Page 2 of 2
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:34 pm
by Screw_Michigan
smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:11 pm
What's "Time's person of the year"
sin,
anyone under 40
Something I've always dreamed of being.
Sincerely,
Your president
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:45 pm
by mvscal
88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:09 am
Where did you magically disappear the other 12O?
6 O2
He was attempting to describe the formula for photosynthesis but failed...per usual.
6CO2 + 6H20 + (energy) → C6H12O6 + 6O2
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:01 pm
by Kierland
I have posted the full equation a hundred times, so you can stop being a little bitch and get back to molesting little girls and playing with your racist buddies.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:07 pm
by smackaholic
Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:15 pm
smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:08 pm
Kierland wrote:That and it has no math about water transfer of h2o from plant to air when stoma are open. Why? Because it’s a shit article.
Maybe you can explain how a plant will lose water when there is say 100%RH?
The bigger the plant due to c02 fertilization the more water it uses.
I am not talking about conditions where there is ample water. I believe I used the word arid somewhere.
I am talking about areas prone to drought.
In areas where water is not a limiting factor, plants will indeed grow faster,using more water.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What you are trying to say is that when the RH of the air is less than the RH of the area just “inside” the plant from the stoma, when the stoma is open, the plant will lose less water because the stoma open less (smaller) when the c02 is greater, therefor, since the stoma is not open as wide, there will be less water lost to the atmosphere.
All true, problem is you didn’t say that was only true in arid climates which is why I jumped your shit.
Wow, a more or less sensible response.
Who stole queerland's p-word.
I went back and looked, and I did fail to claim this applied mor eso to arid regions. My bad.
Now fukk the fukk off.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:14 pm
by Kierland
It was bound to end the same way it always does.
Me being right and you being dumb so don’t be too hard on yourself.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 12:43 am
by smackaholic
No, I was not wrong. My original statement is true. Higher levels of CO2 do allow plants to get by on less water.
Your babbling on with unbalanced chemistry equations was irrelevant to the discussion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 1:54 am
by Kierland
It’s only true with the right RH levels, which you completely missed.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 3:49 pm
by smackaholic
Kierland wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 1:54 am
It’s only true with the right RH levels, which you completely missed.
Pardon me for not being specific enough.
Here's my original statement ....
Stuff grows better, with less water. This is elementary botany. Satellite photos prove it. We have contributed to "Global Greening".
I suppose I could have added "in arid climates" to be a little clearer. I thought that "with less water" sort of implied this. But that would be in an honest discussion of the topic, not in your disingenuous babbling. You should have known what i meant. Anyone with a room temp or better IQ does.
I did learn a little more about the topic, where the chicken littles looking for the negative side to "shit grows better" go on about all this new vegetation sucking up all the fresh water. I would think a fairly simple solution would be you simply chop down this vegetation. Besides, it doesn't lock up this moisture, unless it's a cactus.
The bottom line is that the single thing that drives the entire biosphere, photosynthesis, is improved by CO2 fertilization of the atmosphere. Fears of it causing runaway greening are ridiculous. We have the ability to manage what grows and if we didn't, it would stand to reason that all these new CO2 eaters would do what?
Bueller, bueller?
That's right!!!!! LOWER CO2.
Yup, a fukking negative feedback system.
ANY other type of system would have turned this sordid clambake into either a fireball or an ice cube long ago.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:00 pm
by EAP
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 3:49 pm
Kierland wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 1:54 am
It’s only true with the right RH levels, which you completely missed.
Pardon me for not being specific enough.
Here's my original statement ....
Stuff grows better, with less water. This is elementary botany. Satellite photos prove it. We have contributed to "Global Greening".
I suppose I could have added "in arid climates" to be a little clearer. I thought that "with less water" sort of implied this. But that would be in an honest discussion of the topic, not in your disingenuous babbling. You should have known what i meant. Anyone with a room temp or better IQ does.
I did learn a little more about the topic, where the chicken littles looking for the negative side to "shit grows better" go on about all this new vegetation sucking up all the fresh water. I would think a fairly simple solution would be you simply chop down this vegetation. Besides, it doesn't lock up this moisture, unless it's a cactus.
The bottom line is that the single thing that drives the entire biosphere, photosynthesis, is improved by CO2 fertilization of the atmosphere. Fears of it causing runaway greening are ridiculous. We have the ability to manage what grows and if we didn't, it would stand to reason that all these new CO2 eaters would do what?
Bueller, bueller?
That's right!!!!! LOWER CO2.
Yup, a fukking negative feedback system.
ANY other type of system would have turned this sordid clambake into either a fireball or an ice cube long ago.
It's apparent that in this particular back and forth between you and kierland, you're coming out on top.
My only concern is, does he admit when he's wrong?
Because at the end of the day,
That's what separates the low IQ'S from the high IQ'S.
And I'm high IQ enough to admit being wrong quite often.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:15 pm
by Kierland
Yes ’holic, plants help to lower co2. Welcome to 9th grade botany. Trouble is we are pumping it in faster than the plants can keep up, hence co2 levels continue to rise.
As far at the use of water by a plant given different co2 rates, again it’s only SOME plants that that is true for, which is why your blanket statement was so wrong.
And if it keeps up it will actually be detrimental to human function (9th grade anatomy) because the level of o2 doesn’t combat co2 toxicity, the level of co2 is the toxicity, no matter the o2 level. This is not a likely outcome as it would have to be a shitton, but it is science.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:19 pm
by BSmack
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 3:49 pm
ANY other type of system would have turned this sordid clambake into either a fireball or an ice cube long ago.
A huge chunk of that feedback loop has been removed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49971563
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:39 pm
by EAP
Kierland wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:15 pm
Yes ’holic, plants help to lower co2. Welcome to 9th grade botany. Trouble is we are pumping it in faster than the plants can keep up, hence co2 levels continue to rise.
As far at the use of water by a plant given different co2 rates, again it’s only SOME plants that that is true for, which is why your blanket statement was so wrong.
And if it keeps up it will actually be detrimental to human function (9th grade anatomy) because the level of o2 doesn’t combat co2 toxicity, the level of co2 is the toxicity, no matter the o2 level. This is not a likely outcome as it would have to be a shitton, but it is science.
You are leaving out the complex equation of the inevitable ice ages.
It's not "if" but when.
It's part of the earth's constant climate change.
The ice ages are a foregone conclusion.
You, like all leftists, don't like it when I bring up ice ages, because It puts a serious monkey wrench into your equation.
That's why many scientists who are on leftist payrolls, also don't talk about it.
Do you even understand how massive and catastrophic an ice age is?
But our planet handles them quite well, coming out of them time and time again.
Do you understand the science of ice ages?
I'm hoping you're not a brainwashed sheep who denies this.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:01 pm
by smackaholic
We are in agreement that slash and burn agriculture might not be the smartest thing.
That being said, I don’t know if what they are doing has long term detrimental consequences. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But it has nothing to do with how we do things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:10 pm
by Innocent Bystander
Resolve why it's being done, and the answer fixes itself. It's wrong to ask Third Worlders to live in poverty so that First Worlders can live in wealth.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:30 pm
by Innocent Bystander
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:01 pm
We are in agreement that slash and burn agriculture might not be the smartest thing.
That being said, I don’t know if what they are doing has long term detrimental consequences. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But it has nothing to do with how we do things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Earth fixes itself. We are meaningless.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:54 pm
by EAP
Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:30 pm
smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 8:01 pm
We are in agreement that slash and burn agriculture might not be the smartest thing.
That being said, I don’t know if what they are doing has long term detrimental consequences. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But it has nothing to do with how we do things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Earth fixes itself. We are meaningless.
IB.
Hall of fame post!
These board leftists deny science! Deny the extreme climate change of catastrophic ice ages. The planet goes thru these changes constantly.
But the left today won't report this fact.
It destroys their narrative that man can do something.
We are in a warming period. But all this alarm will be moot when the climate barrels towards yet another ice age.
It's not if, but when.
The ice ages might even be how the planet cleanses itself.
Renewal. Revival. Rebirth.
One thing science tells us.
It's coming you cult like left wing sheep, whether you like it or not.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2022 1:10 am
by Kierland
Greta: Minding her own biz
Andrew Tate: I have 33 cars
Great: And a small dick
Andrew: (10 hrs later) No you have a small dick
Romanian Police: Hey that’s a Romanian pizza box in that guys post, he must be here. Time to arrest him on those Human Trafficking charges.
Couldn’t of happened to bigger POS.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2022 2:09 am
by Screw_Michigan
Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 1:10 am
Greta: Minding her own biz
Andrew Tate: I have 33 cars
Great: And a small dick
Andrew: (10 hrs later) No you have a small dick
Romanian Police: Hey that’s a Romanian pizza box in that guys post, he must be here. Time to arrest him on those Human Trafficking charges.
Couldn’t of happened to bigger POS.
I had no idea who this dude was until today. The greatest self own of all time. Twitter is amazing. A place where children can own grown adults.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2022 2:10 am
by Screw_Michigan
Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 1:10 am
Greta: Minding her own biz
Andrew Tate: I have 33 cars
Great: And a small dick
Andrew: (10 hrs later) No you have a small dick
IKYABWAI, amazing. Dude would be a board legend at T1B.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2022 3:26 pm
by Kierland
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2022 5:20 pm
by Innocent Bystander
I don't believe Greta wrote that, just as I don't believe she wrote the original 'small dick energy' post. The people who controlled her account when she was underaged are the same people controlling it now. So who are those people?
(Insert: "Why is a Rothschild tasked as Greta's handler? Who is above even them?")
As for the original pizza box photo and later comment, I like the 'coded message' theory, that the Tate Brothers were brought into custody the same way undercover informers/officers/spies allegedly are: to be debriefed, without cover blown.
But why do you buy it?
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2022 6:48 pm
by Kierland
I don’t believe you wrote that.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:19 pm
by Innocent Bystander
Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 6:48 pm
I don’t believe you wrote that.
I don't believe Tate is self-made, or whom he presents himself as. Greta and Tate are both pawns. Greta doesn't have Andrew's charisma or intellect. Andrew doesn't have Greta's personal purity of purpose.
The Tate brothers exchanged something during that 'interrogation'. Maybe we'll never known exactly what. But yes the pizza box was a tell, just not the tell it's presented as.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2022 8:50 pm
by Donnie Baker's Ghost
PizzaGate rears its ugly head once again.
Re: Poor Greta
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2022 8:54 pm
by Kierland
Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:19 pm
Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 6:48 pm
I don’t believe you wrote that.
I don't believe Tate is self-made, or whom he presents himself as. Greta and Tate are both pawns. Greta doesn't have Andrew's charisma or intellect. Andrew doesn't have Greta's personal purity of purpose.
The Tate brothers exchanged something during that 'interrogation'. Maybe we'll never known exactly what. But yes the pizza box was a tell, just not the tell it's presented as.
You sure do a good job of going down rabbit holes that’s for sure.
