Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

World Health Organization: US cleanest air in G7

24

Comments

  • PostGameOrangeSlicesPostGameOrangeSlices Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 25,531 Swaye's Wigwam
    As long as there is snow anywhere on the planet we are in a fucking ice age.
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,860

    As long as there is snow anywhere on the planet we are in a fucking ice age.

    Well if there are ice caps. But still.
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,860

    I heard someone the other day fretting, "You know that they're finding dead antelopes being exposed by thawing permafrost in Siberia??!!" I pointed out that antelopes are a temperate climate animal, not sub-artic, odd that they were able to live in Siberia at some point in the pre-pre-pre-pre-Industrial past.



    And no, I don't get laid much.

    I feel like there is some good bsing material to be had with antelopes and temperate climate animals.

    Don't sell yourself short.
  • SoutherndawgSoutherndawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,285 Founders Club

    doogie said:

    I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you

    I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
    It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
  • AZDuckAZDuck Member Posts: 15,381

    doogie said:

    I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you

    I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
    It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
    So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
  • DooglesDoogles Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,548 Founders Club
    I don't know much about the environment, but everyone needs a purpose.

    The same way I drink too much, do blow, and pour my soul into screaming at Husky opponents on crisp fall days is the same way nerd environmentalists channel their frustration at things like withdrawaling from the Paris Accord.

    Kumbaya let's get along.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 43,664 Standard Supporter

    doogie said:

    I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you

    I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
    It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
    @BillNyeScienceDawg, true?
  • RedRocketRedRocket Member Posts: 1,527

    doogie said:

    I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you

    I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
    It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
    Well if we're going to play the pick random facts from wikipedia game then I'll do my part. The whooping 0.040% stat is irrelevant. It can make up a small part of overall atmospheric volume and still play an integral role in regulating earth's temperature.

    I have no idea where you are getting the human activities have only contributed 3% to total CO2 atmospheric concentration. CO2 concentration has increased by ~40% since the Industrial Revolution. Before the Industrial Revolutino CO2 levels had stayed pretty flat for ~10,000 years. Current levels are at 400 ppm. Pre-Industrial revolution and 10,000 years prior 280ppm. Sounds significantly higher than 3% to me.
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,860
    Is the environment shrinking or enlarging tittays?

    I vote the throbber to chinvestigate.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    AZDuck said:

    doogie said:

    I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you

    I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
    It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
    So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
    Southern prefers to believe politicians and political pundits over actual scientists.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    PurpleJ said:

    Is the environment shrinking or enlarging tittays?

    I vote the throbber to chinvestigate.

    We need it to get colder. Ice age anyone?

    image
    Ass too small.
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,849
    AZDuck said:

    doogie said:

    I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you

    I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
    It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
    So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
    Grants don't approve themselves.
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,849
    2001400ex said:

    AZDuck said:

    doogie said:

    I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you

    I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
    It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
    So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
    Southern prefers to believe politicians and political pundits over actual scientists.
    When you have Hondo.....
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,110
    salemcoog said:

    AZDuck said:

    doogie said:

    I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you

    I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
    It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
    So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
    Grants don't approve themselves.
    Did you get that from Facebook too?
  • CuntWaffleCuntWaffle Member Posts: 22,499
    2001400ex said:

    AZDuck said:

    doogie said:

    I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you

    I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
    It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
    So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
    Southern prefers to believe politicians and political pundits over actual scientists.
    Lol right because scientists don't have some sort of agenda either.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    AZDuck said:

    doogie said:

    I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you

    I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
    It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
    So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
    Southern prefers to believe politicians and political pundits over actual scientists.
    Lol right because scientists don't have some sort of agenda either.
    Scientists have peer reviewed articles and accountability when they lie about shit. Politicians and political pundits make money off lying about shit and no one cares when they do.
  • CuntWaffleCuntWaffle Member Posts: 22,499
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    AZDuck said:

    doogie said:

    I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you

    I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
    It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
    So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
    Southern prefers to believe politicians and political pundits over actual scientists.
    Lol right because scientists don't have some sort of agenda either.
    Scientists have peer reviewed articles and accountability when they lie about shit. Politicians and political pundits make money off lying about shit and no one cares when they do.
    Good Lord you are so fucking stupid.
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,110

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    AZDuck said:

    doogie said:

    I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you

    I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
    It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
    So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
    Southern prefers to believe politicians and political pundits over actual scientists.
    Lol right because scientists don't have some sort of agenda either.
    Scientists have peer reviewed articles and accountability when they lie about shit. Politicians and political pundits make money off lying about shit and no one cares when they do.
    Good Lord you are so fucking stupid.
    Great rebuttal as always.
Sign In or Register to comment.