Australian Politics Forum - US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2 Reply #30 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:54pm Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 5:51pm: Life flourished on earth when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere........??????? The only thing that can kill the AGW religion is time................enough time so they can hand themselves.............!!!!!!!! WHAT SORT OF LIFE???????????????
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #31 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:57pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:

As with all contrary data put forward by global warming hysterics it consists of some obscure report that we should listen to instead of the hundreds of reports that say the opposite ... its a minority report Grin

list those 100s of reports, or be gone with your putrid carcass weasel of Hades

The funny thing is that you would even read one of them if I did Grin

THE FUNNY THING IS YOU WOULDN'T EVEN CARE IF YOUR KIDS HATED YOU!! Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #32 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:58pm

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:

That's good point Muso* I too have wondered what long term exposure to a certain level of c02 would do to humans and other organism. Everything is short term like, giving someone mouth to mouth, I don't know how they can gauge the effects long term of a high c02 level without having someone actually.....be effected by increased c02 long term. I don't know anyone that would participate in that study lol.

WOW, vuk11 is questioning how scientific method created the world he lives in Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #33 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:03pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Another inconvenient truth that you don't like Grin

Innocent just got pwned and doesn't like it!

Scientific method made the world around you bro and you can't take the heat!

Have fun hating your kids won't you... oh, and have fun hating mine and all your friends at the same time won't you: I hear red wine goes well with those thoughts!!

P.s. your mates seriously love you behind your back for hating their kids btw

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #34 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:06pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

This is why sceptics are sceptics, for every scientific report you can wheel out about climate change I can wheel out another thats says the opposite, the difference with global warming hysterics is they just choose to ignore any other inconvenient truths that don't fit their beliefs, or they descend into total idiocy and claim its all an oil company conspiracy LOL, sceptics look at all the available information, thats why being a sceptic is the only one true path when it comes to climate change debate. Wink

LET'S NOT MENTION VESTED INTERESTS BUT.................. Cheesy

I MEAN THE STOCK MARKET DOESN'T EXIST TO KEEP THE RICH FROM WORKING DOES IT NOW?!!!?

Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #35 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:08pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:01pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

This is why sceptics are sceptics, for every scientific report you can wheel out about climate change I can wheel out another thats says the opposite, the difference with global warming hysterics is they just choose to ignore any other inconvenient truths that don't fit their beliefs, or they descend into total idiocy and claim its all an oil company conspiracy LOL, sceptics look at all the available information, thats why being a sceptic is the only one true path when it comes to climate change debate. Wink

You talk about IPCC Reports, but you've never read one. You also say things like:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 3:37pm:
Quote:

Ha ha I told you "skepticalscience" would rot yer brains

You don't look at all available information, therefore you are not a sceptic. You are a denier.

You just don't get it do you?, I don't need to read anything to know there are two sides to the debate and therefore the logical position is the sceptical one.
I have read an IPCC report and I've had a look at "scepticalcranks" , there are thousands of well respected scientists that are sceptics, until they are convinced and we have a real consensus instead of a sceptical cranks manufactured consenus I think it would be prudent and logical to keep an open mind on the subject.

<<<===================== NICE COMMENT Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #36 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:10pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Life flourished on earth when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere........???????

The only thing that can kill the AGW religion is time................enough time so they can hand themselves.............!!!!!!!!

....so you are placing all your eggs in the "CO2 is not a by product of fossil fuel combustion and its not a Greenhouse gas" basket

Good luck with disproving the AGW fact

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2 Reply #37 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:10pm You escape again?
Back to top	IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2 Reply #38 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:11pm Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:10pm: You escape again? ARE YOU BORED OF THE CRACK YET?? LIFE IS SO BORING WHEN DADDYKINS GIVE YOU A HOUSE TO SMOKE CRACK IN...
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #39 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:14pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:01pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

This is why sceptics are sceptics, for every scientific report you can wheel out about climate change I can wheel out another thats says the opposite, the difference with global warming hysterics is they just choose to ignore any other inconvenient truths that don't fit their beliefs, or they descend into total idiocy and claim its all an oil company conspiracy LOL, sceptics look at all the available information, thats why being a sceptic is the only one true path when it comes to climate change debate. Wink

You talk about IPCC Reports, but you've never read one. You also say things like:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 3:37pm:
Quote:

Ha ha I told you "skepticalscience" would rot yer brains

You don't look at all available information, therefore you are not a sceptic. You are a denier.

You just don't get it do you?, I don't need to read anything to know there are two sides to the debate and therefore the logical position is the sceptical one.
I have read an IPCC report and I've had a look at "scepticalcranks" , there are thousands of well respected scientists that are sceptics, until they are convinced and we have a real consensus instead of a sceptical cranks manufactured consenus I think it would be prudent and logical to keep an open mind on the subject.

what debate?

you mean the debate on the internet and in the corporately owned Mass Media?

Where is the controversy in the scientific community with respect to AGW and climate change?

AGW is one of the most uncontroversial FACTS in modern science

We are not talking about String Theory here, which has ZERO supporting evidence and makes ZERO predictions (essentially making it a mathematical philosophy rather than a scientific discipline or scientific theory)

YOu need to stop attending your DENIALIST church and having confessions with the priests.

good luck!

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #40 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:09pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

You just don't get it do you?, I don't need to read anything to know there are two sides to the debate and therefore the logical position is the sceptical one.
I have read an IPCC report and I've had a look at "scepticalcranks" , there are thousands of well respected scientists that are sceptics, until they are convinced and we have a real consensus instead of a sceptical cranks manufactured consenus I think it would be prudent and logical to keep an open mind on the subject.

I'd love to see where you got that "IPCC Report" from.
Quote:

Your search - skeptics, cranks site:www.ipcc.ch - did not match any documents.

Quote:

Your search - "skeptical cranks" site:www.ipcc.ch - did not match any documents.

I did find some mention of skeptics though:

AR5 Scoping Meeting
Venice, Italy, 13-17 July 2009

AR5-SCOP/INF. 1, p.29

Quote:

II/7
Uncertainties and counter-arguments
. The IPCC WG-I could deal with the arguments and views expressed by the so-called climate skeptics to some extent, if those views are scientifically well based. In this way the Panel could decrease the frequency and harmful effects of the parallel treatment and equal weighting of the scientific and the sceptic information by the media. Correct arguments could assist the better understanding of readers/users of the
IPCC products. In other words, exact, scientific and referred answers are needed to the repeatedly occurring sceptic argumentation. In some cases, such divergent views could prompt a need for some further research.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2 Reply #41 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:11pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:11pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:10pm: You escape again? ARE YOU BORED OF THE CRACK YET?? LIFE IS SO BORING WHEN DADDYKINS GIVE YOU A HOUSE TO SMOKE CRACK IN... I did warn you.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male

Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #42 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:49pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Life flourished on earth when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere........???????

The only thing that can kill the AGW religion is time................enough time so they can hand themselves.............!!!!!!!!

WHAT SORT OF LIFE??????????????? Shocked

The first mammals appeared about 225 million years ago, since then we have had CO2 levels that have come close to 3000ppm, and mammals thrived.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #43 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 10:09pm

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Life flourished on earth when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere........???????

The only thing that can kill the AGW religion is time................enough time so they can hand themselves.............!!!!!!!!

WHAT SORT OF LIFE??????????????? Shocked

The first mammals appeared about 225 million years ago, since then we have had CO2 levels that have come close to 3000ppm, and mammals thrived.

What sort of mammals?

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #44 - Oct 9^th, 2013 at 5:43am

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:54pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

I have read an IPCC report

I'd love to see where you got that "IPCC Report" from.

From the IPCC Gumby, where the hell else would I get it from? Grin

, but you just keep on doing what global warming hysterics do best, plant your fingers firmly in your ears and go lalalalala when any contradicting evidence on AGW theory comes your way Grin

Back to top

IP Logged