissions. The study itself doesn't offer any future projection impact/consideration and taken in isolation is a major leap to extrapolate on increased growth and sequestration... that isolation being removed from considerations of nutrient limitations, water availability, warming itself (e.g., decomposition and CO2 return), fires, pests, high temperatures, permafrost thawing, etc.. you are also not being accurate in how your perpetual "planting trees" hobby-horse has been responded to here on MLW. Related posted comments are but a mere MLW search away... if you'd like to resurrect discussion on this topic, you've brought it up several times across a multitude of previous MLW threads - perhaps pick one of those, yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldingoman Posted October 17, 2014 Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 Yup....you say NOTHING once more. Wait what was that you said???? "I didn't see anyone disputing it". BAMMMM...4 examples down your throat. You honestly have no clue do you? You just spew the same broken lines repeatedly at people hoping they just give up because the reality is you have NOTHING. You sir are INSIGNIFICANT! Some people like to sound stupid as well as be stupid. You labour hard at being a denier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Some people like to sound stupid as well as be stupid. You labour hard at being a denier. waldingoman???? That is priceless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.