Let me tell you something about brain dead idiots...they're much more stupid than you can possibly imagine.
Your language has been milder in this thread however, your insults and name calling have been right on par with your normal modus operandi. You're the one kidding yourself if you think people take what you say seriously.
Have a super sparkly day!!!!
See, complaining about my language is about all you really wanted to say. The reaction of disgust, repelled by words, is a part of conservative morality, the concern with purity and ablution. Part of the reason you can't think straight is because you fear it will make you dirty. I have no such concerns. I already know how dirty I feel. It amuses me that I could have been so programmed. Your need to accuse me of bad language and bad decorum is just your attempt to make me feel what you feel about yourself. Been there and done that, sorry.
When I was younger I used to cuss like the sailor I was as I thought it helped to get my point across. As I've grown older I realized that the use of profanity and insults lessen one's ability to get their point across to others. One day you will outgrow this need to use profanity and insults to get your point across.
Have a nice day.
One day you may realize that the points I make can't reach one way or another. I was told long ago that if I tried to please others somebody would get upset and if I tried to please myself somebody would get upset. Given the choices I prefer that fact that telling you to go fuck yourself often makes me feel better. But you can rest assured that I never mean it. You always done it first before I can say anything.
I'm so happy that you're happy. Have a super sparkly day Moonie.
Okay, now I know you're a parody poster. No one could be so stupid as to juxtapose those two bolded sentences and not manage to strangle himself trying to get dressed.Of course the whole point is that your side comprised the foam-speckled idiots.
Let's look at it another way. What would you do about an adult man who felt he could cure his AIDS by having sex with young virgins. How about a person with a deadly contagious disease who refused to be quarantined. What about a parent with a child that has cancer but believe only in prayer? You are just this sort of imbecile but you threaten billions of lives, not just a few. Remember that Hitler couldn't wrap his mind around the idea that Jews are people. You are insane and dangerous to the human race. What do you expect more normal and rational people to do? Why should we allow you to kill us and the world's future children. On what logical basis should you get a pass? Ignorance is no excuse when you murder people and you have been told who you are. How utterly and totally contemptible do you wish to be?
He doesn't need to turn off HIS computer, 'cause he's special. Just by being a True Believer and insulting those horrid Unbelievers, he has an indulgence, a dispensation to do whatever he wishes. It's like joining the Crusades but without having to go anywhere or do anything.I'm waiting for people like Moonbeam to lead by example and turn off their computers to reduce electrical demand/CO2 emissions that are adding to the cause of man made global warming. However, we all know that's not going to happen as it far more important to talk about an issue rather than take real actions to solve it.
You're missing the point. Mother Nature KNOWS which CO2 molecules are man-made; She won't touch those, so they accumulate. And She's pissed, man. Real pissed. That's why she sends us so many more hurricanes. And probably also why She fogs our mind so that when we count them, there are fewer hurricanes. But those extra hurricanes are real, man, and you're brain damaged if you disagree.That's an outright lie.
This thread was posted to insult anyone that disagrees with you, and to stir up controversy. It's about the arrogance of one person that's decided that anyone that disagrees with him has a brain defect. It's about gathering together others with the same inflated self image so you can jerk each other off, then all talk about what a great lay you are. This is simply another worthless Moonbeam "I hate everyone that disagrees with me" thread.
Here's a question for you mooney. Have you ever looked at the actual co2 production numbers? Have you tracked down the estimates for how much co2 is naturally produced? How about the amount that is absorbed into the environment and used by plants? Do you know what happens when the oceans absorb excess co2? Have you actually looked at the raw data and done the calculations? I have.
:thumbsup:That's an outright lie.
This thread was posted to insult anyone that disagrees with you, and to stir up controversy. It's about the arrogance of one person that's decided that anyone that disagrees with him has a brain defect. It's about gathering together others with the same inflated self image so you can jerk each other off, then all talk about what a great lay you are. This is simply another worthless Moonbeam "I hate everyone that disagrees with me" thread.
:thumbsup:
That basically nails just about any Moonbeam thread in P&N.
Here is a fine example of conservative defective rationalizations. The assertion without evidence that cattle culture is more dangerous than fossil fuel production, that those who are for action on GW will not give up anything themselves. Thus does he deflect the real issues.
Is methane more dangerous than CO2?
Yes, it is estimated to be between 25 and 33 times worse than CO2. This difference comes from methane's interaction with aerosols. Methane will interact with hydroxyl oxidants, leaving fewer available to oxidize sulphur dioxide into sulphate, which would have more of a cooling effect. Much of the atmospheric methane comes from livestock farming, landfills and fossil fuel energy.
Oh the irony. This above is coming from the P&N poster who starts a thread entirely predicated on fear.This is not so. Conservatives are not stupid. They just have brains that react to fear in such a way that facts scare them resulting in a denial reaction called rationalization. Calling them stupid is just another rationalization, one for which liberals can be just as guilty.
Here's a question for you mooney. Have you ever looked at the actual co2 production numbers? Have you tracked down the estimates for how much co2 is naturally produced? How about the amount that is absorbed into the environment and used by plants? Do you know what happens when the oceans absorb excess co2? Have you actually looked at the raw data and done the calculations? I have.
In a complete combustion reaction, a compound reacts with an oxidizing element, such as oxygen or fluorine, and the products are compounds of each element in the fuel with the oxidizing element. For example:
CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O + energy
A simple example can be seen in the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen, which is a commonly used reaction in rocket engines:
<sigh> You seriously can't see the huge, gaping flaw in your "logic"?Hmm interesting questions. How could we possible know what our contribution to CO2 production is. It's not like there are these large fossil fuel producing entities who release press releases about how much they sold and how much they have in reserve.
http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxon-mobil-corporation-announces-2011-reserves-replacement
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/publications/338.htm
Plus how can we possibly know how much fossil fuel is converted into CO2. It's not like there's some crazy formula for calculating that:
Wikipedia
And to figure out how much CO2 is naturally produced it would be so difficult. Someone would have to measure the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and then do some fancy math to subtract out our production.
Oh and the oceans are becoming more acidic due to the CO2 being absorbed.
It's to bad nobody thought of these questions before you.
I'm intrigued, what is it?<sigh> You seriously can't see the huge, gaping flaw in your "logic"?
<sigh> You seriously can't see the huge, gaping flaw in your "logic"?
The vast majority of CO2 is naturally produced. Simply calculating the amount of CO2 produced is a herculean task far beyond our capabilities because the world literally runs on CO2 - plants require CO2 and plants are primary producers. The best we can do is to calculate the increase in CO2 and make some rough calculations based on measurements of isotopes as to what percentage we produce. (Assuming non-preferential uptake anyway, and ignoring that most man-made CO2 production occurs away from most CO2 consumption. And ignoring that C13 concentration has often dropped when CO2 increases - which may well turn out to be an artifact of the proxies used. And ignoring that such events as volcanic eruptions and tectonic activity may also emit old and depleted CO2.) This gives us an estimate of the excess CO2 that is naturally produced. We can then make a very, very rough estimate about how much is naturally produced by measuring production and consumption in sample environments and projecting the results, but even within those sample environments we're making only a rough estimate because most CO2 produced or consumed is used to maintain life processes, not to, say, add body mass. Nonetheless, we can say with certainty that humans produce a very small percentage of all CO2, and we can say with certainty that one cannot calculate what percentage of CO2 we produce simply by subtracting out what we calculate we produce from what is there to be measured.I'm intrigued, what is it?
Aside form the fact that not all carbon burned in fossil fuels becomes CO2?
The vast majority of CO2 is naturally produced. Simply calculating the amount of CO2 produced is a herculean task far beyond our capabilities because the world literally runs on CO2 - plants require CO2 and plants are primary producers. The best we can do is to calculate the increase in CO2 and make some rough calculations based on measurements of isotopes as to what percentage we produce. (Assuming non-preferential uptake anyway, and ignoring that most man-made CO2 production occurs away from most CO2 consumption. And ignoring that C13 concentration has often dropped when CO2 increases - which may well turn out to be an artifact of the proxies used. And ignoring that such events as volcanic eruptions and tectonic activity may also emit old and depleted CO2.) This gives us an estimate of the excess CO2 that is naturally produced. We can then make a very, very rough estimate about how much is naturally produced by measuring production and consumption in sample environments and projecting the results, but even within those sample environments we're making only a rough estimate because most CO2 produced or consumed is used to maintain life processes, not to, say, add body mass. Nonetheless, we can say with certainty that humans produce a very small percentage of all CO2, and we can say with certainty that one cannot calculate what percentage of CO2 we produce simply by subtracting out what we calculate we produce from what is there to be measured.
The scientific consensus increasing with expertise in the field is that man is the major cause of global warming.
EXCELLENT PROOF, DOCUMENTATION, AND EXTENSIVE DETAIL GOOD SIR :awe:
Thanks for your defeat statement of "I READ ARTICLES THAT ARE BIASED AND BELIEVE THEM. ANYTHING ELSE IS WRONG!"
He cannot help it. Science has shown his broken genetics cause him act terribly. Have pity on him.