• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Fitting End to the Hottest Year on Record.....

CycloneWanderer said:
When people die from running their car in an enclosed space, they do not die from carbon dioxide. They die from carbon monoxide poisoning.
Click to expand...

Btw, you'll appear more intelligent if you fully read before posting. My comment was to flog's about pollution in China. ;)
 
Montecresto said:
Right, and?
Click to expand...

Well, since you're asking:

Montecresto said:
Right, and I'm sorry for speaking about something I know little about. Thank you for correcting me.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

edit: I originally felt bad for being kinda snarky with this, but then you insulted the appearance of my intelligence. It's on, now.
 
Montecresto said:
No, I didn't. You didn't read the thread, so you stepped in ****. ;)
Click to expand...

You seemed to indicate that if you wanted to suffer from CO2, you'd run your car in an enclosed garage. I was just pointing out that you wouldn't suffer from CO2 in that scenario. You said I was correct in that statement, then asked me "...and?" which I assumed to be you asking for a way to finish your sentence since you'd already bowed to my superior intellect ("[You're] Right..."). I did, then you got snarky at me for being helpful. It's no wonder that you walk around misinformed; people are afraid that you'll get mad at them for correcting you.

If you didn't intend for me to finish your sentence, you should really be more clear in how you communicate with people. This is a message board; people can't see body language or hear your tone of voice. It leaves a lot up for interpretation.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
You seemed to indicate that if you wanted to suffer from CO2, you'd run your car in an enclosed garage. I was just pointing out that you wouldn't suffer from CO2 in that scenario. You said I was correct in that statement, then asked me "...and?" which I assumed to be you asking for a way to finish your sentence since you'd already bowed to my superior intellect ("[You're] Right..."). I did, then you got snarky at me for being helpful. It's no wonder that you walk around misinformed; people are afraid that you'll get mad at them for correcting you.

If you didn't intend for me to finish your sentence, you should really be more clear in how you communicate with people. This is a message board; people can't see body language or hear your tone of voice. It leaves a lot up for interpretation.
Click to expand...

See, you didn't read the thread. I've got literally a hundred posts in this lengthy thread that lay out my opinions on both CO2's and the pollutants from burning fossil fuels, the two not to be confused, one with the other. You did the thing everybody has at one time or another so just fess up and move along.
 
Montecresto said:
See, you didn't read the thread. I've got literally a hundred posts in this lengthy thread that lay out my opinions on both CO2's and the pollutants from burning fossil fuels, the two not to be confused, one with the other. You did the thing everybody has at one time or another so just fess up and move along.
Click to expand...

I've seen a good portion of the thread (the first 4-5 pages of it and the last 15-20). If you need 100 posts to lay out your opinion on both CO2's and pollutants you may want to reassess the quality of your communications. If you honestly expect people to read 119 pages of thread just to understand one little specific thing you say, you may have a communication problem. So far as I can tell, the "thing everybody has at one time or another" done is to correct you. I've happily confessed to that and will move along now. Cheers!


Have you realized that I'm being flippant, yet?
 
Last edited:
bubbabgone said:
You're repeating what you heard in the media and it wasn't and isn't true.
Click to expand...

You're repeating what you heard in themedia and it wasn't and isn't true
 
CycloneWanderer said:
I've seen a good portion of the thread (the first 4-5 pages of it and the last 15-20). If you need 100 posts to lay out your opinion on both CO2's and pollutants you may want to reassess the quality of your communications. If you honestly expect people to read 119 pages of thread just to understand one little specific thing you say, you may have a communication problem. So far as I can tell, the "thing everybody has at one time or another" done is to correct you. I've happily confessed to that and will move along now. Cheers!
Click to expand...

I didn't say what I needed, I said what I did. I didn't figure you'd take the respectful bow. Just more personal insults. As a matter of fact, I don't care what you think at all.
 
Montecresto said:
I didn't say what I needed, I said what I did. I didn't figure you'd take the respectful bow. Just more personal insults. As a matter of fact, I don't care what you think at all.
Click to expand...

Dangit, you've revived my interest.

So, are you saying that a person could have understood what you were saying without reading through all 119 pages of the thread? If so, what percentage of the thread must one read before being allowed to comment on something you've said?
 
CycloneWanderer said:
Dangit, you've revived my interest.

So, are you saying that a person could have understood what you were saying without reading through all 119 pages of the thread? If so, what percentage of the thread must one read before being allowed to comment on something you've said?
Click to expand...

If you had read the thread, you'd not have such questions. But you didn't, you stepped in ****, got it all over your feet, tried to rub it off, now it's on your hands, and you just wiped your face with your left hand. My position on CO2 and the pollutants from burning fossil fuels are in the thread. Stop being lazy and go read.
 
Threegoofs said:
No, I'm repeating something I've said in the past, and it is true, since I have reviewed the papers in the past that have shown this.

This is most obviously true with Hansen's initial report to the Senate in 1988, where popular interest in the issue started, but even before that, he has a 1981 paper that, despite lots of limitations of data and understanding at the time, was pretty clear in showing this.

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection « RealClimate

And the modeling has only improved since then, as we understand more science and our models can be more complex with greater computing abilities.
Click to expand...

Say, those years were following almost a couple of decades of cooling and right before almost a couple of decades of stable temperatures where we are now, not the decade of the hottest on record.
The models were wrong.

What was the temperature in the year 100, anyway? Have accurate readings?
 
Montecresto said:
Start it if you wish.
Click to expand...

I'd put "A Greenhouse Environment is the same as a Natural Environment" thread in the "On the Lighter Side" forum because I don't think there's a "Can You Believe Someone Said This" forum yet.
On the other hand, the Greenhouse model likely couldn't be much worse than what the big names foisted on us for 40 years.
 
bubbabgone said:
Say, those years were following almost a couple of decades of cooling and right before almost a couple of decades of stable temperatures where we are now, not the decade of the hottest on record.
The models were wrong.

What was the temperature in the year 100, anyway? Have accurate readings?
Click to expand...

I guess you cant argue the substance, so you have to make up side issues.

As I demonstrated, over 30 years ago, models predicted we would be living in times of much higher temperatures, and we are. Temperatures have not been stable or 'paused', it only looks that way when you look at deniers cherry picking outlier years to start with.

And yes, paleoclimate reconstructions can tell us with rough accuracy what the temperature in the year 100 was.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess you cant argue the substance, so you have to make up side issues.

As I demonstrated, over 30 years ago, models predicted we would be living in times of much higher temperatures, and we are. Temperatures have not been stable or 'paused', it only looks that way when you look at deniers cherry picking outlier years to start with.

And yes, paleoclimate reconstructions can tell us with rough accuracy what the temperature in the year 100 was.
Click to expand...

How about the year 1000? What do the reconstructions say the temperature was?

How much hotter do you claim it is today than 10 years ago?
 
bubbabgone said:
Say, those years were following almost a couple of decades of cooling and right before almost a couple of decades of stable temperatures where we are now, not the decade of the hottest on record.
The models were wrong.

What was the temperature in the year 100, anyway? Have accurate readings?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Hang on. I'm trying to get Trajan to return my calls. It's almost like he's not getting them. Prolly dropped his phone in the baths. He'd have the readings, but I'll have to get back to you when he gets back to me.
 
humbolt said:
Hang on. I'm trying to get Trajan to return my calls. It's almost like he's not getting them. Prolly dropped his phone in the baths. He'd have the readings, but I'll have to get back to you when he gets back to me.
Click to expand...

Laughed out loud at that one.



I have it here.

th


It was a gift from Hannibal
 
bubbabgone said:
How about the year 1000? What do the reconstructions say the temperature was?

How much hotter do you claim it is today than 10 years ago?
Click to expand...

Youve been shown the data over and over again. If you didnt get it the first ten times, I see no reason to go for an 11th.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom