Michael Hardner Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 4 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Evidence would be something that shows why that amount of would be too small to alter the climate (which is your argument). But you clearly don't have that evidence, just vibes. How could Socrates have been poisoned? His bloodstream was only 0.1% hemlock! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legato Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: It sounds like you think there may be a conspiracy afoot. Conveniently, that's hard to disprove. But some of your language might lead a reader to think there's actual evidence being published, not an articles or YouTube videos, but in the scientific literature. Till you have something like that we don't have anything to talk about. We could sit here for hours playing ping pong. Lets go have a beer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 9 minutes ago, blackbird said: You are confused about evidence and proof. I'm not it seems you don't understand basic logic. Quote There is nobody on earth that can prove that amount is too small to alter the climate or prove that it can alter the climate. It is impossible to prove. No it probably isn't. Quote But I could point to a very simple example of why I believe it cannot alter the climate. The sun shines on a clear day. If there is 0.1% or 0.2% cloud cover, will the sun still be shining? Of course. You likely would not even notice 0.2% cloud cover. If you have a glass of cold water and you have a way to measure 0.2% of the glass in boiling hot water and pour it into the glass of cold water, will it change the temperature of the glass of cold water? Not likely. This is so funny to me because adding even a tiny percentage of hot water into cold water would absolutely change the temperature of the cold water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted March 22 Author Report Share Posted March 22 10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: How could Socrates have been poisoned? His bloodstream was only 0.1% hemlock! So you are likening carbon dioxide, an essential gas for life on earth, to a deadly poison? Did some radical environmentalist tell you that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 Just now, blackbird said: So you are likening carbon dioxide, an essential gas for life on earth, to a deadly poison? Did some radical environmentalist tell you that? You know breathing carbon dioxide will kill you, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted March 22 Author Report Share Posted March 22 Just now, Black Dog said: I'm not it seems you don't understand basic logic. No it probably isn't. This is so funny to me because adding even a tiny percentage of hot water into cold water would absolutely change the temperature of the cold water. Like adding a drop of hot water to a ten ounce glass of cold water? Try it. Put a thermometer in the glass and add one drop of hot water and see if the temperature changes. Not likely on a normal mercury thermometer. Just now, Black Dog said: You know breathing carbon dioxide will kill you, right? Seriously? There is a small amount in the atmosphere that we breath all the time. If I am correct, we breath in oxygen and breath out a small amount of carbon dioxide which plants live on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 12 minutes ago, blackbird said: Like adding a drop of hot water to a ten ounce glass of cold water? Try it. Put a thermometer in the glass and add one drop of hot water and see if the temperature changes. Not likely on a normal mercury thermometer. You might not be able to measure it with a standard household thermometer, but it absolutely would change the temperature, even if only slightly Quote Seriously? There is a small amount in the atmosphere that we breath all the time. If I am correct, we breath in oxygen and breath out a small amount of carbon dioxide which plants live on. Are you shitting me with this right now? High concentrations of C02 can cause unconsciousness and ultimately death. Slaughterhouses use it to knock animals out before they kill them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted March 22 Author Report Share Posted March 22 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Black Dog said: You might not be able to measure it with a standard household thermometer, but it absolutely would change the temperature, even if only slightly Are you shitting me with this right now? High concentrations of C02 can cause unconsciousness and ultimately death. Slaughterhouses use it to knock animals out before they kill them. We don't have high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is very small, a rare gas but is essential for life. The amount in the atmosphere is not a concern for humans breathing it. Nobody ever said it was a concern. Edited March 22 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Your "idea" - what there is of it - is conveyed in the subject line. The idea that humans are causing climate change has been accepted and is beyond reasonable doubt at this point. You're talking to someone who can't accept evolution FFS. After all, the Book says the meek shall inherit what's left of the Earth. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted March 23 Author Report Share Posted March 23 (edited) 3 hours ago, Black Dog said: Are you shitting me with this right now? High concentrations of C02 can cause unconsciousness and ultimately death. Slaughterhouses use it to knock animals out before they kill them. CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere but the amount is miniscule. The atmosphere is 0.04% carbon dioxide. Nobody is saying CO2 is a threat to health from breathing it. That is not what the debate is all about. The claim is that man-made CO2 causes global warming. Believe me, nobody will become unconscious or die from breathing 0.04% carbon dioxide. Man has been breathing that small amount since God created mankind. God made the atmosphere with CO2. It is natural. 1 hour ago, herbie said: You're talking to someone who can't accept evolution FFS. After all, the Book says the meek shall inherit what's left of the Earth. You are someone who believes man evolved from apes. Possibly you did. I can see you have some traits. Edited March 23 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted March 23 Author Report Share Posted March 23 2 hours ago, herbie said: You're talking to someone who can't accept evolution "1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. " Genesis 1:1, 2 "26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. " Genesis 1:26-28 "7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7 The theory that man evolved from some scum in a pond is nonsense in the extreme. The enormous complexity of the basic cell, with all the DNA data stored in it, so that it can do what is required, makes the theory of evolution nonsense. The complexity of the human eye and everything it must do also demonstrates the necessity of an intelligent designer. Such things could never have evolved by random chance processes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 Hey look everybody!! It's the AGREE TO DISAGREE clown!! Let's all follow him away from this thread now!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 On 3/21/2024 at 3:45 PM, blackbird said: 1. Man-made CO2 is 0.1% to 0.2% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gases. 2. The fossil CO2 emissions of several countries in percentages of all fossil emissions for all countries for 2022 is: Canada 1.511% Australia 1.021% Brazil 1.212% China 32.884% Japan 2.810 % U.S. 12.600% India 6.991% Russia 4.956% --- List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia The total fossil emissions are so minute it is extremely unlikely in my opinion that this has an affect on climate change. It appears that 99.8 or 99.9% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are natural. This is according to information on wikipedia. China's emissions are 32.884% of total man-made CO2 emissions. So no matter what Canada does it will make no difference to the total fossil emissions in the world because Canada's emissions are only 1.511% of the world's fossil emissions. That should be obvious to any reasonable person who looks at these figures. Where did you get that .1 to .2% number? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted March 23 Author Report Share Posted March 23 5 minutes ago, Aristides said: Where did you get that .1 to .2% number? It originated from a Facebook post which you can still see. (1) Facebook (archive.ph) It says climate alarmists do not like people to see that information. If you look at the picture in the post, water vapour is by far the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 Ah, a ten year old Facebook post. Figures. Some things to note. As temperatures rise, so does the air's ability to contain water vapour. Methane emissions account for 30% of warming. Methane is 80 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. We may have already reached a tipping point, as permafrost melts it will release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 Water vapour as greenhouse gas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted March 23 Author Report Share Posted March 23 1 hour ago, Aristides said: Ah, a ten year old Facebook post. Figures. You don't believe it? Is everything ten years ago worthless? I know science is often wrong, but is everything wrong from ten years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 I don't believe the posters conclusions. Quote A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. Bertrand Russell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 (edited) On 3/22/2024 at 12:44 AM, eyeball said: Why on Earth are you in here wasting your time trying to get thru to us troglodytes? Have you presented your conclusions and how you arrived at them to the IPCC or any number of highly reputable scientific academies and institutions around the world? If you're right you'll be in line for a Nobel Prize, millions in research funding, high schools will be named in your honor and of course, you'll risk being buried under a pile of panties that would make Beelzebub Himself blush. Yup millions in research funding, to get that you have to say man is the problem. If not you were shamed. Lol. Follow the money. And there's lots of it. But one fact I always come back to, is we've been warming for 10000 yrs. Are we coming to the end of it? Could cooling supporters from the 70s still be right in the next 10 - 20 yrs? And if so,will Trudeau, Gore and others stand up and say we saved the world? Edited March 23 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 1 hour ago, PIK said: But one fact I always come back to, is we've been warming for 10000 yrs. Really, and you can you prove that? How exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 Actually there was a Little Ice Age between the 14th and 19th centuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 5 hours ago, blackbird said: It originated from a Facebook post omg 🤦🏻♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 28 minutes ago, eyeball said: Really, and you can you prove that? How exactly? You are speaking to someone who only believes things that confirm his misplaced beliefs. Two to three thousand-year-old Aramaic text of unclear authorship, 10-year-old Facebook post unattributed. You should spend your time elsewhere, and just accept that this person cannot be educated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Two to three thousand-year-old Aramaic text of unclear authorship, 10-year-old Facebook post unattributed. Revised over the centuries by committees with predetermined agendas. And a social media cite with zero credibility. Why not tack on the 3% of climate scientists that disagreed with climate change 20 years ago as if none have ever considered further evidence. Don't consider in 160 years no one has disproved or provided any evidence against natural selection. Edited March 23 by herbie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted March 23 Author Report Share Posted March 23 29 minutes ago, herbie said: Revised over the centuries by committees with predetermined agendas. That is a bold-faced lie. The King James Version is composed of the Old Testament which is based on the Hebrew Scriptures called the Masoretic Text and the New Testament is based on the Received Text. It is supported by over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and parts of manuscripts. It has not been revised by committees with predetermined agendas. That is completely false. If it was, it would be obvious by examining the many Greek manuscripts which still exist. But nobody makes such a wild claim. If you are willing to lie about that, how much credibility do you have on anything else you said there? None. End of story. Yet Michael gave you a thumbs up. Shows where he is coming from as well. 1 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.