{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Kody:
2/24/2016 4:17:07 PM
1
Saying "I don't really think 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to harm anything" is not evidence that the vast majority of our academics are in cahoonts with banks/govs/corps to steal our money.
And I've already pointed out the flaw in drawing your conclusion from your CO2 post.
English
-
I said: "it is measured in parts per million/billion" A 40% change in the amount of CO2 wouldn't even change a full degree. How could this melt glaciers? Obviously something corrupt is happening somewhere.
-
Edited by Kody: 2/25/2016 3:14:33 AMYes, you were referring to the 400 ppm. At least I thought you were. I apologize for not quoting you verbatim. But again I said more on this earlier. Glaciers are melting... If you don't believe that then you need to read more on the subject and examine how you form your conclusions. I don't mean this smugly. I posted a link and more commentary you didn't respond to. So rather than ramble on I'll post more research. [url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/]note last of first 3 graphs[/url] [url=http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/12/iceland-ice-climate]Icland's vanishing glaciers[/url] [url=http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.Vs5v0UU77CQ]human-caused (CO2) increase in global warming[/url]
-
Like I said: people are changing up numbers and information to get what they want How do you know said: "97% scientists" aren't making shit up? I wrote a five and a half page essay on this subject with over 10 sources and I have come to the conclusion it is a hoax, a scam. No need to argue with me about because you are only searching for what you want see, not the truth.
-
And like I said in reply, post something to support it. Telling me you wrote an essay on the subject with proper sources does not enlighten me to those sources. You have made absolutely no supportive statements other than asking me if I think a 40% increase in CO2 is enough to cause substantial warming, which you haven't replied to any of my responses to. You say 97% of scientists are publishing [i]peer reviewed[/i] manipulated data for some money scheme. That is a massive accusation that I'm begging you to support.
-
I didn't say 97%, you did. You said 97% support that global warming exists, except it is more like 3%. My support is the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. You seem to ignore that every time I bring it up. If you need proof on that please look in any earth science book and it will say exactly what I said. As I stated before, the atmosphere is made up of a lot of things. CO2 is 0.025 percent. Now let me ask you again. Would a 40% change (again, an example) cause a significant change in temperature? [spoiler]hint: no[/spoiler]
