• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Warm Blob' Caused Wild Climate Swings During Last Ice Age

ludin said:
nitpick arguments are a failure, but for those people that are grasping at straws it is their only choice.
Click to expand...

Well, if you don't care about proper notation, maybe you didn't care about actually learning science?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, if you don't care about proper notation, maybe you didn't care about actually learning science?
Click to expand...

Well, he hasn't picked up on the fact that he proved himself wrong with his own links. So I'm guessing you may be on the right track.
 
Deuce said:
Well, you've ignored the ice age example as well so I guess we're just done with that line of conversation until you decide to actually discuss it. Yes, fast changes have occurred before. So have plagues and asteroids and genocide and ice ages and mass extinctions and Firefly getting canceled but that don't make any of those things any better.

I'm still waiting for the paper that proves ethanol kills 10 million people a year.
Click to expand...

http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/27243

This is one of many such things out there, I'm sure you don't care, it's only poor people dying.

Your deflection into drivel about ice ages is typical of your avoidance of the fact that using food as fuel is killing people.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
If you had ever taken it you would not write co2 instead of CO2.
Click to expand...

ludin said:
nitpick arguments are a failure, but for those people that are grasping at straws it is their only choice.
Click to expand...

I'm a plumber. If I write something that is wrong about plumbing it will make me look like I am lying about being a plumber. That you don't know the reason why co2 is wrong and CO2 is written that way, and why that's important says that your claim to have done chemistry is false.

Take the test; What is the difference between co2, Co2 and CO2?
 
Deuce said:
Well, he hasn't picked up on the fact that he proved himself wrong with his own links. So I'm guessing you may be on the right track.
Click to expand...

I don't care for people on either side of the isle pushing incorrect ideas. It hurts the credibility.
 
Tim the plumber said:
http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/27243

This is one of many such things out there, I'm sure you don't care, it's only poor people dying.

Your deflection into drivel about ice ages is typical of your avoidance of the fact that using food as fuel is killing people.
Click to expand...

Listen, I've repeatedly told you the only part of your rants I object to is the number you make up. I've repeatedly told you that I fully accept there is a non-zero number of people who starve to death via the increased food prices caused by biofuels. I've repeatedly told you I oppose using ethanol. Either your memory is bad or you're just a liar. Which one?

The problem is the ridiculous number you made up. 10 million people a year. (before it was "tens of millions, so you've backtracked) Your link here? It doesn't say 10 million people per year. And that's not even getting into the tenuous nature of "Larouchepac" as a source. "The repeal of the RFS is not an option if our nation is to survive." A bit... alarmist, wouldn't you say?


The "ice age drivel" is a separate topic, apparently your reading comprehension was insufficient to understand that. So, I'll clarify for you:

Your previous claims were that "warming quickly has happened naturally, therefore it's not a concern." That's ludicrous. The ice age example was trying to draw your attention to that. Ice ages have happened before, but they're not good for us. Asteroid impacts have happened before, but they're not good for us. And rapid warming has happened before, but it's not good for us. Since you're so concerned with the price of food, you should understand that rapidly increasing temperatures can decrease crop yields. Plants can only adapt so quickly, and crops have a temperature limit beyond which yields fall off rapidly each day you spend above it.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I'm confused as to why that's relevant to his being so amused by pointing out earth-shattering revelation like "earth's climate can change rapidly." Sounds to me like he's desperately trying to change the subject. Wonder why that is.

He "loves it" when scientists point out that earth's climate changes rapidly sometimes. Speculate for me: why do you think he loves that so much? And furthermore, why does he suddenly not want to talk about what he said?

Only thing I can come up with is that one or both of you are under the impression that "warmists" are suggesting that taxes will stop earth's climate from changing naturally, but that's too dumb to be true. Only an idiot would believe that was anybody's argument. You don't think that, do you?
Click to expand...

We began this exchange with my reply to this post of yours.

In it you needed somebody to explain the utterly obvious.

Over then next few exchanges you remaigned determinedly stupid, refusing to understand the bleeding obvious.

It is you who constantly seeks to divert the discussion and to avoid the honest truth.

I have seen here a paper which speaks of 10 million people per year dying as a result of food being used a s fuel. I consider that a gross underestimation as very simple maths using the poorest 2 billion people on the planet and a low percentage gives a far higher number. But hey, you can dismiss the bleeding obvious again...
 
Tim the plumber said:
I have seen here a paper which speaks of 10 million people per year dying as a result of food being used a s fuel. I consider that a gross underestimation as very simple maths using the poorest 2 billion people on the planet and a low percentage gives a far higher number. But hey, you can dismiss the bleeding obvious again...
Click to expand...

I haven't.
 
ludin said:
denier of what?

I have never denied climate isn't supposed to change. I firmly believe that it is.

how much of our impact is at a debate and frankly based on numbers our impact is small to negligible.
there are other climate forces at work that we either haven't discovered or they are out of our control.
Click to expand...

Deniers.

Always denying they are deniers.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If you had ever taken it you would not write co2 instead of CO2.
Click to expand...

You're both wrong. The proper notation is CO[SUP]2[/SUP].

Such clownage, watching two deniers who's greatest scientific accomplishment was passing a high school class crow about who knows science better, while both pretend the actual scientists who study this field dont know anything.
 
Threegoofs said:
You're both wrong. The proper notation is CO[SUP]2[/SUP].

Such clownage, watching two deniers who's greatest scientific accomplishment was passing a high school class crow about who knows science better, while both pretend the actual scientists who study this field dont know anything.
Click to expand...

Well, yes you get the prize for being the chemist.

Still it is good to know that not every post by every alarmist is 100% drivel and that some of you know somethings.

Still I don't claim to be an expert on chemistry just know the very basics.
 
Threegoofs said:
You're both wrong. The proper notation is CO[SUP]2[/SUP].

Such clownage, watching two deniers who's greatest scientific accomplishment was passing a high school class crow about who knows science better, while both pretend the actual scientists who study this field dont know anything.
Click to expand...
Except that if you say CO[SUP]2[/SUP] or CO2, it doesn't change the meaning.

And if you want to be technically correct, it's CO[SUB]2[/SUB].
 
Lord of Planar said:
Except that if you say CO[SUP]2[/SUP] or CO2, it doesn't change the meaning.

And if you want to be technically correct, it's CO[SUB]2[/SUB].
Click to expand...

True.

But the real meaning of the post was in the second sentence.
Such clownage, watching two deniers who's greatest scientific accomplishment was passing a high school class crow about who knows science better, while both pretend the actual scientists who study this field dont know anything.
Click to expand...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Except that if you say CO[SUP]2[/SUP] or CO2, it doesn't change the meaning.

And if you want to be technically correct, it's CO[SUB]2[/SUB].
Click to expand...

Thanks, it had occured to me that it should be subscript but I was defering to a pharmacologist. Well, he says he is....
 
Tim the plumber said:
Thanks, it had occured to me that it should be subscript but I was defering to a pharmacologist. Well, he says he is....
Click to expand...

Thing is, on the internet, CO2 is most commonly used so we don't have to mess with the subscript thing. No need to when the message is properly conveyed. It's the Co2 that bothers me the most. Diatomic cobalt... This is when you know someone hasn't taken and understood chemistry.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Thing is, on the internet, CO2 is most commonly used so we don't have to mess with the subscript thing. No need to when the message is properly conveyed. It's the Co2 that bothers me the most. Diatomic cobalt... This is when you know someone hasn't taken and understood chemistry.
Click to expand...

Yes. And as somebody who droped chemistry due to a bad teacher at 13 I do not have confidence in my ability to remember if it's a sub or super script but I would expect a pharmacologist to be right on top of that..... we will have to wait for another gaff before declairing a false claime I think.....
 
Lord of Planar said:
Thing is, on the internet, CO2 is most commonly used so we don't have to mess with the subscript thing. No need to when the message is properly conveyed. It's the Co2 that bothers me the most. Diatomic cobalt... This is when you know someone hasn't taken and understood chemistry.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can really tell when they won't accept a commonly known scientific consensus because they 'know the science better'.

That's usually a much stronger clue than typing habits.
 
Threegoofs said:
Actually, you can really tell when they won't accept a commonly known scientific consensus because they 'know the science better'.

That's usually a much stronger clue than typing habits.
Click to expand...

If they can't even understand why Co2 is wrong whilst telling you they passed their chemistry with an A you know they have a disfunctional relationship with honesty.

Do you know what a super script 2 would signify?
 
WCH said:
A "warm blob" of surface water played a role in Greenland's wild climate swings during the last ice age, a new study finds.

Greenland's climate flipped quickly and brutally from cold to warm and back again 25 times between about 20,000 and 70,000 years ago, ice cores and ocean sediments show. The abrupt climate swings, called Dansgaard-Oeschger events, involved extreme changes in average temperature. Each time, the cold snaps continued for centuries, while the rapid warming lasted a few decades.

The new study adds to evidence that warm Atlantic Ocean currents set the tempo for Greenland's climate swings. The findings were published Feb. 5 in the journal Scientific Reports.

snip...

'Warm Blob' Caused Wild Climate Swings During Last Ice Age


Hummm, seems the climate can swing wildly without help from man.
Click to expand...

Apparently it can. But we know this time that there's no warm blob. We also have evidence of the ozone hole, cores showing the pollution, research demonstrating the change in climate from cutting down all the trees in a large area, etc.
 
JumpinJack said:
Apparently it can. But we know this time that there's no warm blob. We also have evidence of the ozone hole, cores showing the pollution, research demonstrating the change in climate from cutting down all the trees in a large area, etc.
Click to expand...

Pollution like volcanic eruptions or meteor strike that could cause holes in our atmosphere and massive tree loss?
 
WCH said:
Pollution like volcanic eruptions or meteor strike that could cause holes in our atmosphere and massive tree loss?
Click to expand...

What on earth are you trying to say here? These words are all in English but put together you aren't making any sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom