Global Warming HOAX Unravels

a reply to: Vector99

I never even considered someone would think land height would be kept secret from the public.


How was it hidden from you...err...nver mind I am sure it is a long story and I don't have the patience.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Vector99

I never even considered someone would think land height would be kept secret from the public.


How was it hidden from you...err...nver mind I am sure it is a long story and I don't have the patience.

Allow me to explain, had you HEARD my answer you would know I was being facetious, however since you couldn't annotate my tone, could you give me the decency of explaining why I'm stupid when you think Florida would be underwater and Hawaii wouldn't.

Please honor me...

a reply to: Vector99

Look up the topography for Florida and Hawai maybe you can figure it out.

originally posted by: raymundoko
You do know that slight die off (5% in Toracian warming) segued into the greatest period of flora and fauna in the history of our planet right? Tropical climate covered the earth. I can't wait!!!

Yeah? Do you know it takes a couple of million of years for life to strive again after a massive extinction level?

What about the last Great Extinction at the end of the Permian? It reflects pretty much what's happening now: lots of CO2 was released which caused ocean acidification, oxigen depletion and global warming. 96% of marine species died and from there it was like a domino effect. During the Permian 2.4 gigatons of carbon were released into the atmosphere. We are releasing almost 10 gigatons of carbon a year. Can anybody really tell me that is a good thing? Can anybody deny the carbon is affecting the oceans PH and oxygen levels?

Slow chemical changes killed almost all sea life and then land life, only 5% of all species survived. Why wouldn't this happen again if the chemical changes we are seeing now mirror the last Great extinction?






a reply to: bigwig22

I am not advocating in favour of carbon tax, on the contrary, I am against it as it doesn't help the planet. All I would like to see is more people shifting to green energy to stop (or lower) the amount of carbon we are releasing into the atmosphere. I am concerned about the environment and about the ecosystems that will start dying if we don't stop polluting the way we do. The chemical changes we are inflicting on the planet will have a negative effect sooner or later, some we are already seeing. Despite what many think, global warming in the long run will kill ecosystems and we are not immune to those changes. And global warming, ocean acidification and ocean oxygen depletion are happening now.

a reply to: Agartha

Don't you love it when people try to use climate from over a 145 million years ago and when the continents were still forming to compare to today's warming?

I really hope global warming happens and is in full effect. I like being warm. Especially since I'm in northern canada and we're in snow and ice for 6 months of the year. It freakin sucks!!!!

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Vector99

Look up the topography for Florida and Hawai maybe you can figure it out.

So ocean rise will be selective, got it. By the way, you missed a call from Al Gore.

Hawaii has 2 i's btw

*Oh and this since you are so smart about topography. Enlighten me more please

a reply to: Vector99

So ocean rise will be selective

Yes in a way your article explains a little.

You should try reading past the headlines.

They explain it will be affected the worst out of equatorial lands but lower than global average.

It says that and more in the link you posted.

Try reading your article for enlightenment

a reply to: Gemwolf
While i think that global warming is a scam, destruction of the enviroment is not. Whether pollution is in gasses form(smog) dumped into the sea or on land it still harms the enviroment in which we live. One of the problems with focusing on global warming and especially through taxing carbon is that we are ignoring many very real pollution problems which are much more in need of being fixed. We need to find alternatives for many destructive chemicals and must recycle nearly all our waste. Taxes on industrial wastes (gasses, liquids and solids) must be increased This would also encourage recycling. Mining world wide must be made to rejuvinate the enviroment to a level that is how they found it or changed to a state that is consistent with that the natural enviroment would produce. Eg If a mining pit was not filled in but made into a lake then that lake should be consistent with a lake that would be considered a natural lake. Things like stocking the lake with fish, clean pollutant free water, trees and vegetation around the lake and a clean enviroment so nothing would get poisoned etc

Nearly 2500 nuclear tests on planet earth can not have done any of its life forms any good . Then there is the spraying of chemtrails in the atmostphere blotting out the sun and changing rainfall patterns, not to mention the genetic engineering of plants and animal life forms. Neither is the using up of earths precious resources at a much greater rate than they can be replenished. Once resources like oil, coal and some minerals are used up we will no longer have them in natural form anyway.

originally posted by: Qspeedyrock
a reply to: Gemwolf
While i think that global warming is a scam, destruction of the enviroment is not. Whether pollution is in gasses form(smog) dumped into the sea or on land it still harms the enviroment in which we live. One of the problems with focusing on global warming and especially through taxing carbon is that we are ignoring many very real pollution problems which are much more in need of being fixed. We need to find alternatives for many destructive chemicals and must recycle nearly all our waste. Taxes on industrial wastes (gasses, liquids and solids) must be increased This would also encourage recycling.

Nearly 2500 nuclear tests on planet earth can not have done any of its life forms any good . Then there is the spraying of chemtrails in the atmostphere blotting out the sun and changing rainfall patterns, not to mention the genetic engineering of plants and animal life forms. Neither is the using up of earths precious resources at a much greater rate than they can be replenished. Once resources like oil, coal and some minerals are used up we will no longer have them

Exactly what I was thinking the Chinese can't go outside without oxygen tanks but green energy is bad and evil. The oceans are so polluted in Brazil just swimming in it is hazardous to your health. And yes even slight temperature changes have big effects on global climate your a fool if you believe otherwise. Not because of flooding but because it changes wind patterns. Look at the effect pollution is having on china it goes far beyond them not being able to breath outdoors.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Vector99

So ocean rise will be selective

Yes in a way your article explains a little.

You should try reading past the headlines.

They explain it will be affected the worst out of equatorial lands but lower than global average.

It says that and more in the link you posted.

Try reading your article for enlightenment

Florida isn't close to the equator? My god, some people.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Vector99

So ocean rise will be selective

Yes in a way your article explains a little.

You should try reading past the headlines.

They explain it will be affected the worst out of equatorial lands but lower than global average.

It says that and more in the link you posted.

Try reading your article for enlightenment

And to put it in context, I made a joke about how in the 80's they said Florida would be underwater, and nothing was ever said about Hawaii. Neither are underwater, and your argument is heading underwater, so just stop?

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Vector99

So ocean rise will be selective

Yes in a way your article explains a little.

You should try reading past the headlines.

They explain it will be affected the worst out of equatorial lands but lower than global average.

It says that and more in the link you posted.

Try reading your article for enlightenment

Florida isn't close to the equator? My god, some people.

No kidding!! Your link was on Hawaii my comment was quoting your article.

And to put it in context, I made a joke about how in the 80's they said Florida would be underwater, and nothing was ever said about Hawaii. Neither are underwater, and your argument is heading underwater, so just stop?

HA HA a joke. Yet you still didn't understand and linked an article with a headline that said "Hawaii to suffer most as global sea levels rise, study says" and you didn't eve know sea level will affect areas differently.

You probably should stop.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Vector99

So ocean rise will be selective

Yes in a way your article explains a little.

You should try reading past the headlines.

They explain it will be affected the worst out of equatorial lands but lower than global average.

It says that and more in the link you posted.

Try reading your article for enlightenment

Florida isn't close to the equator? My god, some people.

No kidding!! Your link was on Hawaii my comment was quoting your article.

And to put it in context, I made a joke about how in the 80's they said Florida would be underwater, and nothing was ever said about Hawaii. Neither are underwater, and your argument is heading underwater, so just stop?

HA HA a joke. Yet you still didn't understand and linked an article with a headline that said "Hawaii to suffer most as global sea levels rise, study says" and you didn't eve know sea level will affect areas differently.

You probably should stop.

No buddy, I'm sorry not gonna let you have this one, you are so wrong it's funny. I'll find these sources asap dont you worry, edit coming asap

a reply to: Vector99

Don't bother. I feel kind of bad for you now because you really don't know these things so here is a bone.

Read this it will explain list all he differing reasons for varying sea level rise.

The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly by Region

a reply to: Agartha

Do you really believe the ocean is acidifying? Do you even know own the requirements for that? I also love how the scare crowd always says you can't use ancient eras in comparison to ours, unless they suddenly want to use ancient eras in comparison to ours.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Don't you love it when people try to use climate from over a 145 million years ago and when the continents were still forming to compare to today's warming?

LOL My original reply to raymundoko was a pic of Pangea asking if we could really compare climates, but then I decided to play the same game because if I post modern data some don't accept it as it is not old enough. I would like to know what geological time range is the appropriate one to discuss!!

originally posted by: raymundoko

Do you really believe the ocean is acidifying? Do you even know own the requirements for that? I also love how the scare crowd always says you can't use ancient eras in comparison to ours, unless they suddenly want to use ancient eras in comparison to ours.

See above regarding ancient eras.

The oceans Ph is lowering, current changes are from 8.3 to 8.2: this is acidification. Read the Monaco Declaration on ocean acidification 2008 which was signed by 200+ experts in the field. (ocean-acidification.net...)

a reply to: Grimpachi

You do realize Agartha brought up the ancient climate right?

a reply to: Agartha

8.3 to 8.2 is not acidification. To think it is shows a complete lack in understanding of chemistry. The proper term is neutralizing. The term acidification in reference to the ocean was coined out of propaganda to incite fear. The ocean would only be acidifying if the PH level was at 7 and trending down.

You don't need to link me the science, I'm quite familiar with it but I appreciate your effort.

Edit: you brought up the ancient client, I simply replied to you.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Agartha

Don't you love it when people try to use climate from over a 145 million years ago and when the continents were still forming to compare to today's warming?

I love hearing people tell us that they know when and where extinction level events occurred, and how many millions and billions of years it all takes..........

WITH NEVER ONE SHRED OF PROOF.

And they believe it just as much if not MORE than the most bought in religious follower ever.