Carbon dioxide hysteria (Page 23/170)
Fitz301 FEB 15, 10:41 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

another anti vax FOOL

TOO BAD NOBODY TOLD THE MILLIONS WHO DIED

THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE DIED

AS CV-19 HAS A 99.999997% chance of recovery
AS POSTED BY A FOOL



Prove me wrong then...

The people dying are the ones who took their poison like a good little commie, pull your head out of CNN's ass.

Just some free advice, admit you f'ed up, accept your fate, start getting your estate in order, find some good prices for your funeral, so you don't burden and of your family who didn't take the suicide shot any further and so they aren't saddled with paying for your screw up.

You had the choice, you made it.

You can squawk and yell about it all you want, that isn't going to change anything. I believe that's stage 3 of the terminal illness you vaxxers gave yourselves, on purpose even.

You know, it's tough on us "anti-vaxxers" too...we have to listen to you fools rant and rave and call us idiots and fools until you drop dead. Not fun you know...

[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 02-15-2023).]

rinselberg FEB 15, 11:17 AM

quote
Originally posted by Fitz301:
What's [it] like to have to wake up every morning and wonder if you'll drop dead the moment you crawl out of bed?


It's been close to two years since I had my first dose of Covid vaccine. I had the two baseline doses, and since then, three boosters, the last one just before the end of 2022. All of the MRNA variety.

How long do you think I have left?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-15-2023).]

Jake_Dragon FEB 15, 11:57 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

It's been close to two years since I had my first dose of Covid vaccine. I had the two baseline doses, and since then, three boosters, the last one just before the end of 2022. All of the MRNA variety.

How long do you think I have left?




Ha you live in CA, you could die on the 405 tomorrow. Then they will see you have Covid and you will become a number.

Let me as a question, you die in a car accident. Its obvious you were killed by the sudden stop and trauma from the accident.
Then they find out you had something in your blood that was an underlying reason you were not able to control the car.
Is it just a remark on the report or do they change the death certificate to reflect the real reason?

Ok lets say you died during a police stop....

Not sure what all of this has to do with Carbon dioxide unless covid is producing it..
olejoedad FEB 15, 02:37 PM
I'm fairly certain that a high percentage of the words spoken in argument for and against global warming are comprised of a high percentage of man-made Carbon Dioxide.

Plant more trees.....
rinselberg FEB 15, 04:12 PM
"How many new trees would we need to offset our carbon emissions?"

quote
Because of the complexity of the carbon cycle, the answer is not obvious. What is obvious, MIT experts say, is that we should not only plant more trees but also put much more effort into protecting existing forests.


Robert August Dow of Columbus, Georgia, asked the question, and Andrew Moseman of the MIT Climate Portal Writing Team made answer, calling on the expertise of Charles Harvey, MIT professor of civil and environmental engineering.

It's a brief article that's less than a 4-minute read, so I will not duplicate any more of it.

I do puzzle over one sentence, and I think it may be in error.

quote
The faster trees are growing, the more carbon they can suck up, which means new growth is not as valuable as a carbon sink as are longstanding forests.


That seems self-contradictory to me, as when I think of "longstanding forests", I think of trees that have topped out, in terms of their maximal height, and are no longer taking as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as during their "teen-aged" years. But that's really neither here nor there, in terms of where this article lands.

"How many new trees would we need to offset our carbon emissions?"
Andrew Moseman for the MIT Climate Portal; June 16, 2022.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask...our-carbon-emissions

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-15-2023).]

williegoat FEB 15, 04:48 PM
For lumber, trees are generally ready for harvest from 20 to 40 years, depending on things like species and intended use. Oxygen production depends on total leaf area, so more leaves means more oxygen.

During the mid to late 20th century, lumber companies developed faster growing trees and commercial forests are managed for maximum yield. Lumber is a crop.

I have posted figures here in the past showing that there are many more trees now in North America than there were at the beginning of the 20th century, primarily as a result of research and management practices developed by the lumber industry.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 02-15-2023).]

Jake_Dragon FEB 15, 04:53 PM
Photosynthesizing algae in the ocean produce around 70% of oxygen in the atmosphere.
But we can't plant an ocean and feel good about ourselves.
williegoat FEB 15, 05:00 PM

quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:

Photosynthesizing algae in the ocean produce around 70% of oxygen in the atmosphere.
But we can't plant an ocean and feel good about ourselves.


So, if the ocean were to become warmer, wouldn't there be more algae?

Maybe the cure to global warming is global warming.

Homeostasis! The Gaia hypothesis! What a concept!

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 02-15-2023).]

WonderBoy FEB 15, 07:18 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

"How many new trees would we need to offset our carbon emissions?"


Let's ask Greta about her tree killing book.
rinselberg FEB 15, 08:37 PM
You may not agree with the importance of reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, but that is just sidestepping the issue, or trivializing the issue. You should just say that you do not agree that it is important to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Talking about the wood pulp and fuel requirements for the publication and sale of Greta's book is just a diversionary tactic.

If you don't agree with the importance of reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, step right up and say it out loud. But let's not have this rabbit hole about the wood pulp and fuel requirements for the bound book trade. That's silly.