Message from @Hirohito's chins

Discord ID: 587704127233064960


2019-06-09 17:19:29 UTC  

Demonozing co2 is the dumbest position anyone could ever take.

2019-06-09 17:19:42 UTC  

Unless you want to kill everything

2019-06-09 18:59:19 UTC  

@Citizen Z would that not be harmful to humans in anyway?

2019-06-09 19:15:25 UTC  

Co2 is good and im sticking to my story

2019-06-09 19:27:45 UTC  

Life has also thrived at the bottom of the ocean and in Antarctica

2019-06-09 19:27:52 UTC  

Just because it’s habitable for them

2019-06-09 19:28:00 UTC  

Doesn’t mean it’s habitable for us

2019-06-09 20:00:01 UTC  

single cell organisms are much more survivable than humans

2019-06-09 20:00:03 UTC  

for sure

2019-06-09 22:25:46 UTC  

Life on the suface of the earth thrived with co2 levels many times higher

2019-06-09 23:04:41 UTC  

Interesting point Citizen

2019-06-09 23:45:31 UTC  

Again, life also thrived in the marianas trench.

2019-06-09 23:45:40 UTC  

doesn’t mean humans can live down there

2019-06-10 00:37:59 UTC  

Yes exactly

2019-06-10 00:38:11 UTC  

Life thrives because of co2

2019-06-10 01:03:26 UTC  

I agree with you @Citizen Z

2019-06-10 01:05:50 UTC  

As global warming is not what it seems

2019-06-10 18:06:22 UTC  

@Citizen Z do you not believe hat co2 in large quantities is toxic to humans

2019-06-10 19:05:21 UTC  

Co2 said

2019-06-10 19:05:25 UTC  

Hoes mad

2019-06-10 19:05:50 UTC  

My mom told me that co2 hoes mad

2019-06-10 22:43:26 UTC  

2019-06-10 22:43:33 UTC  

The earth is flat.

2019-06-10 22:44:25 UTC  

Agent Smith is gay

2019-06-10 22:44:40 UTC  

Morpheus is gay

2019-06-10 22:44:43 UTC  

v

2019-06-10 23:04:16 UTC  
2019-06-10 23:04:34 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/551433518991933442/587779171900456988/20180202_152306.png

2019-06-10 23:04:45 UTC  

We are only at .04%

2019-06-10 23:04:59 UTC  

50% increase would be .06%

2019-06-10 23:05:08 UTC  

Well within human limitations

2019-06-10 23:05:28 UTC  

Not even .1

2019-06-10 23:05:42 UTC  

We can handle 1.0%

2019-06-11 02:27:16 UTC  
2019-06-11 19:33:00 UTC  

The "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom [only] 3,146 responded. Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them "experts."
Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

2019-06-11 19:33:32 UTC  

shows you how they manipulate the numbers to push a agenda

2019-06-11 19:34:38 UTC  

So this is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.