Earth breaks 12th straight monthly heat record

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is a lot more than your paycheck riding on it. But you will be destined to find out the hard way. I hope you don't live in Florida.

Do a poll of climate scientists yourself. I dare you. Your predictions are not impressing anyone. You have no credible evidence of your silly claims. Florida will remain above sea water for a very long time if the sea level increases remain as stable as they have been for the last 100 years. You have no evidence this will change at all.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Prove your positive with a reputable web site. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE CANNABIS CAUSES CANCER!

I noticed you didn't say just "cannabis" previously but specifically "cannabis smoking" causes cancer but now you try and backtrack and pretend you are just saying the is no evidence that "cannabis" itself doesn't cause cancer and hope I wouldn't notice your attempt to be evasive to avoid admitting you are wrong.

lets go back to the issue of cannabis smoking causing cancer;


http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer

"....
Cannabis smoke contains many of the same cancer causing substances (carcinogens) as tobacco - at least 50 of them. In addition, cannabis is often mixed with tobacco when smoked.

One of these carcinogens is benzyprene. Benzyprene is in the tar of both tobacco and cannabis cigarettes. We know that benzyprene causes cancer. It alters a gene called p53, which is a tumour suppressor gene. We know that 3 out of 4 lung cancers (75% ) occur in people who have faulty p53 genes. The p53 gene is also linked to many other cancers. ..."



why, according to you, is this website not "reputable"?
...-answer; it is because it says something you don't like. Why else?
Virtually all good science websites that say things you don't like are apparently reputable to everyone but you.
In fact, if a science websites that say things you don't like thus you shout and complain is wrong, we take that, as we should do, as evidence that it is a good science website.
This is what you don't get.

I like this:

http://phys.org/news/2016-06-climate-mitigation-co2.html

Originally posted by humy
I noticed you didn't say just "cannabis" previously but specifically "cannabis smoking" causes cancer but now you try and backtrack and pretend you are just saying the is no evidence that "cannabis" itself doesn't cause cancer and hope I wouldn't notice your attempt to be evasive to avoid admitting you are wrong.

lets go back to the issue of cannabis smokin ...[text shortened]... at, as we should do, as evidence that it is a good science website.
This is what you don't get.

Smoking tobacco with cannabis is not "often" the case here in the USA. I do not know of any cannabis smokers who do that, even those that smoke tobacco as well. In any case, it is very foolish to group the two together just because that is a common practice in some parts of Europe and perhaps elsewhere.

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-cancer-assessing-the-risk

I am not wrong. There is no evidence that cannabis use causes cancer even when it is smoked. Tobacco is uniquely dangerous when it comes to lung cancer. It contains a lot of nitrogen oxides as well as nicotine. It is stupid to compare the two in the reckless and deliberately misleading way that you are.

Originally posted by humy
I like this:

http://phys.org/news/2016-06-climate-mitigation-co2.html

As interesting as that is, it is probably better to put the CO2 in the atmosphere where it can serve as a plant nutrient in this CO2 starved world. Plants will grow much more efficiently. More CO2 will do much more good than harm despite your claim otherwise. You are being mislead by propaganda promoted by those looking to tax people into poverty while doing nothing to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Only reducing the gap between the rich and poor will do that. As long as the gap is wide a carbon tax will solve nothing. The rich will still drive their oversized Hummers to the golf course. Maybe you should promote a tax on playing golf. Think of all the fuel being burned there and no food being produced at all.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
As interesting as that is, it is probably better to put the CO2 in the atmosphere where it can serve as a plant nutrient in this CO2 starved world. Plants will grow much more efficiently. More CO2 will do much more good than harm despite your claim otherwise. You are being mislead by propaganda promoted by those looking to tax people into poverty while d ...[text shortened]... tax on playing golf. Think of all the fuel being burned there and no food being produced at all.

Of course there is no problem with the added CO2 getting into the oceans and causing greater acidity, now is there.

No biggie, just dust in some anti acid, right?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Smoking tobacco with cannabis is not "often" the case here in the USA. I do not know of any cannabis smokers who do that,

So you personally know many cannabis smokers that specifically do NOT do that when smoking? About how many is 'many'? 100? 1000? What is your sample size and is it large enough to be able to give a statistical significant result?

Assuming you don't socially share the habit in a big way with a huge number of cannabis smokers i.e. in the line of sight of them while they do it, How could you possibly personally know 'many' cannabis smokers and so personally as to know whether they smoke tobacco with it?
Did they personally admit they smoke cannabis but most and many for no particular reason just happen to specifically mention to you they don't add tobacco with it or did you wait around watching them like a hawk to specifically check to see if they mixed any tobacco with their cannabis before smoking it or did you just by pure coincidence just happen to notice a huge number of cannabis smokers just about to smoke and just happen to specifically notice they did NOT add any tobacco and made a special note of that in your memory or what?

You are OBVIOUSLY lying, as usual.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
As interesting as that is, it is probably better to put the CO2 in the atmosphere where it can serve as a plant nutrient in this CO2 starved world.

Unsurprisingly, it has been calculated that the adverse climatic effects of CO2 driven global warming such as more droughts floods and other extreme whether events would easily swamp any such CO2 fertilizing effect thus resulting in a net reduction in average crop yields making hunger more, not less, common.

From my university studies, I know that because of something called the carbon dioxide gradient, crop yield doesn't go up linearly with CO2 but much less than that and by an amount depending on several other more important limiting factors such as light levels and temperature. For most of the time under most natural conditions, plants would gain very little (often a less than 1% increase in photosynthesis) from this increase in CO2 and this is ignoring the damage done to them by the resulting global warming.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Of course there is no problem with the added CO2 getting into the oceans and causing greater acidity, now is there.

No biggie, just dust in some anti acid, right?

The ocean is not acidic. We have been over this before. I prove you wrong and you ignore it and repeat the myths. Same ol' same ol'.

Originally posted by humy
So you personally know many cannabis smokers that specifically do NOT do that when smoking? About how many is 'many'? 100? 1000? What is your sample size and is it large enough to be able to give a statistical significant result?

Assuming you don't socially share the habit in a big way with a huge number of cannabis smokers i.e. in the line of sight of them ...[text shortened]... o and made a special note of that in your memory or what?

You are OBVIOUSLY lying, as usual.

Mixing tobacco with cannabis does not prove cannabis causes cancer. You have digressed into the irrelevant as usual.

Originally posted by humy
Unsurprisingly, it has been calculated that the adverse climatic effects of CO2 driven global warming such as more droughts floods and other extreme whether events would easily swamp any such CO2 fertilizing effect thus resulting in a net reduction in average crop yields making hunger more, not less, common.

From my university studies, I know that because o ...[text shortened]... is increase in CO2 and this is ignoring the damage done to them by the resulting global warming.

"Unsurprisingly, it has been calculated that the adverse climatic effects of CO2 driven global warming such as more droughts floods and other extreme whether events would easily swamp any such CO2 fertilizing effect thus resulting in a net reduction in average crop yields making hunger more, not less, common."

Who calculated it and how? Or should I say "made it up"?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The ocean is not acidic.

as in pH less than 7, no. But it can be made more acidic as in a drop in pH which is OBVIOUSLY what we are talking about. Are you really that stupid or pretending to be?
PH of seawater is roughly 8 which is slightly alkaline and what we obviously mean by acidification of the oceans in science terminology is a drop in that pH i.e. a reduction in alkalinity. This will directly harm some pH-sensitive marine life notably those with shells.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
"...Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] Seawater is slightly basic (meaning pH > 7), and the process in question is a shift towards less basic conditions rather than a transition to acidic conditions (pH < 7).
..."
And, in chemistry terminology and in the above context, "less basic" means "less alkaline" and you can clearly see from the above that acidification of the oceans in science terminology does NOT mean the water becoming acid as in below 7 pH.

Originally posted by humy
as in pH less than 7, no. But it can be made more acidic as in a drop in pH which is OBVIOUSLY what we are talking about. Are you really that stupid or pretending to be?
PH of seawater is roughly 8 which is slightly alkaline and what we obviously mean by acidification of the oceans in science terminology is a drop in that pH i.e. a reduction in alkalini ...[text shortened]... ion of the oceans in science terminology does NOT mean the water becoming acid as in below 7 pH.

You mean less alkaline. Even still, there is nothing alarming about the PH of the ocean. The PH has been less alkaline in the past than now. We have been over this before too. Why do you idiots keep bringing up the same myths I debunked long ago. Do you all have dementia?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Unsurprisingly, it has been calculated that the adverse climatic effects of CO2 driven global warming such as more droughts floods and other extreme whether events would easily swamp any such CO2 fertilizing effect thus resulting in a net reduction in average crop yields making hunger more, not less, common."

Who calculated it and how?

By scientists who are smarter than you or I (especially you) that know many things about it we (especially you) don't because they have spent many years at university intensively studying the relevant subjects and who then do it by via scientific method specifically researching it often painstakingly over a period of many years making countless measurements and sorting through vast amounts of data and facts and making all the necessary mathematical calculations.

Any more stupid questions?

Originally posted by humy
By scientists who are smarter than you or I (especially you) that know many things about it we don't because they have spent many years at university intensively studying the relevant subjects and who then do it by via scientific method specifically researching it often painstakingly over a period of many years.

Any more stupid questions?

Fred Singer is smarter than you are but you reject his opinion even though he is a qualified climate scientist. You do not want to be confused with facts because you have your mind made up. You are a close minded moron.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2014/01/28/the-myth-of-ocean-acidification-by-carbon-dioxide/

Read it.....again!