"Yes, but that doesn't work anymore. That's weak."

[Athetotheist]

What are we to make of this?




Do they not realize that they're making Jesus out to be a liar?

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
(Matthew 24:35)

"He that loveth Me not, keepeth not My sayings. And the Word which you hear is not Mine, but the Fathers who sent Me."
(John 14:24)

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #264]

Trees need CO2 to survive and trees produce oxygen that humans need to survive. So why do some people believe CO2 is a bad thing?

Go back to post #258 and review the observation I made about water.

Marke: I believe you suggested acid rain is caused directly or indirectly by cloud formations from ocean water evaporation. I said SO2 is a large contributor to acid rain but that SO2 does not evaporate in large quantities from ocean water.

And since you acknowledge that trees produce oxygen which humans need to survive, are you making the connection between that and the effects of large-scale deforestation?

Marke: Immigrant farmers had to cut down forests in some early American locations in order to grow necessary food. That is called survival. Lands must be cleared to build homes, highways, and businesses in a growing national population. Cutting down trees for wood, paper, building products and so forth must not be made by propagandists to seem evil or destructive. In fact, the educated elite know that reforestation can replenish trees to swustainable levels, thus making reforestation the answer to necessary timber harvesting in any society.

https://onetreeplanted.org/pages/defore ... %20forests!

Make sustainability part of your every day routine

In our day-to-day lives, we can spread awareness, go paperless, recycle, read ingredient labels, and do our own research.
We can also vote with our wallets by only purchasing FSC certified wood, sustainable palm oil, ethical chocolate, and rainforest safe meats (and by cutting down on our meat consumption).
And of course, reforestation plays a vital role in addressing deforestation and its impacts. If done correctly, reforestation can restore damaged ecosystems, stabilize soil, support the water cycle, and slowly recover the vital ecosystem services that we depend on. And while we certainly dont ever advocate for cutting down any forestsprimary or notthere is evidence that proximity to secondary forests reduces the deforestation pressure on primary ones. Planting new trees is, ultimately, an investment in future forests!

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #265]

How do GW alarmists think they can eliminate SO2 from the air and thus end acid rain by eliminating the use of fossil fuels? Fossil fuel use does not contribute the SO2 to the atmosphere like volcanoes do and scientists cannot eliminate SO2 additives to the atmosphere by volcanoes.

AI Overview
Learn more
Humans emit approximately 1.8 million short tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere annually in the U.S., primarily from burning fuels in power plants, industrial processes, and transportation.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:

AI Overview
Learn more
Volcanoes collectively emit an estimated 20 to 25 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere each year.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas and is the primary gas blamed for climate change. While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. In 2010, human activities were responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions. All studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities.
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volca ... ct-climate

Marke: CO2 is not a pollutant. Without CO2 plants would die. Why modern secularists want to lower levels of CO2 thus endangering plants remains a huge mystery to thinking Americans.

[oldbadger]

]Marke: Believing secular dating schemes that all rely on a concerning degree of assumptions, and believing the computed secular results from those schemes is not the same thing as proving the results are accurate.

Whatever did all that actually mean?

Believing humans contribute to global warming is a far cry from justifying the regulatory burdens, restrictions, and cost increases forced upon Americans by those who have faith in alarmist global warming assumptions. Even if humans did create a climate change disaster they can do very little to alter the climate going forward.

What do you do for a living?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #272]

CO2 is not a pollutant.

You keep ignoring my point about drowning.

Why modern secularists want to lower levels of CO2 thus endangering plants remains a huge mystery to thinking Americans.

Plants did just fine before human industrializing started driving CO2 levels significantly higher, so that's a bogus argument.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #271]

Immigrant farmers had to cut down forests in some early American locations in order to grow necessary food. That is called survival. Lands must be cleared to build homes, highways, and businesses in a growing national population. Cutting down trees for wood, paper, building products and so forth must not be made by propagandists to seem evil or destructive. In fact, the educated elite know that reforestation can replenish trees to swustainable levels, thus making reforestation the answer to necessary timber harvesting in any society.

Humans have been clearing forests for thousands of years, but the rate of deforestation has skyrocketed in recent centuries: the amount of forested land thats been lost in the last century is equal to the amount that was lost between 8,000 BC and 1900, and in the last 300 years, 1.5 billion hectares of forest have been destroyed an area bigger than the entire United States.
https://sentientmedia.org/how-does-agri ... restation/

Reforestation is great, but with more and more land being taken up by agriculture, where are we supposed to do our reforesting?

[marke]

]Marke: Believing secular dating schemes that all rely on a concerning degree of assumptions, and believing the computed secular results from those schemes is not the same thing as proving the results are accurate.

Whatever did all that actually mean?

Marke: Hundreds of years ago old age dating was a matter of opinion and supposition. The bias towards old age assumptions never diminished as time progressed and methods to determine ages more scientifically were developed, extending those earlier old age assumptions considerably. However, the 'scientific' dating methods designed to calculate ages in multiple millions or billions of years are built on methods still flawed with old age assumptions at the outset.
For example, how old is a rock sample? If taken blindly into the lab without any consideration of the location of its collection the lab must make certain assumptions about the original percentages of radiometric elements at the origin of its creation, and those assumptions cannot be proved.

AI Overview
Learn more
In a lab, rock samples are dated using radiometric dating, which measures the decay of radioactive isotopes within the rock to determine its age. Geochronologists compare the amount of a parent isotope to its decay product (daughter isotope) to calculate the age of the rock.

By measuring the percentage of radiometric decay in one 10 year old rock formed by the St. Helens eruption dating experts who were unaware of the rock's origin before testing concluded the rock was hundreds of thousands of years old, demonstrating typical flaws in radiometric dating methods.

AI Overview
Learn more
The Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980, followed by the rapid formation of a lava dome, led to radiometric dating results that incorrectly suggested the rock was hundreds of thousands of years old, when it was only a few years old.

[marke]

Believing humans contribute to global warming is a far cry from justifying the regulatory burdens, restrictions, and cost increases forced upon Americans by those who have faith in alarmist global warming assumptions. Even if humans did create a climate change disaster they can do very little to alter the climate going forward.

What do you do for a living?

Marke: My main source of income for decades was in metal-working, beginning as an apprentice and finishing as a business owner. I now continue working semi-retired for my son who owns a steel fabrication and erection business.

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #272]

CO2 is not a pollutant.

You keep ignoring my point about drowning.

Marke: I am not seeing your point. Are you saying water could be bad for you because of the danger of drowning in some similar manner CO2 could be bad for you if more CO2 is in the atmosphere than is needed by earth's plant life for survival?

Marke: Why modern secularists want to lower levels of CO2 thus endangering plants remains a huge mystery to thinking Americans.

Plants did just fine before human industrializing started driving CO2 levels significantly higher, so that's a bogus argument.


Marke: Are you claiming that industrialization and human progress are destroying plant life by emitting too much CO2 into the atmosphere? How do humans determine how much CO2 is needed to sustain life on earth and how much must supposedly be removed in some rather fuzzily described way or means?

AI Overview
Learn more
To sustain plant life, a minimum of around 50-100 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric CO2 is generally considered necessary, although plants can thrive and even benefit from levels up to 1000-1300 ppm, according to Ontario.ca.

[marke]

[Replying to marke in post #271]

Immigrant farmers had to cut down forests in some early American locations in order to grow necessary food. That is called survival. Lands must be cleared to build homes, highways, and businesses in a growing national population. Cutting down trees for wood, paper, building products and so forth must not be made by propagandists to seem evil or destructive. In fact, the educated elite know that reforestation can replenish trees to swustainable levels, thus making reforestation the answer to necessary timber harvesting in any society.

Humans have been clearing forests for thousands of years, but the rate of deforestation has skyrocketed in recent centuries: the amount of forested land thats been lost in the last century is equal to the amount that was lost between 8,000 BC and 1900, and in the last 300 years, 1.5 billion hectares of forest have been destroyed an area bigger than the entire United States.
https://sentientmedia.org/how-does-agri ... restation/

Reforestation is great, but with more and more land being taken up by agriculture, where are we supposed to do our reforesting?

Marke: I do not believe harvesting lumber should be stopped due to fears of running out of trees. Green earth alarmists fear that cutting down trees in the normal course of human survival and progress will ultimately destroy the planet we live on. Those fears are not based on sound reasoning and do not present reasonable factual evidences to support those claims.

I spent quite a few years involved with plant maintenance in paper and plywood mills in my region. Those industries cut down millions of trees each year.

https://8billiontrees.com/trees/how-man ... ery%20year.
Studies estimate about 1.4 billion trees end up in landfills every year, due to product packaging and other paper waste.2
But the bottom line is that answering the question, how many trees are cut down each year for paper is hard to calculate. Estimates suggest anywhere from 4 billion trees to 8 billion trees used for paper every year.

Eco Alarmists are stirring up fears about tree harvesting that are illogical. The harvesting and reforestation of the world's trees are generally under safe and sustainable management.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marke in post #278]

Why modern secularists want to lower levels of CO2 thus endangering plants remains a huge mystery to thinking Americans.

Plants did just fine before human industrializing started driving CO2 levels significantly higher, so that's a bogus argument.

Are you saying water could be bad for you because of the danger of drowning in some similar manner CO2 could be bad for you if more CO2 is in the atmosphere than is needed by earth's plant life for survival?

Humans can drown in water even though fish can use it for survival.

Does that help clarify things?

Are you claiming that industrialization and human progress are destroying plant life by emitting too much CO2 into the atmosphere?

I'm pointing out that reducing human-produced CO2 isn't going to endanger plants.