Carbon dioxide hysteria (Page 46/170)
Valkrie9 APR 09, 05:19 AM


Predictions Are Wrong
Wow !
For Real ?
cliffw APR 09, 05:59 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I think that the Climate Gawds (climate scientists) are much closer to the truth than is "cliffw".



Ah, I see, you don't know how to think.

I will walk you through "how to think". I need you to think, for yourself, meaning for your personal benefit. And ours.


quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
It's based on a preponderance of the evidence, which includes what I have read and viewed from the climate scientists themselves; what I have read and viewed in the news media about what the climate scientists say they believe, as reported by the news media; and finally, it includes how the climate scientists and news media reporters converse with me. (Of course, it's a one-way conversation.) In other words, what they look and sound like, as I perceive them through the medium of the media.



What do you think is wrong with your above thoughts ? Oh, there is so much. Pick one.

I am sorry. I need to put on my Easter Bunny suit. I have been told Bumbling Biden is lost and needs guidance.

You are not done with me yet.
Valkrie9 APR 09, 06:43 AM


Bees toe 3 years ago
" The fact that jellyfish have survived for 650 million years despite not having brains gives hope to many people. "
Priceless.

Scott L 2 years ago
As Richard Feynman stated, " I would rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned. "



See ? The sky really is falling !

[This message has been edited by Valkrie9 (edited 04-09-2023).]

Valkrie9 APR 09, 07:35 AM


Later, Portland was built where the flushes went.
cliffw APR 11, 07:42 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
I am sorry. I need to put on my Easter Bunny suit. I have been told Bumbling Biden is lost and needs guidance.



They were not confident I could handle Bumbling Biden. They also hired 'backup'.




quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

I think that the Climate Gawds (climate scientists) are much closer to the truth than is "cliffw".

It's based on a preponderance of the evidence, which includes what I have read and viewed from the climate scientists themselves; what I have read and viewed in the news media about what the climate scientists say they believe, as reported by the news media; and finally, it includes how the climate scientists and news media reporters converse with me. (Of course, it's a one-way conversation.) In other words, what they look and sound like, as I perceive them through the medium of the media.



It takes a man to confess his ignorance. We have realized it but am glad you might see it.

Preponderance of the evidence ? The only evidence you see is that that supports your opinion. Do you really believe that if it is on the idiotnet that it is true ? What you read and viewed is from your own choice of news intelligence ?
What have you read or viewed which challenges what you believe ?

Preponderance of the evidence ? How sad and utterly repulsive. You want to condemn impoverished children of color to work as slaves mining toxic materials, without personal protective equipment in an endeavor which has not been developed with any safety considerations.

Then these toxic materials are washed in local waterways, polluting them.

You want to contaminate the Earth with billions and billions of waste batteries.

You want to eliminate 1000's of very good paying jobs, devastating families, local economies, and many other things.

For what ? Your traumatic fear that 1 degree rise in temperature in 100 years is going to annihilate all life on the planet.

All on the evidence it takes to indict a ham sandwich.

As I said, it seems as if you do not know how to think. You logic is weak because your reasoning is weak.

The only evidence you see of which to indict a ham sandwich is only the things you will consider. Of course you will think the preponderance of evidence supports you predetermined view. Anyone accomplished in thinking, logic, and reasoning would question what they have been told. You seem to be lacking there also. You have been assimilate by the Borg.

I have been trying to help you think, by asking questions of you which require thought. Is there a reason you don't answer them ? Is it because you don't want to think, or, you will not accept any new belief of truth ?

When one weighs evidence, they need to also consider their experiences with such evidence. Has one Global Warming prediction came true ? Do you always believe people who have a track record of ZERO ?

All the Green Gawds Disciples want us to do things, which they won't do. Have you given up all fossil fuels ? If the Greenies are so wishing to save the world, they should give up all fossil fuels. Wouldn't that cut our green house gas emissions by half ?

It chaps my azz that the Nit Wits want me to subsidize their Lunacy at wallet point.
rinselberg APR 11, 04:24 PM

quote
General Motors will lead a $50 million funding round for lithium extraction startup EnergyX
  • GM Ventures is leading a $50 million funding round for Texas startup EnergyX.
  • EnergyX has technology that can mine lithium more efficiently than current methods.
  • GM will help EnergyX deploy its technology, while getting "dibs" on lithium from mining projects developed by the startup.


John Rosevear for CNBC; April 11, 2023.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/0...rgyx-investment.html

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-11-2023).]

rinselberg APR 11, 05:50 PM
"London Calling"
Big Wind Wants You!



Posted to YouTube on April 10, 2023.
Fitz301 APR 12, 12:51 AM


What this congressman fails to figure out, like the majority of the R's in congress, and even Trump himself, is that they keep asking the wrong questions and seem to be under the impression that the left-wing lunatics are just simply unaware that of what they're doing or are just incompetent, but the reality is they know exactly what they are doing.

They know "globull warming" is BS, they know that EV's, wind & solar power, will never work realistically. They know ALL these things.

The real goal to to limit the movement of the people, to keep them in certain areas, to keep them under control, to force people to bend to their will and cotrol what they eat, drink, think, say, do, where they go, how they get there, etc., all under the guise of "globull warming".

WE, the human race, the carbon-based lifeforms, are the carbon dioxide, they want eliminated.

This is what they hoped to accomplish with the SCAMdemic, but that failed like everything else they do.

And this nonsense will fail too.

We tried EV's in the 70's - FAIL.
We tried EV's and solar power in the 80's & 90's - FAIL.
Now they're trying EV's, solar power, wind farms, and the LIE that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas".

There's nitrogen in the air as well, 78.09% to be exact, why is that not a problem?
There's also 0.93% argon in the air, but apparently that's not a problem.

But these fools expect us to believe that the 0.04% of carbon dioxide is the problem, and will wipe out life as we know it? Seriously?

Are they retarded?

[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 04-12-2023).]

rinselberg APR 12, 01:49 AM

quote
Originally posted by Fitz301:
There's nitrogen in the air as well, 78.09% to be exact, why is that not a problem? There's also 0.93% argon in the air, but apparently that's not a problem.


The air has lots of Nitrogen molecules and Oxygen molecules. Each Nitrogen molecule is two Nitrogen atoms bonded together. Each Oxygen molecule is two Oxygen atoms bonded together. These are symmetric chemical bonds, because it looks the same from either end.

That's different than the bonds in the greenhouse gas molecules, like a molecule of carbon dioxide or CO2. In the case of CO2, each of the two Oxygen atoms is bonded separately to the Carbon atom. So there are two C-O bonds in each molecule of CO2. A C-O bond does not look the same from either end, because Carbon and Oxygen are different elements. These are asymmetric bonds.

Argon doesn't even exist in molecular form. It's just single atoms of Argon. There aren't any bonds.

It's the asymmetric bonds that create the greenhouse effect, and Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon are all excluded from this category. This is why Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon are not greenhouse gases and do not contribute to global warming.

Here are two good primers on the topic:

"Explained: Greenhouse gases"
https://news.mit.edu/2017/e...reenhouse-gases-0130

"How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?"
https://climate.mit.edu/ask...trap-heat-atmosphere

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-12-2023).]

Valkrie9 APR 12, 03:56 AM


Nuclear Warming, an immediate existential threat.
Which American city do you volunteer to be the first destroyed ?
Philadelphia ?
' To make it a symbolic destruction. '
Now, choose twenty more.