-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
CO2 MYTH BUSTED
- Thread starter LyryC
- Start date
Adze. We're not talking about science. Lol
You are supposed to react with your basic instincts coupled with a insecure need to dominate and defend against what is unkown by referring to science in a way that highlights your ineptness based on the need to personally attack said scientifically-informed followers, therefore negating in a father-like and "you must be a child, I am an adult and I will prove it by sociopathically insulting you, until you lose your cool and I can defame your character with instability, lack of manners and tie your entire political party to a presuppositioned view that I have concocted.." way.
You are supposed to react with your basic instincts coupled with a insecure need to dominate and defend against what is unkown by referring to science in a way that highlights your ineptness based on the need to personally attack said scientifically-informed followers, therefore negating in a father-like and "you must be a child, I am an adult and I will prove it by sociopathically insulting you, until you lose your cool and I can defame your character with instability, lack of manners and tie your entire political party to a presuppositioned view that I have concocted.." way.
Last edited:
That's really dumb dude, even for you. No surprise though. But your ignorance is kind of appalling.
You don't really need to be a scientist to see the environmental degradation that is occurring at an ever increasing rate as the world population explodes.
The year I was born, the population of the world was 3 billion people. It took from the beginning of time to get to that level. It took only another 50 years to more than double and is currently closing in on 7 billion. To think that all these additional billions of people are having no negative effect on the environment is naive, and just plain wrong. In addition to the many billions of people added in the last 50 years, we now have over a billion head of cattle in the world. This is easily the single most destructive thing we do to the planet, both in terms of global warming and overall environmental degradation. Do a little Googling on the environmental impact of cattle ranching. Raising a billion head of beef cattle means clear cutting forests (where we get our oxygen from) in order to plant more soybeans in order to feed more cattle. It also means growing mountains of grain to feed said cattle, and to grow mountains of grain, you need mountains of fertilizers and pesticides, all of which end up in our waters, eventually running off into the oceans, where all manner of ocean life is being negatively impacted in dramatic fashion. Aside from this, cattle give off methane gas in copious amounts, and this is the second most destructive gas after CO2. Raising beef cattle yields only 10% of the food that the grains used to feed them would provide. In addition, the movement of all these fertilizers/pesticides/grain in itself creates tremendous amounts of CO2.
Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period (http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html). The agricultural sector is the biggest emitter of methane gas by far. Methane gas is trapped in the permafrost at the poles. If it is released due to the melting of these icecaps, the result would be disastrous.
" We know there are extensive methane hydrate and permafrost deposits all around the world. We have evidence that we are at the beginning of a period of global warming that is probably being made worse by the continuing build up of CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning. Recent computer modelling incorporating the feed back effects of global warming that has already occurred suggests that by about 2050 we may start to lose the beneficial effects of the Amazon rain forest as a carbon sink. This could lead to temperature rises of 5 to 8 degrees centigrade by 2100. This would be uncharted territory and no one really knows at present how the world's environmental systems would change but we now have the evidence from the geological past. On the basis of this evidence global warming can lead to methane releases which once started would escalate. This would be the worst possible thing to happen because once started there would be no way of stopping a runaway methane global warming event. We CAN reduce our CO2 emissions from fossil fuels but we COULD NOT reduce methane emissions once they started, huge natural forces would take over and change our world. This would probably result in the melting of the Antarctic icecap which would raise sea levels by 50 metres and would completely change the climates of the world."
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm
"Up to now it has been generally assumed that global warming will be a linear process. However evidence from the geological past linked with climate modelling that takes into account the global warming that is already locked into the system indicates that there may not be a linear response to rising CO2 levels. There is a danger that at some point we will cross a threshhold when global warming accelerates. By continuing to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we are getting closer to that point.
From the analysis of the bubbles of air trapped in ice cores taken from the Greenland icecap that are up to 500,000 years old it has been shown that the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and the CO2 content has followed a regular 100,000 year cycle of change with the CO2 content and temperature closely linked and following the same graph line. Within this regular cycle there are some recently discovered very short periods of approximately only a few hundred years duration when temperatures rise dramatically by 8 degrees centigrade above the slower rises of up to 7 degrees centigrade. This gives a total range of 15 degrees centigrade from peak to trough. These records show natural processes at work before the impact of man's activities. We are currently in the lower temperature part of the cycle.
During the period covered by the ice core research the CO2 content of the atmosphere has varied between 170 and 280 ppm. (parts per million). From 1850 to today with the added input from the burning of fossil fuels the CO2 content has risen to 350 ppm. So we are now well outside of the historic range of values and CO2 levels are going to continue to rise for a long time yet and temperatures will follow.
Recent research has shown that the Amazon rain forest is not a stable mature forest with growth and decay in balance but is in fact an expanding forest that is being fertilised by the excess atmospheric CO2. The trees are getting bigger and there is a net take up of 5000 kg of carbon per hectare per year ( 1 hectare = 100 x 100 metres ). The total area of forest is 400 million hectares so the whole forest could be absorbing 2 billion tons of carbon per year.
Research in the savanah lands to the east of the Amazon Basin has established that the crucial factor determining the development of the rain forest is the length of the dry season. The savanah to the east of the Amazon Basin and the eastern Amazon rain forest both receive about the same amount of rainfall, 1500 mm per year. However in the savanah the dry season lasts 6 months but in the rainforest the dry season only lasts 4 months.
As a result of the longer dry season the savanah catches fire an average of twice in ten years whereas the rainforest with the shorter dry season does not dry out and remains damp enough to prevent fire. In the savanah the fires destroy most of the vegetation and this prevents the savanah developing into a rainforest. If the dry season in the rainforest was extended to 6 months by climate change effects then the rainforest would dry out and burn and could not then re-establish itself. If the rainforest burnt this would release the CO2 currently being absorbed year by year. So the forest would change from being a buffer which for a hundred years has absorbed our excess CO2 into a major source of CO2 releasing tens of years build up of CO2 in a matter of weeks.
It is accepted by all, including climate change sceptics, that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to increased global warming and many computer models have been constructed giving a rise in average atmospheric temperature of between 2 and 6 degrees centigrade by the end of the century i.e. by 2100.
But only now are models being constructed that incorporate a feed-back into the model of the effects of changes in world climate due to the changes in temperature that are predicted by the model as the model programme runs. One of the most important effects of climate change is the release of carbon dioxide from natural processes as atmospheric temperature rises.
Because of the "above normal" level of CO2 already in the atmosphere we are already committed to a certain amount of global warming because the excess CO2 will remain effective for many years. In addition the continued burning of fossil fuels will continue to add to the atmospheric burden of CO2. This warming will inevitably cause some climate change.
The area of the world most vulnerable to the effects of global warming induced climate change is the Amazon basin. The climate change models show that rising sea temperatures in the Pacific Ocean result in less rainfall and a longer dry season in the Amazon Basin. As described above this could lead to a reversal of the Amazon basin acting as a CO2 sink and it becoming a major source of CO2 returning the billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere that have been stored there.
If the Amazon rainforest burns and releases billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a short period then this will be a further boost to global warming that will result in significantly higher end of century temperatures.
The climate change model with climate change induced feedbacks indicates that on present trends the date for the change from CO2 sink to source for the Amazon rainforest is about 2050. So we have not got much time to get CO2 under control before that might happen. The Amazon rainforest is at present still acting as a buffer and is protecting us from the full effect of the global warming that would be created if all the CO2 we produce remained in the atmosphere.
For an estimate of the significance of these effects please see Article 1a. If temperatures rise too high then there could be another natural phenomenon which would lead to the release of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas
Current research based on the analysis of ancient sediments from Vladivostock and fossil evidence from Wyoming indicates that runaway methane global warming events have occurred in the past and the conditions prevailing on Earth now are suitable for it to happen again."
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/1_global_warming.htm
"There is a broad scientific consensus that human generated carbon dioxide plays a large role in global climate change, but a vocal minority rejects this view. From either perspective, our attention has been almost exclusively focused on carbon dioxide as a primary cause of global climate change. But today, another gas potentially causing global climate change must be considered: methane (natural) gas.
Global warming, significant as it seems today, is in its early stages. The role of carbon dioxide as its cause is being studied and argued aggressively. In contrast the rapidly growing role that methane is sure to play in climate change receives little attention. It surely must be considered if we are to control our climate's future."
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120913/OPINION/120919685/1117
In my mind, there is no question that global warming/environmental degradation is real. The vast majority of the world's scientists agree with this, but there will always be some that challenge that assertion, despite all the evidence to the contrary. They have various motives, including being paid by big business or trying to sell books.
The satellite photographs of the polar ice caps don't lie. They are shrinking radically and dramatically. As the ice and snow are melted, less heat is reflected away from the earth, and more is absorbed. The oceans absorb much CO2, but when the CO2 in the oceans reaches a certain level, there will be a catastrophic release of CO2 in rapid fashion. This is something that must be avoided.
If you want to help, stay away from Mickey Ds and stop scarfing burgers & steaks. This is the single biggest contribution an individual can make to reduce global warming/environmental degradation.
In the case of those who would profit from "carbon credits", this has nothing to do with the science of climate change, and everything to do with human greed. Some people will try to exploit any situation.
That doesn't mean that global warming is not happening.
Al Gore probably has 10,000 times the carbon footprint of the average person, and he also raises beef cattle on his land. This makes him a hypocrite, like most politicians, but it doesn't mean he is wrong about what's happening.
The year I was born, the population of the world was 3 billion people. It took from the beginning of time to get to that level. It took only another 50 years to more than double and is currently closing in on 7 billion. To think that all these additional billions of people are having no negative effect on the environment is naive, and just plain wrong. In addition to the many billions of people added in the last 50 years, we now have over a billion head of cattle in the world. This is easily the single most destructive thing we do to the planet, both in terms of global warming and overall environmental degradation. Do a little Googling on the environmental impact of cattle ranching. Raising a billion head of beef cattle means clear cutting forests (where we get our oxygen from) in order to plant more soybeans in order to feed more cattle. It also means growing mountains of grain to feed said cattle, and to grow mountains of grain, you need mountains of fertilizers and pesticides, all of which end up in our waters, eventually running off into the oceans, where all manner of ocean life is being negatively impacted in dramatic fashion. Aside from this, cattle give off methane gas in copious amounts, and this is the second most destructive gas after CO2. Raising beef cattle yields only 10% of the food that the grains used to feed them would provide. In addition, the movement of all these fertilizers/pesticides/grain in itself creates tremendous amounts of CO2.
Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period (http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html). The agricultural sector is the biggest emitter of methane gas by far. Methane gas is trapped in the permafrost at the poles. If it is released due to the melting of these icecaps, the result would be disastrous.
" We know there are extensive methane hydrate and permafrost deposits all around the world. We have evidence that we are at the beginning of a period of global warming that is probably being made worse by the continuing build up of CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning. Recent computer modelling incorporating the feed back effects of global warming that has already occurred suggests that by about 2050 we may start to lose the beneficial effects of the Amazon rain forest as a carbon sink. This could lead to temperature rises of 5 to 8 degrees centigrade by 2100. This would be uncharted territory and no one really knows at present how the world's environmental systems would change but we now have the evidence from the geological past. On the basis of this evidence global warming can lead to methane releases which once started would escalate. This would be the worst possible thing to happen because once started there would be no way of stopping a runaway methane global warming event. We CAN reduce our CO2 emissions from fossil fuels but we COULD NOT reduce methane emissions once they started, huge natural forces would take over and change our world. This would probably result in the melting of the Antarctic icecap which would raise sea levels by 50 metres and would completely change the climates of the world."
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm
"Up to now it has been generally assumed that global warming will be a linear process. However evidence from the geological past linked with climate modelling that takes into account the global warming that is already locked into the system indicates that there may not be a linear response to rising CO2 levels. There is a danger that at some point we will cross a threshhold when global warming accelerates. By continuing to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we are getting closer to that point.
From the analysis of the bubbles of air trapped in ice cores taken from the Greenland icecap that are up to 500,000 years old it has been shown that the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and the CO2 content has followed a regular 100,000 year cycle of change with the CO2 content and temperature closely linked and following the same graph line. Within this regular cycle there are some recently discovered very short periods of approximately only a few hundred years duration when temperatures rise dramatically by 8 degrees centigrade above the slower rises of up to 7 degrees centigrade. This gives a total range of 15 degrees centigrade from peak to trough. These records show natural processes at work before the impact of man's activities. We are currently in the lower temperature part of the cycle.
During the period covered by the ice core research the CO2 content of the atmosphere has varied between 170 and 280 ppm. (parts per million). From 1850 to today with the added input from the burning of fossil fuels the CO2 content has risen to 350 ppm. So we are now well outside of the historic range of values and CO2 levels are going to continue to rise for a long time yet and temperatures will follow.
Recent research has shown that the Amazon rain forest is not a stable mature forest with growth and decay in balance but is in fact an expanding forest that is being fertilised by the excess atmospheric CO2. The trees are getting bigger and there is a net take up of 5000 kg of carbon per hectare per year ( 1 hectare = 100 x 100 metres ). The total area of forest is 400 million hectares so the whole forest could be absorbing 2 billion tons of carbon per year.
Research in the savanah lands to the east of the Amazon Basin has established that the crucial factor determining the development of the rain forest is the length of the dry season. The savanah to the east of the Amazon Basin and the eastern Amazon rain forest both receive about the same amount of rainfall, 1500 mm per year. However in the savanah the dry season lasts 6 months but in the rainforest the dry season only lasts 4 months.
As a result of the longer dry season the savanah catches fire an average of twice in ten years whereas the rainforest with the shorter dry season does not dry out and remains damp enough to prevent fire. In the savanah the fires destroy most of the vegetation and this prevents the savanah developing into a rainforest. If the dry season in the rainforest was extended to 6 months by climate change effects then the rainforest would dry out and burn and could not then re-establish itself. If the rainforest burnt this would release the CO2 currently being absorbed year by year. So the forest would change from being a buffer which for a hundred years has absorbed our excess CO2 into a major source of CO2 releasing tens of years build up of CO2 in a matter of weeks.
It is accepted by all, including climate change sceptics, that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to increased global warming and many computer models have been constructed giving a rise in average atmospheric temperature of between 2 and 6 degrees centigrade by the end of the century i.e. by 2100.
But only now are models being constructed that incorporate a feed-back into the model of the effects of changes in world climate due to the changes in temperature that are predicted by the model as the model programme runs. One of the most important effects of climate change is the release of carbon dioxide from natural processes as atmospheric temperature rises.
Because of the "above normal" level of CO2 already in the atmosphere we are already committed to a certain amount of global warming because the excess CO2 will remain effective for many years. In addition the continued burning of fossil fuels will continue to add to the atmospheric burden of CO2. This warming will inevitably cause some climate change.
The area of the world most vulnerable to the effects of global warming induced climate change is the Amazon basin. The climate change models show that rising sea temperatures in the Pacific Ocean result in less rainfall and a longer dry season in the Amazon Basin. As described above this could lead to a reversal of the Amazon basin acting as a CO2 sink and it becoming a major source of CO2 returning the billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere that have been stored there.
If the Amazon rainforest burns and releases billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a short period then this will be a further boost to global warming that will result in significantly higher end of century temperatures.
The climate change model with climate change induced feedbacks indicates that on present trends the date for the change from CO2 sink to source for the Amazon rainforest is about 2050. So we have not got much time to get CO2 under control before that might happen. The Amazon rainforest is at present still acting as a buffer and is protecting us from the full effect of the global warming that would be created if all the CO2 we produce remained in the atmosphere.
For an estimate of the significance of these effects please see Article 1a. If temperatures rise too high then there could be another natural phenomenon which would lead to the release of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas
Current research based on the analysis of ancient sediments from Vladivostock and fossil evidence from Wyoming indicates that runaway methane global warming events have occurred in the past and the conditions prevailing on Earth now are suitable for it to happen again."
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/1_global_warming.htm
"There is a broad scientific consensus that human generated carbon dioxide plays a large role in global climate change, but a vocal minority rejects this view. From either perspective, our attention has been almost exclusively focused on carbon dioxide as a primary cause of global climate change. But today, another gas potentially causing global climate change must be considered: methane (natural) gas.
Global warming, significant as it seems today, is in its early stages. The role of carbon dioxide as its cause is being studied and argued aggressively. In contrast the rapidly growing role that methane is sure to play in climate change receives little attention. It surely must be considered if we are to control our climate's future."
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120913/OPINION/120919685/1117
In my mind, there is no question that global warming/environmental degradation is real. The vast majority of the world's scientists agree with this, but there will always be some that challenge that assertion, despite all the evidence to the contrary. They have various motives, including being paid by big business or trying to sell books.
The satellite photographs of the polar ice caps don't lie. They are shrinking radically and dramatically. As the ice and snow are melted, less heat is reflected away from the earth, and more is absorbed. The oceans absorb much CO2, but when the CO2 in the oceans reaches a certain level, there will be a catastrophic release of CO2 in rapid fashion. This is something that must be avoided.
If you want to help, stay away from Mickey Ds and stop scarfing burgers & steaks. This is the single biggest contribution an individual can make to reduce global warming/environmental degradation.
In the case of those who would profit from "carbon credits", this has nothing to do with the science of climate change, and everything to do with human greed. Some people will try to exploit any situation.
That doesn't mean that global warming is not happening.
Al Gore probably has 10,000 times the carbon footprint of the average person, and he also raises beef cattle on his land. This makes him a hypocrite, like most politicians, but it doesn't mean he is wrong about what's happening.
Last edited:
unspoken
Member
Source?
Also, what myth did this article "bust" and where did it "bust" it? Salt ferts are good for plants. Shall we continue filling rivers, streams, lakes, and the ocean with them? After all, they are NUTRIENTS. See how could they possibly be bad?
Spray some Asprin on it.... 325mg to be exact...
Trying to be clever doesn't suit you.
You only make a bigger fool of yourself.
You need an education first.
Regardless the argument, carbon dioxide emissions are not the only problem.
What I intended to bring about was another perspective to the scheme of things we must endure these days.
If we look at the destruction of the environment on all accounts, the ocean pollution, deforestation, mining, farming, almost everything we do is destroying our home. I do not think Co2 is the biggest factor in the equation in the destruction.
Yes we do cause considerable damage with Co2 emissions when you look at China who is currently suffering drastic environmental issues with its current industrialized nation that is not regulated.
In North America this year we are seeing the results of Fracking. Oil spills are happening while the corporations responsible still find legal loopholes to avoid their responsibility for the their greedy measures that are now destroying everything, everywhere.
From the pharmaceuticals in the water, to the GMO soy in everything, made in china logos, and a military industrial complex vaster and more powerful than everything on earth, Co2 is just another part of the big puzzle that when pieced together makes you wonder why ultimately? Its almost as if those 1% have a disease.
Just to recap, I wanted to make those aware that there could be a Carbon Tax, that well there could be a Carbon Tax. Look at cars, extremely regulated segment of life that has also become extremely essential for day to day living but is under control.
Just like the Maryland governor is charging tax on the rain that fails from the sky.
This always leaves me thinking,
how is this going on and how are there not more aware people of it!? But also, how are humans capable of doing this to other humans?! Then I remember the history of what happens on earth behind closed doors.
What I intended to bring about was another perspective to the scheme of things we must endure these days.
If we look at the destruction of the environment on all accounts, the ocean pollution, deforestation, mining, farming, almost everything we do is destroying our home. I do not think Co2 is the biggest factor in the equation in the destruction.
Yes we do cause considerable damage with Co2 emissions when you look at China who is currently suffering drastic environmental issues with its current industrialized nation that is not regulated.
In North America this year we are seeing the results of Fracking. Oil spills are happening while the corporations responsible still find legal loopholes to avoid their responsibility for the their greedy measures that are now destroying everything, everywhere.
From the pharmaceuticals in the water, to the GMO soy in everything, made in china logos, and a military industrial complex vaster and more powerful than everything on earth, Co2 is just another part of the big puzzle that when pieced together makes you wonder why ultimately? Its almost as if those 1% have a disease.
Just to recap, I wanted to make those aware that there could be a Carbon Tax, that well there could be a Carbon Tax. Look at cars, extremely regulated segment of life that has also become extremely essential for day to day living but is under control.
Just like the Maryland governor is charging tax on the rain that fails from the sky.
This always leaves me thinking,
how is this going on and how are there not more aware people of it!? But also, how are humans capable of doing this to other humans?! Then I remember the history of what happens on earth behind closed doors.
CHEMTRAILING - Two Guys in Jet Catches them Spraying
That my friends is what is causing the atmospheric issues. Not Co2 from the Chinese Coal plants with zero filters or regulation on the exhaust which pump tons of shit into the air, like prior said volcano. Oh and your Vespa is another issue. I swear 90% of the shit out there is a DISTRACTION
That my friends is what is causing the atmospheric issues. Not Co2 from the Chinese Coal plants with zero filters or regulation on the exhaust which pump tons of shit into the air, like prior said volcano. Oh and your Vespa is another issue. I swear 90% of the shit out there is a DISTRACTION
I agree. This is a political, not a scientific, debate. Same goes for creationism/evolution and a half dozen other topics. Pretend science doesn't turn a TOS prohibited topic into something else. I come here to learn or have a laugh. I can find fringe ravings anywhere.
Do you ever realize why conspiracy theorists are always construction workers or unemployed.
When the last time you saw a astrophysicist conspiracy theorist lol.
.
When the last time you saw a astrophysicist conspiracy theorist lol.
.
I understand where you are coming from but what about the other people coming here? I mean it's fine that you come here to laugh and learn but just because you personally don't find something funny or educational doesn't mean that someone else doesn't. Personally I find a lot of these conspiracy theories quite laughable and you always learn something in a debate even if it is nothing more then how the person you're debating with thinks. I mean like this topic, the opening post starts out in part by saying because we use CO2 to make plants grow more is proof there isn't enough CO2 available or there is a shortage. That's laughable since CO2 supplementation is a technique for getting better then normal results. The more CO2 the better plants will do, even to the point of making the atmosphere unbreathable for non plant life forms. If someone truly buys into that argument, that there is a shortage of CO2 and that adding CO2 to a greenhouse is proof of that, then you've learned that person has a flaw in their critical reasoning skills and will likely believe anything that supports a particular belief they hold regardless of the truth.
I just really don't get why everyone should be denied the option to discuss Politics, Religion, Conspiracy theories, etc. Just because some people don't like it. Why can't those people just not participate in or read those threads?
I'd have to check on the others but I know for a fact that politics is a forbidden topic. It annoyed me at first but I've come to like it. Politics, religion and conspiracy theories piss people off and drive them apart. Nice to have a place where by mutual agreement the community focuses on what is shared instead of what divides.
OTOH, these threads are easy enough to ignore. That's what I try to do. Sometimes I can't stop myself from looking
I see scientists labeled as conspiracy theorists a lot.
Reread this thread for example.
I'd have to check on the others but I know for a fact that politics is a forbidden topic. It annoyed me at first but I've come to like it. Politics, religion and conspiracy theories piss people off and drive them apart. Nice to have a place where by mutual agreement the community focuses on what is shared instead of what divides.
OTOH, these threads are easy enough to ignore. That's what I try to do. Sometimes I can't stop myself from looking
Actually it's not based on mutual agreement but rather accepting that those are the rules. Even still though the topics slip in because people do want to talk about them and so they find ways to work it in. Mods will usually allow it to continue as long as people remain civil.
That's the real issue, people don't remain civil and the ones least likely to remain civil are the ones that don't really want to discuss the topic because their beliefs are set in stone. So they enter the discussion seeking to change people's minds and end up getting mad when they're unable to do so. The only other time they maintain civility other then while trying to change someone's mind is when they find everyone in the thread shares a belief similar to theirs. Like if they believed in God and went into a thread seeming to question God's existence but only found others who believed in God they would be fine. If someone came in that didn't believe but then changed their mind and began to believe they would be fine. If however someone was there or came in who didn't believe in God and whose mind couldn't be changed then they would get mad and become uncivil and might even demand that the thread be closed even though they were willing to participate up to that point.
People that genuinely enjoy discussing such topics don't get all upset when they can't change someone's opinion they just agree to disagree and move on. That's not to say the discussion doesn't get heated but they have a thick enough skin to handle it.
So I am a conspiracy theorist? Please, open your mind to view other perspectives, I never claimed ultimate truth with my posting, I just found it interesting and I truly believe if we were to commit full time to resolving this issue, that a large portion of Global Warming will be debunked especially when revolving around the fact that Co2 is the doing the most damage.
I've done my research and starting this thread was once again, another perspective for others to enjoy. It may not be the key to the puzzle, but it is a big piece when you look at everything taking place on earth today. Co2 is the last of our worries for things entering the atmosphere.
I dare you to use the words Conspiracy Theorists after watching what Alex Jones has to say. I find it quite rude that you come off as intellectual but you still use propaganda to pass off others, just like the Government wants you to. This is no conspiracy and even suggesting that, shows that you forgot your critical thinking skills.
sir
