Biden tests positive for COVID

  • Thread starter Thread starter psychodave
  • Start date Start date
Justin Bailey said:
It is counter intuitive because many people, like yourself think that all man made pollution acts the same.
Which it does not
Click to expand...
No, I understand what they are saying. I’m just suggesting that you’d do well to take a step back, get out of the computer lab and take a walk in our (now) warmer planet, Beaker.
 
acceptance said:
No, I understand what they are saying. I’m just suggesting that you’d do well to take a step back, get out of the computer lab and take a walk in our (now) warmer planet, Beaker.
Click to expand...

lol sure thing dude
 
acceptance said:
No, I understand what they are saying. I’m just suggesting that you’d do well to take a step back, get out of the computer lab and take a walk in our (now) warmer planet, Beaker.
Click to expand...
1721513104254.gif
 
Honestly these “counterintuitive” findings are not surprising to me, not because I expected it would happen, but because I understand that the world we live in, especially including the climate, is complex and interconnected. Expecting that a linear, one dimensional, mechanistic model will work as theorized is just dumb.
 
acceptance said:
Honestly these “counterintuitive” findings are not surprising to me, not because I expected it would happen, but because I respect that the world we live in, especially including the climate, is complex and interconnected. Expecting that a linear, one dimensional mechanistic model will work as theorized is just dumb.
Click to expand...
It is very complex. That is what I have always stressed that man made greenhouses are only important because they are the ones we can control.
 
Justin Bailey said:
It is very complex. That is what I have always stressed that man made greenhouses are only important because they are the ones we can control.
Click to expand...
You still haven’t proven that reducing “greenhouse” gas emissions will cool the planet. The best we know is that reducing human emissions, which include aerosol, gas, particulate, etc., lead to increased planet temps.
 
…and seeing that gas and aerosol or particulate emissions go hand in hand, it’s kind of a moot point. Not to mention plants need carbon dioxide to live, and current levels are lower than historic levels anyways. Jeez you all are thick.
 
acceptance said:
…and seeing that gas and aerosol or particulate emissions go hand in hand, it’s kind of a moot point. Not to mention plants need carbon dioxide to live, and current levels are lower than historic levels anyways. Jeez you all are thick.
Click to expand...

lol cmon now. Don’t embarrass yourself by saying plants need co2. No one is suggesting to eliminate carbon dioxide. Fucksakes that’s low even for you.

The rest is equally nonsensical, but explaining it to you again isn’t going to make a difference.
 
Justin Bailey said:
lol cmon now. Don’t embarrass yourself by saying plants need co2. No one is suggesting to eliminate carbon dioxide. Fucksakes that’s low even for you.

The rest is equally nonsensical, but explaining it to you again isn’t going to make a difference.
Click to expand...

 
Justin Bailey said:
Yes exactly what I was saying
Click to expand...
Funny, cause I was pointing out that plants thrive in high CO2 environments, not saying that you climate crazies are trying to eliminate CO2, which Krull kinda proved me wrong. Regardless, you didn’t respond to the main point, which is that greenhouse gas emissions are inextricably linked to aerosol and particulate emissions. So your idea that we can limit one and not the other and maintain your climate theory over direct empirical evidence is just stupid.
 
acceptance said:
Funny, cause I was pointing out that plants thrive in high CO2 environments, not saying that you climate crazies are trying to eliminate CO2, which Krull kinda proved me wrong. Regardless, you didn’t respond to the main point, which is that greenhouse gas emissions are inextricably linked to aerosol and particulate emissions. So your idea that we can limit one and not the other and maintain your climate theory over direct empirical evidence is just stupid.
Click to expand...

That’s not what you said though. You said they need it to live, not that they would thrive in high levels of it. I’m just going to continue ignoring that you said co2 levels are at a “historical low”.
So sorry if I misunderstood you, but only a little
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
 
Back
Top