Nah, it's simply not something I'm going to debate with someone whose second religion is climate change- you're all a waste of time, I spoke to towards those who agree that it's a sham and you merely chimed in with your dogma :wave2:
Gore likens 'global warming' skeptics to racists, supporters of apartheid and homopho
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Nah, it's simply not something I'm going to debate with someone whose second religion is climate change- you're all a waste of time, I spoke to towards those who agree that it's a sham and you merely chimed in with your dogma :wave2:
gcthomas
New member
Except that out of the two of us, only you were caught out making up a 'fact', and only I checked out what the scientists actually said. And I thought your God disapproved of lying about the actions of others.
Nope. Seismicity is a gravity-driven effect; this has nothing to do with the Earth's rotation.
Also, it's confusing how you think increased rotational forces would drive mass toward the axis.
Close, but no cigar, gcthomasy!
Actually, not close at all.
I wasn't caught with anything- your 'I did a two minute Google search and didn't find it so you're a liar' nonsense is something I'm not going to entertain. You seriously think I completely made it up out of thin air?
I rather enjoy a militant climate change moron be pent up about nothing.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I asked for evidence, not a poorly thought out rationale.
Keeling curve.
Most Recent Data
Data Source
Source
Killing sea life isn't a problem?
Luckily for me, I gave you a compelling idea.
Ignoring it might be a better ploy than GC's plan to try and critique it and exposed his ignorance, I guess. :chuckle:
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Of course it would be a problem.
However, you just got finished saying all that carbon was once not locked up in the rocks, which means it did not kill everything.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app
You don't think that's a kinda important detail if you're going to talk about the science?
Sure. There were no animals, at the time, but that's a stage of Earth's history. Are you advocating we return to it?
Sure.
However, I've yet to see anything that shows atmospheric carbon is increasing, Alate's pretty graphs aside.
I doubt that we even have the capacity to measure such a thing with any level of confidence.
Now, see, this is where it's important we begin to understand each other's different ideas. You cannot expect me to just buy into your story of "no animals" because you want to justify the fact that carbon was once not all locked up in the rocks.
gcthomas
New member
Wrong again. You seem to be having trouble parsing my sentences.
I did a twenty second search and found the mossy likely source of the 20 foot rise misquote of yours, and you have been unable to show that I'm wrong.
Come on, where did you get the figure of twenty feet in the next century? I know that for won't answer, because you have been caught out, ands have nothing left but bluster.
So, bluster away!
gcthomas
New member
Last edited:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Killing *everything* isn't the problem, it's killing so much that our food supply is damaged. Also the last time we had a huge amount of carbon in the atmosphere, lots of things died. It's called the Permian extinction, AKA the big dying which has all the hallmarks of runaway climate change.
And even if you don't believe that we are CURRENTLY seeing animals dying from heat and CO2.
Corals grow very slowly, so the barrier reef has been around for an extremely long period of time, and now it's dying very rapidly. That doesn't concern you at all?
I think you need to learn to follow a conversation. :up:
Depends.
Not really. First of all, it's likely not as bad as you make it out to be.
And remember, you've swept under the rug what is potentially a huge contributor to sea-level rise that has nothing to do with temperatures or carbon.
So not even a two minute Google search, a 20 second Google search :rotfl:
You aren't at all familiar with the nonsense that was spewed in the 90's. I didn't Google it, I outright remember the propaganda.
You're so spastic about the subject that any debate with you is like talking to a disgruntled Muslim about Christianity. Not even going to go there with you :wave2:
gcthomas
New member
So you are recalling a 20 year old memory and you are so confident that you heard and recalled the specific details, rather than the impression, correctly that you are rejecting an actual evidence based judgement?
OK. I withdraw the liar claim — you are quite clearly a naïve fool.
ClimateSanity
New member
AlateOne said " Also the last time we had a huge amount of carbon in the atmosphere, lots of things died. "
You assume the carbon caused the heat which caused the deaths.
The effusive,long term volcanism produced massive amounts of chlorine and bromine along with the co2. These are away the stratospheric ozone which let more energetic ultraviolet waves through. This heated the ocean to extremely high levels. This caused massive outgassing of co2. It also caused the atmosphere to heat. The heat killed most of the oceans animals.
You assume the carbon caused the heat which caused the deaths.
The effusive,long term volcanism produced massive amounts of chlorine and bromine along with the co2. These are away the stratospheric ozone which let more energetic ultraviolet waves through. This heated the ocean to extremely high levels. This caused massive outgassing of co2. It also caused the atmosphere to heat. The heat killed most of the oceans animals.
gcthomas
New member
You said that the movement had to be towards the core to speed up the rotation as observed, but that is wrong. A movement across the surface towards the poles (i.e. the axis or rotation) would do the same, without any shrinking.
I don't — you seem confused by simple English You should try reading what I actually wrote. It helps in discussions. :thumb:
gcthomas
New member
Nice to see you accepting that increasing levels of CO2 makes the atmosphere warmer. :up:
ClimateSanity
New member
A misread by you. You need to understand what clause the word "also" referred to. It referred to the ocean heating to high levels.
The ocean heats the atmosphere , not the other way around.
gcthomas
New member
If you are still saying that the CO2 triggers the warming, then what are you objecting to?