T1B

https://www.space.com/42541-mars-insigh ... ccess.html

I don’t believe it.

Sin,
TrumpSpray

You left out poptart.

Sudden Sam wrote:We should spend every dime we can muster on space exploration.

I wouldn't go that far, but investments in space do pay dividends. One of the only good things Trump has done is champion commercial space.

There would be a lot of unemployed scientists in Pasadena if it weren't for the space program.

Do you think those grant chasing charlatans would be doing this if they weren't getting paid?

Looks like Bill Nye pissed off Musk and his Mars colonization disciples.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sci ... 905447002/

You gotta laugh at the knuckleheads that think our raising the trace levels of a harmless gas on earf will do us all and at the same time think we can modify a completely hostile atmosphere on a different planet and make it habitable.

It all comes down to a comically exaggerated estimation of our ability to modify a planetary ecosystem. We might have helped raise the planet's temp a bit, after thousands of years of polluting the place, yet we can make another planet livable?

Gotta hand it to the master salesman Musk. He will get his followers to believe anything.

You'd better get on board quick or you might be left behind.

smackaholic wrote:Looks like Bill Nye pissed off Musk and his Mars colonization disciples.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sci ... 905447002/

You gotta laugh at the knuckleheads that think our raising the trace levels of a harmless gas on earf will do us all and at the same time think we can modify a completely hostile atmosphere on a different planet and make it habitable.

It all comes down to a comically exaggerated estimation of our ability to modify a planetary ecosystem. We might have helped raise the planet's temp a bit, after thousands of years of polluting the place, yet we can make another planet livable?

Gotta hand it to the master salesman Musk. He will get his followers to believe anything.

Bam! Right on the money. The hubris it takes to believe that we can both alter our planet’s atmosphere and terraform another speaks to the tremendous self regard some people have about themselves and the human race in general.

Damn. I saw the thread title and thought it was going to be about somebody debunking all those climate change honks spewing their nonsense everywhere.

Nothing to see here. Move on now.

What is the ppm of CO2 today as compared to 1920?

No idea.

What was the ppm of CO2 back in the Mesozoic period versus the Jurassic period versus the Triassic period versus the Cretaceous period? Who knows? Obviously it was all good because here we are, Homo sapiens, apex predator, top of the food chain, engaging in space travel, living well across the board for the first time in the past 50 years since... ever and you want to change that?

What’s wrong with you? Shut up and eat your vegetables.

Human beings weren't around 4 billion years ago, in case you hadn't heard.

The "majority of climate information" you refer to is not relevant to any discussion of the earth and its ability to sustain life.

BTW...I know you don't "believe" in climate science and think it's somehow equivalent to religion. So answer this question (OK questions) -

What branches of science to you believe in?
Which do you not believe in?

Mikey wrote:Which do you not believe in?

Climatology and calculus.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Mikey wrote:Which do you not believe in?

calculus.

Time to visit the dentist?

Derron wrote:Damn. I saw the thread title and thought it was going to be about somebody debunking all those climate change honks spewing their nonsense everywhere.

Nothing to see here. Move on now.

I figure that if 99.9% of climate scientists phony grant chasers spewing nonsense then, logically, a similar ratio must apply to other, if not all, branches as well. Seriously, can all the charlatans have migrated to one field of study?

So I pose the same questions to you that I asked Melty:

Which branches of science do you believe in, if any?
Which ones full of phony charlatans?

Mikey wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:

Mikey wrote:Which do you not believe in?

calculus.

Time to visit the dentist?

Yes, unfortunately. But in this case, climatology = study of climate, calculus = study of continuous change. By being a non-believer of both, I know I'm on solid scientific ground as an AGW denier.

Aha...climate calculus.

Papa Willie wrote:


I don't know why that graph is so hard for you fairytale warmists to understand...

Actually that chart, which you keep posting without any explanation of how it's relevant, is easy to understand. And thanks for posting it again, because it shows how little you actually do understand it.

The earth is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old. the first humans showed up maybe 2 million years ago or about 99.9% of the way in.



Right about here

(Do you see any kind of correlation there?)

The time scale gives an even more distorted picture of how long we've been around because it's logarithmic. I don't expect you to understand or believe that because it's sort of a scientific and mathematical term, but there it is. If you made it a linear scale you wouldn't even see the time that humans have existed.

The relevant portion of the graph, when discussing humanity's time on the planet, is pretty much limited to the time we've been here. Before then the climate was not amenable to human life.

You keep posting this graph and proclaiming that it's easy to understand, yet you haven't ever explained how the conditions 4 billion years ago have any relevance to today. Yes, the earth and its atmosphere have been changing over time, but geologic time is REALLY long. Of course some time in the future the climate will probably naturally become uninhabitable, but how does it make sense to blithely shorten this time and proclaim that it doesn't really matter? You could extend that chart another 10 billion years in the past and say, well, the earth didn't exist 14 billion years ago so why does anything really matter?

Your take is equivalent to saying that since we're all going to die before we reach 100 we might as well OD on a huge pile of cocaine on our 30th birthday because it feels good and we're going to end up dead anyway. Maybe that works for you, but you shouldn't be able to drag everybody else along with you.

So, when are you going to answer my simple questions?

What branches of science to you believe in and not believe in?

Also, I'd appreciate an explanation of how you interpret your easy to understand graph.

When are you going to answer the question?

Your ignorance becomes more and more palpable every time you mash the keyboard with your well they can't predict the weather takes. Get a fucking clue already.

You didn't answer the question. Go back and read it again and get back to me.

Nice white flag.

You're clearly out of your depth here.

It's OK, some people are incapable of understanding basic concepts, or reading a simple question and providing a coherent answer.


Really, it's all right. I don't hold it against you. We have no control over the genes we're blessed with, or our upbringing.

Mikey wrote:Human beings weren't around 4 billion years ago, in case you hadn't heard.

Link ??

Hey dipshit, internal combustion engines were only invented in the last 100 years. They didn't exist for the first billion years of earf's existence.

Moron.

Deeron backing up Butsy... full fucking circle.

Do you have a defib at the trailer?

Bucmonkey wrote:Deeron backing up Butsy... full fucking circle.

You would know something about backing up. You have been backing your ass into your boyfriends pelvis all your life taking his full thrusts like the little bitch you are, and being the all important pivot man at your gay full circle jerks.

It's amazing how Derron goes on these extremely specific and graphic sexual tangents based on just one or two words when nobody is talking about anything perverted.

"I saw a ram at the zoo the other day"

"Oh yeah? I bet your boyfriend likes to ram your ass with a purple dildo during your lunch break YOU SICK FUCK."

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:It's amazing how Derron goes on these extremely specific and graphic sexual tangents based on just one or two words when nobody is talking about anything perverted.

"I saw a ram at the zoo the other day"

"Oh yeah? I bet your boyfriend likes to ram your ass with a purple dildo during your lunch break YOU SICK FUCK."

It is amazing that you never have a original take unless you can take a cue from somebody else and try make some thing out of nothing.

Derron wrote:

Mikey wrote:Human beings weren't around 4 billion years ago, in case you hadn't heard.

Link ??

Mikey wrote:

Derron wrote:

Mikey wrote:Human beings weren't around 4 billion years ago, in case you hadn't heard.

Link ??

It's missing.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Derron wrote:

Mikey wrote:Human beings weren't around 4 billion years ago, in case you hadn't heard.

Link ??

It's missing.

Not anymore. We found it and it's called "Derron".

I think Bernie Sanders has been around about 3.5 billion.

Jsc wrote:Is Mars flat or round?

I'm asking for a friend.

It is a light in the firmament.

Many things are better while jack induced comfortably numb.

Not sure about a queerland post though. I think you need to get into the opioid family to deal with that.

Mikey wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:


I don't know why that graph is so hard for you fairytale warmists to understand...

Actually that chart, which you keep posting without any explanation of how it's relevant, is easy to understand. And thanks for posting it again, because it shows how little you actually do understand it.

The earth is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old. the first humans showed up maybe 2 million years ago or about 99.9% of the way in.



Right about here

(Do you see any kind of correlation there?)

The time scale gives an even more distorted picture of how long we've been around because it's logarithmic. I don't expect you to understand or believe that because it's sort of a scientific and mathematical term, but there it is. If you made it a linear scale you wouldn't even see the time that humans have existed.

The relevant portion of the graph, when discussing humanity's time on the planet, is pretty much limited to the time we've been here. Before then the climate was not amenable to human life.

You keep posting this graph and proclaiming that it's easy to understand, yet you haven't ever explained how the conditions 4 billion years ago have any relevance to today.

So, when are you going to answer my simple questions?

What branches of science to you believe in and not believe in?

Also, I'd appreciate an explanation of how you interpret your easy to understand graph.

I'd point out that in correlation to the increase in CO2 in the past 100 years, in that same time frame mankind has grown far richer, more well fed, knowledgeable, has more leisure time, suffers from far fewer life threatening diseases, lives longer, travels more, etc, etc, etc. Indeed, instead of living hand-to-mouth (or in the case of Progressives here, ass-to-mouth) lives, for the first time in human history we are free to pursue lives which do not consist of a hardscrabble, manual labor oriented, and shortened life spanned existence.

So, when are you going to answer my simple question, which is: Why would you want to change all that and go back to the way it has been for 99.9999999% of human beings' existence? CO2 = increased living standards

Way to buttfuck cause and effect in the mouth.

But I’m sure Dims is down with your syntax, if not your take.

Ever heard the term “false dilemma?”
(‘sup Dins)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Nobody (besides you) has suggested that the only two choices are to continue on a high carbon trajectory or revert back to a pre-industrial society.

I think you would agree that humanity, as a whole, is pretty smart. Otherwise how would we have gotten this far? Why would you think that we’re not smart enough to continue to advance while still reducing our carbon emissions and other negative effects of runaway population growth? I would argue that developing and implementing low-polluting technologies is a natural part of our technological evolution.

The fact that the US life expectancy and, arguably, standard of living have been declining might be an indication that it’s time for some course correction?

I think even we knuckle dragging, orange cock slurping fascist agree that something needs to be done in the long term.

Where we differ is in how we get there.

The last century and a half had unfathomable technological developments. The majority of it done in the US where unrestricted capitalism drove it.

The automobile and air travel didn't occur because of a government mandate. The only time government really drove technological improvements was when we were fighting for our very existence in a world war.

If that video you posted by that really smart messican is any indication of what the next 20 years look like, we will get to a greener economy, because it makes economical sense. Not because some buffoon in DC mandated it. I don't see how the organization that brought us the TSA could possibly oversee it.

Mikey wrote:Why would you think that we’re not smart enough to continue to advance while still reducing our carbon emissions and other negative effects of runaway population growth?

This idea that there is “runaway population growth” needs to be addressed. It ranks right up there with the 1970’s myth of fossil fuels being depleted, the 1980’s myth of global cooling, the 1990’s myth of honeybees going extinct, and yes, now the myth of catastrophic global warming— or in the Left’s effort to cover all their bases, manmade climate change. Population growth is predicted to top out around 2050 and then decline to levels seen in 2000, or 6.2 billion people.

Yes, yes, the UN has come out with their own study which shows ever expanding population growth, but if we examine the UN’s track record concerning anything, you’d be a fool to bet on a tip given to you about a horse at the track by the UN. Suffice it to say that if predictions were junior high school basketball tryouts, the UN wouldn’t make the squad.

Furthermore, to jujitsu your statement against you, why would you assume that we cannot continue to advance while continuing our carbon emissions until such time when it becomes either profitable to reduce them or create a response that addresses the (now unquantifiable) problem in the future when our technology would reasonably be advanced enough to negate or eliminate the threat?

You want your cake and to eat it too.

Papa Willie wrote:Our oceans are very small, and our air and water are at a record clean.

I can tell you have a very high level of intelligence.