Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

[rSin]

Most proponts dont contend tgat about nukes
Since they never set the venue
Where what they say gets heard
They are forced to sit next to
Whatever fucks the oik and gas industry
Bastards invite

Make prn nuke fucks seem likd what they arent
That is, well supported

To you guys
Watching with mly
One eye open
And both ears shut

[Prawn Connery]

I'm not making that claim...I am pointing to the fact that scientists do not see a CO2 problem with the bacteria. So, I guess we should ask Prawn to substantiate his claim...

"...the anaerobic bacteria that break algae down when they die, releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the water."
"...going to release CO2 on a massive scale."

...because the scientists don't see a problem with feeding the bacteria massive amounts of food (sewage). It can't be both...it is either a problem, or it isn't.

Do you know what Botulinum toxin is? It is one of the most lethal biological substances known to man. Its LD50 is 1.3 nanograms per kilogram of body weight.

That is 1.3 thousanths of a millionth of a gram - or 0.00000000013 grams - per kilogram of body weight can kill you.

Did you know that millions of people around the world inject Botulinum toxin into their collective faces on a daily basis without ill-effect?

True. It's call "botox".

So you tell me: is Botulinum toxin a problem, or is it not? And if it is a problem, how much of it is a problem?

Please feel free to use the same logic as you have used throughout this debate.

[Intrinsic]

I am simply parroting what global warming activists say,
No, yer parroting the denyest.

Riiight....I'm pretty certain the denialists don't claim the 97%.

Then yer pruty wrong.
Our Dick Fein brought up the 97% consensus number first to support his anti-AGW stance. Where I quickly corrected this common denyest rhetoric by posting the contents of original and often quoted, peer reviewed paper. The Arithmetic is indisputable. The one you said you never saw before ya started using that 97% number.
You are bullshitting or stupid. Since I know you know what a % means and are good with numbers… bullshitting it is.

First off, that is not what I'm saying...I never referenced any authors of published papers.
What I am referring to is the assertion by global warming folks that nuclear power is a better, safer alternative to burning coal, oil, etc. Which I contend is false, until they have come up with a safe way to dispose of spent material...which in the 60+ years of use, they have not.

ummm .. I'm informing you that is what you are really saying when using it, whether intentional or not, m'kay. Showing the absurdity of yer quotes when using a false premise.

[Intrinsic]

Let's recap so far.
Global Warming is a hoax/scam for:

Eugenics
Taxes
Nuclear energy.
Stealing our precious bodily fluids.

[Intrinsic]

To the meat of yer concern.
For the record the Majority of published scientist or just rational people, have NOT endorse Fission (dirty) Nuclear energy as a solution to excess co2 or GW. No sir, saying otherwise is a lie. Prove me wrong, I can't read everything.

Yes, I have read articles in Scientific American supporting fission energy as a solution , but not in the last decade, And SA sorta is peer reviewed in the letter section by the those who read SA anyway. And pro-nukers arguments are often critiqued showing the data (not their opinions) does not show it's a long term viable solution given current tech.

fwiw, same goes for wind and solar solution, Critiqued (using math) cause the numbers don't add up for current world use of electrical energy.

I'm with you bob, fission reactors are intrinsically unsafe simply from the waste. Tho there have been great steps making reactors literally impossible to have a runaway reaction, meltdown. And many other amazing improvements. But still the waste.
(not to mention uranium is a finite natural resource same as oil is)

And .... The ones who mention breeder reactors can go to hell in MY book. Argggg plutonium! I'll take excessive fossil fuel burning over that any day. Give me rising oceans, extreme weather, but please no plutonium. Remember Fukushima!

[Roots]

>>>It can't be both...it is either a problem, or it isn't.




Things can be both a problematic and a solution....There’s always things that are the lesser of two evils or things that are ok for short term solutions as we continue to try to advance further and further in the right direction.

[Butcher Bob]

So, I guess we should ask Prawn to substantiate his claim...

"...the anaerobic bacteria that break algae down when they die, releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the water."
"...going to release CO2 on a massive scale."

Blah, blah, blah...

So...no substantiation, eh.

Our Dick Fein brought up the 97% consensus number first to support his anti-AGW stance.

I couldn't recall who mentioned it first, so I went back and looked. While the specific % wasn't mentioned, it was Prawn who made the first claim...

But seriously, the greatest minds on earth have all come to the same conclusion...

But I do thank you Intrinsic for clearing up what the number actually refers to...I learned something.

However, it would seem that figure is in debate...

1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming

...which evidently has led to a lawsuit...

NASA Faces Lawsuit Demanding Removal Of False ‘97% Consensus’ Global Warming Claim

Now I didn't vet either of these sources, so take them with a grain of salt. But I do view it as positive that this claim is being tested.

Most proponts dont contend tgat about nukes

For the record the Majority of published scientist or just rational people, have NOT endorse Fission (dirty) Nuclear energy as a solution to excess co2 or GW. No sir, saying otherwise is a lie. Prove me wrong, I can't read everything.

Bite me

https://www.google.com/search?q=percent ... irefox-b-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unfortunately folks on both sides of the GW debate are in favor of nuclear power.

Things can be both a problematic and a solution....There’s always things that are the lesser of two evils or things that are ok for short term solutions as we continue to try to advance further and further in the right direction.

We haven't even touched on the methane they produce...you know, farting cows and all that.

[Prawn Connery]

So...no substantiation, eh.

I couldn't recall who mentioned it first, so I went back and looked. While the specific % wasn't mentioned, it was Prawn who made the first claim...

But I do thank you Intrinsic for clearing up what the number actually refers to...I learned something.

However, it would seem that figure is in debate...

1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming

...which evidently has led to a lawsuit...

NASA Faces Lawsuit Demanding Removal Of False ‘97% Consensus’ Global Warming Claim

Now I didn't vet either of these sources, so take them with a grain of salt. But I do view it as positive that this claim is being tested.


Bite me

https://www.google.com/search?q=percent ... irefox-b-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unfortunately folks on both sides of the GW debate are in favor of nuclear power.


We haven't even touched on the methane they produce...you know, farting cows and all that.

LOL! You're really grasping at straws now, aren't you? Show me where I posted "97% of scientists" blah, blah, blah.

You can't. Because I never wrote it.

Lies!

As for the links you didn't "vet" - because you don't read links, do you (not even your own)? - the first one gets ripped to shreds by its own commenters, and there is no mention of a "lawsuit" in the second.

Lies!

You clearly know how to use google, but it appears you're either too lazy or too frightened to actually do any reading. Because there is countless evidence to support the FACT that rising water temperatures and CO2 levels are leading to larger and more frequent algal blooms that, in turn, release large amounts of CO2 and other toxins when they decompose:

https://theconversation.com/are-toxic-a ... vers-59526" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8319300381" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



The problem is, you either won't read that evidence, or will continue to deny its existence - even when presented to you on a plate (much like the climate debate in general).

I can only assume the reason you're in such denial is because you are either incapable of understanding the information presented to you (likely), or simply too stubborn to admit your entire position rests on a strawman argument (more likely).

The Chinese have a saying: "It's like trying to explain the ocean to a frog"

Are you a frog, mate? Is this argument too big and complex for you to understand?

Or is it simply that you don't want to understand? Like the other proverbial frog in a pot of slowly boiling water?

I await your weak response. It will probably consist of some random quote taken out of context with an obscure link with no scientific basis focusing on a fringe element of the debate so that your can do anything - anything at all - to avoid the substantial facts of an argument that show you up.



"Maybe it's lies. It's probably lies."

[rSin]

'unfortunately, folks on both sides
Are talking about nukes'

And that ladies and gentlemen
Is the exact same as

'since we park a mike under hillarys
Nose your just going to have to accept
Her being the official spokesperson
For liberal thought today'

That is perishious gate keeping
The seemingly polite robbing of the masses
Of theis voice and vote
And opinions chance to be
What it in fact is
As far as the public
Is concerned...

[Butcher Bob]

Show me where I posted "97% of scientists" blah, blah, blah.

You can't. Because I never wrote it.

This is why debating you is an exercise in futility....because your reading comprehension is for shit.

I specifically qualified that you made no mention of the "97%". In fact, you used the term "ALL"...which I displayed when I quoted your post.

- the first one gets ripped to shreds by its own commenters

Evidence that the topic is under debate, which is what I was pointing out

...and there is no mention of a "lawsuit" in the second.

It's right in the title. While no lawsuit has been filed, the abstract clearly indicates the proper steps are being taken to get to that point.

https://theconversation.com/are-toxic-a ... vers-59526" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8319300381" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The first makes no mention of CO2 at all.
The second makes no mention of anaerobic bacteria at all...but I did find this gem in there...

Several HAB species and/or strains respond to increased CO2 concentrations with increases in growth rate...

Take a cue from Intrinsic, use data and sources to support your point. Because your name calling and belittlement just make you look like a child.