RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th

RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

heavyblinker -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 6:39:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan I don't know more... it is a personal analysis of the data and reaching my own conclusion of that data. Further more, the IPCC - Independent Panel on Climate Change - doesn't support prevention or reversing the climate change trends found through out the world, but instead provides warnings and strategies on how to adapt to it. http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_what_ipcc.pdf So this sentiment of 'trying to fix it is stupid' isn't just my own - the leading international body on research into the subject also supports that approach as well. The IPCC is proposing adaptation because the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere guarantees that the planet will warm. The CO2 emitted since industrialization began is not going to leave the atmosphere for a very long time. Some of it will be there for 1000 years. Even if we cut all emissions globally tomorrow, the planet would still warm. This means is that the CO2 we've already added guarantees a certain amount of warming, as does the CO2 we continue to add and the CO2 we will add in the future. Barring some miracle technological breakthrough, the people who are still alive closer to the turn of the next century are going to have to deal with the damage we are currently causing... so yes, it is important to be prepared for that. The reason we still need to cut emissions is because there are degrees of hopelessness, and different emissions scenarios lead to more or less catastrophic outcomes. It's not about 'fixing it', it's about preventing it from getting any worse than it has to. What's stupid is making it worse just because some oil tycoons want to line their pockets and don't care about the future because they'll be dead anyways. quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan I did throw my own flavor into it making the correlation between an actual common trend humans have in which in our own hubris we seemingly denote things which are well outside of our sphere of influence as being our fault and our duty to fix - and we've done it for thousands of years. The earth shook? The earth spirit is angry! we must sacrifice this virgin to the fire mountain!! It didn't rain? we did not properly please the fertility goddess, we must sacrifice 10 goats and dance in her name to please her! Suffering from crippling illness? it is your immoral behavior that brought this on yourself, repent your sins and pray to your savior!! all of that is no different then: Ice Caps melting? It is All our Fault! We must stop burning fossil fuels and force everyone else to abide by our rules! You're equating a scientific consensus with primitive superstition because you don't fully understand the topic. Maybe it's time to ask yourself if you're at the point where you've earned the right to be condescending.

heavyblinker -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 6:41:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC You admit you can't predict the weather but you're sure that in 100 or 200 years the Earth will be uninhabitable due to the temperature being hotter and the seas rising. That's about the stupidest thing I've heard. Tell you what, look me up in 100 years and prove you're right. Until then, shut the fuck up. Oh jeez, looks like it was even dumber than the last one. I guess I need to work on my predictions.

InfoMan -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 8:03:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You don't think you know better . . . It's just your personal analysis with your own flavor. Ending with the straw man of stop burning fossil fuels and force everyone else too. Who exactly holds that position? Fossil fuels and their alternatives is not an either or proposition. The "international body" you've chosen as arbitrator is at odds with the the consensus of the scientific community, not a bunch of virgin sacrificing fertility goddess prayer advocates. Your own opinion vs. more straw men. And that's the position you're using to pretend all others are clueless in the face of what you actually appear to belief is superior reasoning. A remarkable demonstration of irony, poor logic, and self-delusion. Congratulations - that is by far the most ignorant statement I've seen anyone make about climate change... ever. The IPCC - the independent International Panel which embodies the consensus of the scientific community's discussion about climate change and the only political body which has any power to implement change regarding climate change... is at odds with the very same scientific community that it embodies? quote: The "international body" you've chosen as arbitrator is at odds with the the consensus of the scientific community, Yeah. That is what you've just said. But i digress.... quote: Ending with the straw man of stop burning fossil fuels and force everyone else too. Who exactly holds that position? It wasn't a strawman it is a stereotype. much like how "The earth shook? The earth spirit is angry! we must sacrifice this virgin to the fire mountain!" is a stereotype of the naive stone age native whom sacrifices virgins to a volcano to stop it from erupting. But that does rise an interesting point... What is your solution? sitting here spouting that it is all our fault, that every one is being blind, and the world is going to burn is not productive in the least and it really doesn't allow for meaningful contribution to any discussion. All it does is invite criticism which simply gives you a position to attack. Global Warming is Real - what is the solution?

thompsonx -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 8:15:17 AM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan Global Warming is Real - what is the solution? Recognizing that there is an issue is the first step. It is rather refreshing to notice you have made it that far. Would not the next logical step be to assess the data so as to try to determine the cause? Would it not follow from that assessment of the possible causes to seek ways to ameloriate the effects of those causes? Your position, thus far, seem to center around natural cycles and that nothing that we humans have done has had any effect on the climate. That would seem to harken to the same concept of wasting virgins on volcanos instead of changing the status of said virgin...which is the "real" reason why the volcano was mad in the first place ie: too many unused virgins and not enough round heeled sluts.

Kirata -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 10:30:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker You said: quote: On the plus side, we can adjust to higher temperatures and shoreline changes, and the increase in CO2 has done a spectacular job of greening the Earth, which shouldn't be ignored, because we have a lot of mouths to feed. So you do recognize that the greening is temporary and that we will have far more mouths to feed in the future? Yeah no, I don't "recognize that the greening is temporary," because it isn't temporary. You were correct when you said there's a limit to the benefits of CO2 for plant growth, but that's not even remotely the same thing. [image]http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077f1.jpg[/image] Image source: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm K.

Kirata -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 11:11:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Okay you're going to have to explain to me why you think this negates CO2 as a driver of sea level rise because I don't have any ideas. I didn't say that it "negates CO2 as a driver of sea level rise." I said that there is no CO2 signal in the data. In fact, there is no CO2 signal in any of the long-term sea-level or temperature records, assuming you're looking at the actual raw data. Which simply means that proof must come from elsewhere, though it is sorely lacking. Models based on the theory that CO2 is driving the climate have from the start over-estimated the climate's sensitivity to CO2, as demonstrated by their increasing divergence from observation and decades of failed predictions. Meanwhile, there is good evidence pointing to normal cyclic variation. One particularly interesting spectral analysis of temperature records from 1750 to present far outperforms the CO2-based models, and predicts cooling in future decades. [image]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg[/image] Image source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/periodic-climate-oscillations/ K.

heavyblinker -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 12:45:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Yeah no, I don't "recognize that the greening is temporary," because it isn't temporary. You were correct when you said there's a limit to the benefits of CO2 for plant growth, but that's not even remotely the same thing. [image]http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077f1.jpg[/image] Image source: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm It's not the same, and yet you think that growing selected plants in controlled conditions in private greenhouses is the same as exposing the Earth's complex ecosystems to elevated CO2 levels? Crops become less nutritious: Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n6/full/nclimate2183.html Increased carbon dioxide levels in air restrict plants' ability to absorb nutrients: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150612104016.htm Increased plant growth is decreasing the water supply: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n1/full/nclimate2831.html Carbon dioxide's effects on plants increase global warming, study finds: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100503161435.htm So more warming, less water, and fewer nutrients in plantlife... this is sustainable?

heavyblinker -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 1:01:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Models based on the theory that CO2 is driving the climate have from the start over-estimated the climate's sensitivity to CO2, as demonstrated by their increasing divergence from observation and decades of failed predictions. You've been reading too many denialist blogs. The theory doesn't depend exclusively upon whatever failed predictions you're talking about, and despite what paid shills like Anthony Watts, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer want you to believe, the most well-regarded long-term predictions are absolutely accurate. One key feature of denialism is holding science to unrealistic expectations. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Meanwhile, there is good evidence pointing to normal cyclic variation. One particularly interesting spectral analysis of temperature records from 1750 to present far outperforms the CO2-based models, and predicts cooling in future decades. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg Good as in they fit your politics. The moment I start seeing wattsupwiththat, I know it's time to stop trying. I'm not about to spend hours scouring the internet for the proper responses to his lies, only to be faced with yet another lie when I finish... if you're really interested in knowing this topic instead of just trying really hard to be right, you can do that yourself.

Kirata -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 1:50:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Models based on the theory that CO2 is driving the climate have from the start over-estimated the climate's sensitivity to CO2, as demonstrated by their increasing divergence from observation and decades of failed predictions. The theory doesn't depend exclusively upon whatever failed predictions you're talking about You really do live in your own little world. Climate models have been diverging from observation for decades, and failed predictions abound (see here). quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker and despite what paid shills like Anthony Watts, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer want you to believe, the most well-regarded long-term predictions are absolutely accurate. Slander isn't an excuse for ignoring data. And unless you're floating another of your trademark claims to superpowers, nobody in the present knows whether any long-term predictions are "absolutely accurate". quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker One key feature of denialism is holding science to unrealistic expectations. Now you're shooting yourself in the other foot. Absolute accuracy is an unrealistic expectation, and an idiotic claim. quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker The moment I start seeing wattsupwiththat, I know it's time to stop trying. My goodness, first both feet and now a messenger. You're a trigger-happy little fellow today! Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long-term instrumental and proxy temperature records Clim. Past, 9, 447-452, 2013 K.

InfoMan -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 1:58:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker The IPCC is proposing adaptation because the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere guarantees that the planet will warm. The CO2 emitted since industrialization began is not going to leave the atmosphere for a very long time. Some of it will be there for 1000 years. Even if we cut all emissions globally tomorrow, the planet would still warm. This means is that the CO2 we've already added guarantees a certain amount of warming, as does the CO2 we continue to add and the CO2 we will add in the future. Barring some miracle technological breakthrough, the people who are still alive closer to the turn of the next century are going to have to deal with the damage we are currently causing... so yes, it is important to be prepared for that. The reason we still need to cut emissions is because there are degrees of hopelessness, and different emissions scenarios lead to more or less catastrophic outcomes. It's not about 'fixing it', it's about preventing it from getting any worse than it has to. What's stupid is making it worse just because some oil tycoons want to line their pockets and don't care about the future because they'll be dead anyways. We've been able to remove CO2 from atmospheric conditions since the 1960's. they are called CO2 Scrubbers, and industrial level ones are attached to Coal and Natural Gas Plants already significantly reducing the emissions of those power plants while not reducing the productivity of them. If we where to produce dedicated CO2 Scrubbing Facilities it is entirely plausible we could undo the 'CO2' based damage we as humans have already done. Problem is - there isn't a very strong connection between Human CO2 emissions and Global Warming scientifically... Politically and Socially global warming has been our fault since 1964 when President LB Johnson said so in so many words. But scientifically, we cannot specifically say that CO2 emissions are the core cause of global warming... so spending enough money that could bankrupt a first world country just to try and fix it... only to find out in 5 years time that the true cause of global warming was something else entirely is not worth the risk nor the headache. And while we have scientists that say that CO2 emissions are the cause - you have to remember that the planet produces something like 800 gigatons of CO2 annually... and of that 800 gigatons, we only account for something like 30 gigatons of it. So it isn't just CO2 Emissions, or specifically just Our CO2 emissions. ongoing research is just now starting to ask the question of CO2 Sinks... things which naturally absorb the CO2 emissions. If there was something inhibiting the sinks more CO2 would stay suspended in the air. So ultimately we don't really know. quote: You're equating a scientific consensus with primitive superstition because you don't fully understand the topic. Maybe it's time to ask yourself if you're at the point where you've earned the right to be condescending. It actually isn't a scientific consensus, it is a political consensus that is veiled in science. The actuality of it is when looking at some 1000 peer reviewed studies about climate change and global warming - 95% to 99% of them come to the conclusion that global warming is happening and that humans are contributing. that does not mean that 97% of all scientists agree to the root causes of global warming, nor the degree to which is our responsibility. Of which - yes it is actually fairly apt to compare it to primitive superstition as prominent people that where trusted - the shaman, the priest, the oracle - spoke of the causes of catastrophes that befell them, and methods on how to prevent it, and they where widely adopted with out question... Much like how you're doing right now. It isn't a scientist that is telling you of global warming... it is a President, a Comedian, an Activist. prominent people we trust in society.

Kirata -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 3:41:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n6/full/nclimate2183.html Increased carbon dioxide levels in air restrict plants' ability to absorb nutrients: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150612104016.htm These refer to the absorption of nitrogen, which reduces protein content. But, plants are not our primary sources of protein. In fact, elevated CO2 has been shown to increase the content of flavonoids, phenolic compounds and other anti-oxidants, for example in Maylaysian ginger, a link to which I happen to have at hand (here), but other species as well, strawberries in particular. Epidemiological studies revealed that flavonoid-rich diet is correlated with the increased longevity and decreased incidence of cardiovascular diseases . . . In addition to their antioxidant properties, flavonoids have been reported to exhibit other multiple biological effects, e.g. antiviral, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, vasodilatory, anticancer, and anti-ischemic. Moreover, they are able to inhibit lipid peroxidation and platelet aggregation and improve increased capillary permeability and fragility ~Source quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Increased plant growth is decreasing the water supply: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n1/full/nclimate2831.html Carbon dioxide's effects on plants increase global warming, study finds: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100503161435.htm The first of these discovers that more plants require more water. Who would have guessed? The second, however, reports: Plants give off water through tiny pores in their leaves, a process called evapotranspiration that cools the plant, just as perspiration cools our bodies. On a hot day, a tree can release tens of gallons of water into the air, acting as a natural air conditioner for its surroundings. The plants absorb carbon dioxide for photosynthesis through the same pores (called stomata). But when carbon dioxide levels are high, the leaf pores shrink. This causes less water to be released, diminishing the tree's cooling power. In other words, with elevated CO2 plants require less water, which allows any given water resource to support more growth. A new study from the University of California, Irvine and the University of Washington shows that water conserved by plants under high CO2 conditions compensates for much of the effect of warmer temperatures, retaining more water on land than predicted in commonly used drought assessments. According to the study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the implications of plants needing less water with more CO2 in the environment changes assumptions of climate change impacts on agriculture, water resources, wildfire risk, and plant growth. ~Source Have a nice day. K.

thompsonx -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 7:26:06 PM)
ORIGINAL: Kirata These refer to the absorption of nitrogen, which reduces protein content. But, plants are not our primary sources of protein. Without plants there is no protien.

Kirata -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 8:05:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Kirata These refer to the absorption of nitrogen, which reduces protein content. But, plants are not our primary sources of protein. Without plants there is no protien. Even with plants, there is no protien. K.

heavyblinker -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 11:22:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata You really do live in your own little world. Climate models have been diverging from observation for decades, and failed predictions abound (see here). Oh right here we go. Looks like somebody gave you your own premade gish gallop to use in arguments like this. I clicked on a few of those links and it looks like they just jumbled together a lot of predictions, observations and information of varying quality and accuracy. I guess this means you think everything on that list is wrong? Science is therefore useless. BTW, fuck you too. quote: Slander isn't an excuse for ignoring data. And unless you're floating another of your trademark claims to superpowers, nobody in the present knows whether any long-term predictions are "absolutely accurate". It's not slander if it's true. Watts focuses exclusively on any piece of information he can get that is either a product of oil company shills or can be twisted to suit his end goal, which is to undermine real science and sow doubt about climate change. He ignores context, ignores the bigger picture. It's really draining to go through it all and try to sort it out-- I admit I'm not an expert and it takes a long time to figure it all out. But what is glaringly obvious to me is that you will never see an article on his site that even hints at the possibility that AGW could be occurring, or that it could be negative overall. And yet, you are not suspicious of this 'consistency' at all, and probably just think they're the only sane ones in a community full of alarmist loons. He uses insults, bullying and obnoxious humor (probably why you like him) to 'prove' his points because he is not a real scientist, not a real journalist and not a real messenger. Mann's 'hockey stick' has proven mostly accurate in predicting long term trends. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/ Profile on Anthony Watts: https://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts All of these people are aligned with/funded by Heartland, the right-libertarian 'think tank' tied to the GOP and responsible for such wonderful 'PR campaigns' (disinformation campaigns) on behalf of their less-than-reputable clients, including big tobacco, big chemical, and of course the oil industry. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Now you're shooting yourself in the other foot. Absolute accuracy is an unrealistic expectation, and an idiotic claim. I didn't mean or say 'absolute accuracy', I meant that they were IN FACT accurate, at least in terms predicting long-term trends within a reasonable margin of error... aggh for fuck's sakes can you even be just a little diplomatic for the sake of basic communication? Otherwise it's just going to be explaining myself over and over while you anally antagonize anything that you can antagonize and ignore everything else. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata My goodness, first both feet and now a messenger. You're a trigger-happy little fellow today! [link=http://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.pdf]Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long-term instrumental and proxy temperature records I didn't say the information was inaccurate-- in fact, Watts and co. also use accurate information, distorting it to suit their endgame. Anyways, I'm done with this and done with you. If I'm going to get into a pointless debate where the real purpose is to trade insults and crush egos, then I'll pick one that doesn't require so much time or effort or me tolerating the annoying grandad humor of Professor Mortimer McDouchebag.

heavyblinker -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 11:49:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata These refer to the absorption of nitrogen, which reduces protein content. But, plants are not our primary sources of protein. So what are our primary sources of protein? Is it the animals that get their protein by eating the plants that are losing their protein? quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata In fact, elevated CO2 has been shown to increase the content of flavonoids, phenolic compounds and other anti-oxidants, for example in Maylaysian ginger, a link to which I happen to have at hand (here), but other species as well, strawberries in particular. Epidemiological studies revealed that flavonoid-rich diet is correlated with the increased longevity and decreased incidence of cardiovascular diseases . . . In addition to their antioxidant properties, flavonoids have been reported to exhibit other multiple biological effects, e.g. antiviral, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, vasodilatory, anticancer, and anti-ischemic. Moreover, they are able to inhibit lipid peroxidation and platelet aggregation and improve increased capillary permeability and fragility ~Source Wow great... I guess we don't even need protein. quote: The first of these discovers that more plants require more water. Who would have guessed? The second, however, reports: Plants give off water through tiny pores in their leaves, a process called evapotranspiration that cools the plant, just as perspiration cools our bodies. On a hot day, a tree can release tens of gallons of water into the air, acting as a natural air conditioner for its surroundings. The plants absorb carbon dioxide for photosynthesis through the same pores (called stomata). But when carbon dioxide levels are high, the leaf pores shrink. This causes less water to be released, diminishing the tree's cooling power. In other words, with elevated CO2 plants require less water, which allows any given water resource to support more growth. A new study from the University of California, Irvine and the University of Washington shows that water conserved by plants under high CO2 conditions compensates for much of the effect of warmer temperatures, retaining more water on land than predicted in commonly used drought assessments. According to the study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the implications of plants needing less water with more CO2 in the environment changes assumptions of climate change impacts on agriculture, water resources, wildfire risk, and plant growth. ~Source Okay, so how much time does that buy them in the face of ever-rising temperatures that they are now directly contributing to? It's not just about plants and their ability to retain water, it's also about the effect that the warming they will now be producing has on the soil. So what is the upper limit to how much warming plants can take, and what is the upper limit to how much warming the soil can take? I mean, we're not just talking about whether plants can survive in the near-future, we're talking about increased warmth and CO2 leading to increased release of CO2 from soil AND plants... so all of that 'new' CO2 being released from the soil and the plants isn't going to push global warming past the point where these plants can survive? Under which emissions scenario? A single summer in which Trump-era emissions standards are combining with increased CO2 production from both soil and plants and probably fires (releasing still more CO2) and for argument's sake let's throw in a naturally occurring warm spell... would lead to what? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130140004.htm I also don't really understand what your position on this whole matter is. Maybe you think that all of this plant growth, which you seem to think will continue indefinitely, means we should not worry about the future, which is bright and good, all thanks to everyone's friends the fossil fuel industry.

Kirata -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/9/2017 11:59:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Now you're shooting yourself in the other foot. Absolute accuracy is an unrealistic expectation, and an idiotic claim. I didn't mean or say 'absolute accuracy', I meant that they were IN FACT accurate, at least in terms predicting long-term trends within a reasonable margin of error... I know what you said, and so do you... quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker the most well-regarded long-term predictions are absolutely accurate. Are we having fun yet? quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker I didn't say the information was inaccurate Well you sure fooled me: quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker The moment I start seeing wattsupwiththat, I know it's time to stop trying. I'm not about to spend hours scouring the internet for the proper responses to his lies... Are we having fun now? quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Anyways, I'm done with this and done with you. Ah, bye then. K.

heavyblinker -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/10/2017 12:02:35 AM)
See? Total douchebag response that doesn't even try to address my points and focuses exclusively on pointless antagonism. Even when I explain what I actually meant, you refuse to show even the slightest bit of charity for the sake of basic communication. You're not worth it.

Kirata -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/10/2017 12:06:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Wow great... I guess we don't even need protein. Don't be such an ass. quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Maybe you think that all of this plant growth, which you seem to think will continue indefinitely, means we should not worry about the future, which is bright and good, all thanks to everyone's friends the fossil fuel industry. Maybe you should stop listening to your lamp-socket. K.

heavyblinker -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/10/2017 12:07:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Kirata These refer to the absorption of nitrogen, which reduces protein content. But, plants are not our primary sources of protein. Without plants there is no protien. Even with plants, there is no protien. K. Another example! You know you've said something really stupid, so you attack his spelling with an obvious joke. Lame.

Kirata -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/10/2017 12:08:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker See? Total douchebag response that doesn't even try to address my points and focuses exclusively on pointless antagonism. Even when I explain what I actually meant, you refuse to show even the slightest bit of charity for the sake of basic communication. You're not worth it. I thought you said you were done? [8D] K.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625