{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/23/2016 4:45:01 PM
1
I have proof it's just crunched numbers to get a buff in funding.
The atmosphere is made up of 0.025% carbon dioxide, which is what is apparently being increased in the atmosphere. It is literally measured in parts per million or parts per billion. Do you really think a "40% change"(just an example) would really change temperature by very much? Remember: parts per billion/million
English
-
Edited by Kody: 2/23/2016 8:18:43 PMI have no idea if a 40% change in carbon dioxde in the atmosphere would cause a drastic temperature change in the atmosphere, but I do know that ecological environments on Earth require a niche and just a few degrees change can have a massive impact. But rather than guess using my limited scientific knowledge (I'm not an environmentalist by trade, and the question you pose is awfully rooted in subjectivity), I trust the actual people who are (people who research and publish for decades on the subject): [url=http://example.com]http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/[/url] Again, [i]global warming[/i] is not the only environmental issue facing us, and seeing as how you for a second time have failed to comment on anything else leads me to believe you're conditioned in some way to reduce the topic to an abused talking point.
-
I'm just talking about global warming. I'm not talking about other environmental issues. Believe what you want, but I think it's a scam to get a buff in funding.
-
I wasn't just talking about global warming and you replied to me. A scam that academics behind 97% of research papers on the subject are in cahoonts with? What reasons do you have to believe this? (You mentioned evidence)
-
My proof was the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not even causing any problems.
-
Edited by Kody: 2/24/2016 4:17:07 PMSaying "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.
-
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]
