global warming will destroy the Earth

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#61
Jun 30, 2015
25,472
13,785
113
#61
KnowMe said:
you can look it up if you want, prove me wrong that plants and other biomass need just as much oxygen nitrogen etc as humans. Honestly I’m not doing the leg work because I already know you think it’s bogus.

I don’t want anyone to except anything I say, honestly I could care less
Click to expand...
Fallacy: burden of proof reversal.

YOU made the assertion that animal life can only survive within a narrow range of atmospheric CO2 (I notice that you've reversed it here). YOU back it up. That's how debate works. I am quite happy to sit back and consider your assertion hogwash until and unless YOU provide reference citations that actually support it... and I'm fully justified in doing so. I'm not doing your homework for you.

By the way, the word is "accept", and the phase is "couldn't care less", but I suppose you don't care about that either.
 
K

KnowMe

Guest
#63
#63
Dino246 said:
Fallacy: burden of proof reversal.

YOU made the assertion that animal life can only survive within a narrow range of atmospheric CO2 (I notice that you've reversed it here). YOU back it up. That's how debate works. I am quite happy to sit back and consider your assertion hogwash until and unless YOU provide reference citations that actually support it... and I'm fully justified in doing so. I'm not doing your homework for you.

By the way, the word is "accept", and the phase is "couldn't care less", but I suppose you don't care about that either.
Click to expand...
Hold up I said oxygen a narrow range of 18-21%. mr hothead.
 
K

KnowMe

Guest
#66
#66
Dino246 said:
Your reference says nothing at all about the minimum levels of carbon dioxide for either plants or animals.

Please provide relevant references, or I will have to consider your assertion to be bogus.
Click to expand...
In post 44 did I say lower carbon levels,
 
K

KnowMe

Guest
#68
#68
Though this talk is quite ironic, humans can’t breath naturally underwater like fish can but I guess I need to prove my findings lol..
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#69
Jun 30, 2015
25,472
13,785
113
#69
KnowMe said:
Read it Dino, you want to be saying I said low co2, I wasn’t going to jack you up on details but you went there.
Click to expand...
KnowMe said:
... Indeed CO2 is a very important part of the atmosphere, though CO2 in it’s natural levels are small all living things need it, 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon.

0.03 is on average but that is all natural production because we need it and the man made additional releases are not part of the natural atmosphere.

plants and other biomass can handle a bigger swing in those percentages above way more but animals and humans no such much, It’s quite delicate balance for air breathers at least.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you aren't so self-righteous and antagonistic in real life. Or maybe you are. When you're ready to act like a respectful adult, continuing this conversation might be worthwhile.
 
K

KnowMe

Guest
#70
#70
Dino246 said:
I'm sure you aren't so self-righteous and antagonistic in real life. Or maybe you are. When you're ready to act like a respectful adult, continuing this conversation might be worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Ok, but I have a feeling why you quoted me in the first place, I think it wasn’t out of the blue or random.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#71
Jun 30, 2015
25,472
13,785
113
#71
KnowMe said:
Ok, but I have a feeling why you quoted me in the first place, I think it wasn’t out of the blue or random.
Click to expand...
I quoted you to show that you had made the claim that animal life exists only within a narrow range of atmospheric CO2. Granted, you did not make that exact claim, but that is a very reasonable conclusion as to what you were claiming. This discussion is about global warming due to increased CO2 levels. Oxygen, by itself, is not the subject.

You're welcome to clarify if I misunderstood you.
 
K

KnowMe

Guest
#72
#72
Dino246 said:
I quoted you to show that you had made the claim that animal life exists only within a narrow range of atmospheric CO2. Granted, you did not make that exact claim, but that is a very reasonable conclusion as to what you were claiming. This discussion is about global warming due to increased CO2 levels. Oxygen, by itself, is not the subject.

You're welcome to clarify if I misunderstood you.
Click to expand...
I did say narrow range of oxygen in post 44, more co2 in the oceans effect oxygen levels but your opinion is it doesn’t, I Accept your opinion, the end later.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#73
Jun 30, 2015
25,472
13,785
113
#73
KnowMe said:
I did say narrow range of oxygen in post 44, more co2 in the oceans effect oxygen levels but your opinion is it doesn’t, I Accept your opinion, the end later.
Click to expand...
To the bolded part: where did I claim that?
 
M

memyselfi

Junior Member
#74
Jan 12, 2017
503
260
63
#74
There are over 5 billion people on the Earth, wouldn't the best way to cut down on CO2 admissions would be put a plastic bag over everyone's head so when they exhaled they would not destroy the ozone!?!

Maybe not the Dems. we need them to save the Earth!!!
 
K

KnowMe

Guest
#75
#75
memyselfi said:
There are over 5 billion people on the Earth, wouldn't the best way to cut down on CO2 admissions would be put a plastic bag over everyone's head so when they exhaled they would not destroy the ozone!?!

Maybe not the Dems. we need them to save the Earth!!!
Click to expand...
No the dems got to go lol jk. I don’t think it’s much of destroying it rather making the balance go haywire.

water and air have a give and take relationship, most of the co2 is in the ocean, most of the o2 is in the air.
the seas flushes away excess co2 and produces oxygen, to much co2 in the ocean can cause it to be acidic which isn’t good for living creatures in it.
 
M

memyselfi

Junior Member
#76
Jan 12, 2017
503
260
63
#76
KnowMe said:
No the dems got to go lol jk. I don’t think it’s much of destroying it rather making the balance go haywire.

water and air have a give and take relationship, most of the co2 is in the ocean, most of the o2 is in the air.
the seas flushes away excess co2 and produces oxygen, to much co2 in the ocean can cause it to be acidic which isn’t good for living creatures in it.
Click to expand...
Are you so crazy that you did ot realize the 5 billion humans would die with a plastic bag over their head... or does not human life matter at the point to be right about global worming!?!
 
K

KnowMe

Guest
#77
#77
memyselfi said:
Are you so crazy that you did ot realize the 5 billion humans would die with a plastic bag over their head... or does not human life matter at the point to be right about global worming!?!
Click to expand...
If you could get 5 billion to place plastic bags over their heads I might consider it lol.
 
M

memyselfi

Junior Member
#80
Jan 12, 2017
503
260
63
#80
KnowMe said:
I don’t know about worming.
Click to expand...

FUNNY... I have already been "spanked" over "worming" v. warming… Is that your defense… ? Sorry you already missed the joke on me... Do you have a real rebuttal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.