Liberal Forum

////////////Carbon dioxide (\(\text{CO}_{2}\)) pollution is the primary human-caused greenhouse gas, accounting for roughly 80–84% of emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) for electricity, transportation, and industry. This trapped heat drives climate change, causing rising sea levels, extreme weather, and ocean acidification. //////////////////////////

jerrab » 26 Jan 2026, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 12:19 pm

=======================================

• Photosynthesis Power: During the day, plants absorb much more CO2 for photosynthesis than they release through respiration, storing the carbon in their tissues.
• Carbon Cycle: The CO2 plants release comes from the atmosphere they've already captured; they act as carbon sinks, storing carbon long-term in wood and soil. 

In Summary
Plants are part of the natural carbon cycle, both taking in and releasing CO2, but their overall effect is to remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they emit, making them crucial for regulating Earth's climate.

I got you to google. Well, that is a start.

Now let us do a thought experiment. 

Zoologists realease an extra hundred thousand zebras onto the savanna. Before the release, they count how many prides of lions aru out there, and how many lions per pride. 

A year after the release, zoologists return to measure how many lion prides there are, and how many lions are in each pride. 

Quiz:

Given the information you have been presented, do you expect that zoologists will find

a. Fewer prides but more lions;
b. More prides and more lions;
c. Same number of prides and lions;
d. Damned *** ate all the lions;
e. All of the above

If you chose b, you chose correctly. More zebras = more lions. Now, let's track this lesson across domains. More carbon = more and lusher carbon sinks. 

You are literally MADE of carbon. Who can trick you to think you are made of pollution can **** you in your *** with a quick bit of mesmerism. 
 
 

*Roshambo » 26 Jan 2026, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 11:03 am

Do you possess any evidence that the information I shared concerning temperatures is incorrect? When it comes to the measurement and documentation of temperature, I do not place my trust in individuals like you. The climate is undergoing changes; why is "up for debate", and I have no desire to engage in this discussion. Demonstrate that the figures are erroneous.

https://i.postimg.cc/g0DKNx9y/GAT.jpg

Did you ever bother to look at who it is that's funding Berkley Earth and the Hadley Centre UK like I did?
You've got a bunch of far-left liberal organizations who all have the singular agenda of promoting the phony belief that Man is causing "climate change" and they pressure world governments to enact economic hardship on their country with punitive taxes and regulations, which is the precise catalyst that government needs to refer to in order to support their desire to pay for phony "clean energy" methods like solar and wind.  These organizations and others like them have been created to provide "evidence" which they create through worthless computer models using cherry-picked data they use to give them the blessing they desire to inflict more controls over the country.

I've used scientific test companies in my business for many years.  And every time I do, the first question they ask me is to tell them the results I'm looking for in order to continue to use their company.  Obviously, any scientific testing company wants their customers like me to continue using them, and they know damn well that if a business like mine does NOT get the results I'm looking for, I will find another company that is happy to do so.  Your faith in their honesty is undeserved because they know their own research is never questioned when they're giving the results the customer wants.  Especially when their customers are far-left liberal organizations funded by like-minded and thoroughly gullible liberals like yourself.

Therein lies the reason that the data and the results they provide HAVE NEVER matched the predictions they support over the past 50 years, and based on my own first-hand experience, I'll never believe otherwise no matter how many gullible liberals try to convince me otherwise.
 
 

Zeets2 » 26 Jan 2026, 12:51 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 12:51 pm

Did you ever bother to look at who it is that's funding Berkley Earth and the Hadley Centre UK like I did?
You've got a bunch of far-left liberal organizations who all have the singular agenda of promoting the phony belief that Man is causing "climate change" and they pressure world governments to enact economic hardship on their country with punitive taxes and regulations, which is the precise catalyst that government needs to refer to in order to support their desire to pay for phony "clean energy" methods like solar and wind.  These organizations and others like them have been created to provide "evidence" which they create through worthless computer models using cherry-picked data they use to give them the blessing they desire to inflict more controls over the country.

I've used scientific test companies in my business for many years.  And every time I do, the first question they ask me is to tell them the results I'm looking for in order to continue to use their company.  Obviously, any scientific testing company wants their customers like me to continue using them, and they know damn well that if a business like mine does NOT get the results I'm looking for, I will find another company that is happy to do so.  Your faith in their honesty is undeserved because they know their own research is never questioned when they're giving the results the customer wants.  Especially when their customers are far-left liberal organizations funded by like-minded and thoroughly gullible liberals like yourself.

Therein lies the reason that the data and the results they provide HAVE NEVER matched the predictions they support over the past 50 years, and based on my own first-hand experience, I'll never believe otherwise no matter how many gullible liberals try to convince me otherwise.

prove the numbers wrong
 

Do you possess any evidence that the information I shared concerning temperatures is incorrect? When it comes to the measurement and documentation of temperature, I do not place my trust in individuals like you. The climate is undergoing changes; why is "up for debate", and I have no desire to engage in this discussion. Demonstrate that the figures are erroneous.

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2026, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 12:26 pm

I got you to google. Well, that is a start.

Now let us do a thought experiment. 

Zoologists realease an extra hundred thousand zebras onto the savanna. Before the release, they count how many prides of lions aru out there, and how many lions per pride. 

A year after the release, zoologists return to measure how many lion prides there are, and how many lions are in each pride. 

Quiz:

Given the information you have been presented, do you expect that zoologists will find

a. Fewer prides but more lions;
b. More prides and more lions;
c. Same number of prides and lions;
d. Damned *** ate all the lions;
e. All of the above

If you chose b, you chose correctly. More zebras = more lions. Now, let's track this lesson across domains. More carbon = more and lusher carbon sinks. 

You are literally MADE of carbon. Who can trick you to think you are made of pollution can **** you in your *** with a quick bit of mesmerism.

Everything is a psyop to get the peons to slowly die off. The ([globalists]) want to live in Elysium with pristine habitats and robotic drone armies keeping everyone else walled off in enclaves. 

It's literally in every sci fi narrative for a reason

   

jerra b » 26 Jan 2026, 12:25 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 12:25 pm

////////////Carbon dioxide (\(\text{CO}_{2}\)) pollution is the primary human-caused greenhouse gas, accounting for roughly 80–84% of emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) for electricity, transportation, and industry. This trapped heat drives climate change, causing rising sea levels, extreme weather, and ocean acidification. //////////////////////////

Every vertical time zone per rotation of the planet has 24 climate zones horizontally. 12 above the equator and 12 below the equator being opposite seasons same rotation of the planet rotating, orbited by the moon, revolving around a star at the core of the solar system people still argue whether there are 8 or none planets in this system within this galaxy existing simultaneously with all results individually inhabiting space from atoms to human population native to this atmosphere now. 8.3 billion by last estimate.

You always stating your intellectual character is a higher form of evolution than your ancestral time alive.

*Roshambo » 26 Jan 2026, 12:53 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 12:53 pm

prove the numbers wrong

Do you possess any evidence that the information I shared concerning temperatures is incorrect? When it comes to the measurement and documentation of temperature, I do not place my trust in individuals like you. The climate is undergoing changes; why is "up for debate", and I have no desire to engage in this discussion. Demonstrate that the figures are erroneous.

I'd bet I could if I was provided all the data that they used to come up with such results.
For example, did they include measurements of the much colder temperatures in Antarctica that has produced huge increases in the amount of ice that has risen over the last decade?  Or do they ignore that simply because that continent is uninhabited and less information is available compared to other parts of the globe?  

What I'm telling you is that there are an infinite number of ways that a test can be manipulated in order to achieve the desired result.  But you prefer to take their figures as gospel, despite the fact that it aligns with their left-wing agenda, which is to stoke the fears of an upcoming cataclysmic event throughout the world and keep their funding coming.  I daresay that ANY scientific testing organization that provided evidence to the contrary would find themselves going broke very quickly.  And THAT is the driving factor in how they present their tainted data, which people like you are happy to accept.  

I'm simply not, and MY beliefs are based on how they've been proven wrong in their predictions EVERY TIME over the past 50 years.  And no "demonstration" is needed to reach that conclusion.  You simply choose to be far more gullible than I would ever be.
 

Zeets2 » 26 Jan 2026, 1:21 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 1:21 pm

I'd bet I could if I was provided all the data that they used to come up with such results.
For example, did they include measurements of the much colder temperatures in Antarctica that has produced huge increases in the amount of ice that has risen over the last decade?  Or do they ignore that simply because that continent is uninhabited and less information is available compared to other parts of the globe?  

What I'm telling you is that there are an infinite number of ways that a test can be manipulated in order to achieve the desired result.  But you prefer to take their figures as gospel, despite the fact that it aligns with their left-wing agenda, which is to stoke the fears of an upcoming cataclysmic event throughout the world and keep their funding coming.  I daresay that ANY scientific testing organization that provided evidence to the contrary would find themselves going broke very quickly.  And THAT is the driving factor in how they present their tainted data, which people like you are happy to accept.  

I'm simply not, and MY beliefs are based on how they've been proven wrong in their predictions EVERY TIME over the past 50 years.  And no "demonstration" is needed to reach that conclusion.  You simply choose to be far more gullible than I would ever be.

prove the numbers wrong
 

Do you possess any evidence that the information I shared concerning temperatures is incorrect? When it comes to the measurement and documentation of temperature, I do not place my trust in individuals like you. The climate is undergoing changes; why is "up for debate", and I have no desire to engage in this discussion. Demonstrate that the figures are erroneous.
 

All good Down at the Bayou.. the dut cums are xtra per cp


youtube /watch?v=7GoXVDH656g

UnsureWrexShunnists Selling Elon Sno Ben Wah Ball Throwers in Hell.

gold dut cum vvvvvv

youtu.be/jjyONEHEOgc?si=Sh4LAnAoIK0QNoyf

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2026, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 12:26 pm

I got you to google. Well, that is a start.

Now let us do a thought experiment. 

Zoologists realease an extra hundred thousand zebras onto the savanna. Before the release, they count how many prides of lions aru out there, and how many lions per pride. 

A year after the release, zoologists return to measure how many lion prides there are, and how many lions are in each pride. 

Quiz:

Given the information you have been presented, do you expect that zoologists will find

a. Fewer prides but more lions;
b. More prides and more lions;
c. Same number of prides and lions;
d. Damned *** ate all the lions;
e. All of the above

If you chose b, you chose correctly. More zebras = more lions. Now, let's track this lesson across domains. More carbon = more and lusher carbon sinks. 

You are literally MADE of carbon. Who can trick you to think you are made of pollution can **** you in your *** with a quick bit of mesmerism.

carbon would not be a problem if it stayed in the ground and not burned up in the atmosphere.
 

jerrab » 26 Jan 2026, 3:14 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 3:14 pm

carbon would not be a problem if it stayed in the ground and not burned up in the atmosphere.

Just reducing Trump's diaper waste could reduce the carbon footprint exponentially.

If we could just get him to stop shyting in the World's Diaper.

 
 

*Roshambo » 26 Jan 2026, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 1:22 pm

prove the numbers wrong
 

Do you possess any evidence that the information I shared concerning temperatures is incorrect? When it comes to the measurement and documentation of temperature, I do not place my trust in individuals like you. The climate is undergoing changes; why is "up for debate", and I have no desire to engage in this discussion. Demonstrate that the figures are erroneous.
 

How about constantly inaccurate by design from those supplying the statistical facts sold as social knowledge regulating human behavior every generation gap alive cradle to grave daily here?

jerrab » 26 Jan 2026, 3:14 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 3:14 pm

carbon would not be a problem if it stayed in the ground and not burned up in the atmosphere.

If it stayed in the ground all the plants would die and then you would die. You want it out of the ground.

If we reduce atmospheric carbon much farther, we can expect an ice age. 

If we DOUBLE atmoshperic carbon, we can expect better crop yeilds and lusher countryside. There is no reason toexpect a warming climate from doubling it.

C02 is a very weak greenhouse gas compared to methane or water vapor. Its relation to warming is that it FOLLOWS warm periods. At 400ppm, it's a trace of a trace. And it isn't a danger to people. Most conference rooms at jobs are regularly above 1000ppm C02. Most American homes average beneath1000ppm, but a large minority average above 1000ppm. When they get as high a 2000, you're in drwosiness and headache territory. 

​​​​​​​You have media narrative ABOUT peer reviewed science. I have peer reviewed science. We're naturally going to disagree. 
 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2026, 3:56 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 3:56 pm

If it stayed in the ground all the plants would die and then you would die. You want it out of the ground.

If we reduce atmospheric carbon much farther, we can expect an ice age. 

If we DOUBLE atmoshperic carbon, we can expect better crop yeilds and lusher countryside. There is no reason toexpect a warming climate from doubling it.

C02 is a very weak greenhouse gas compared to methane or water vapor. Its relation to warming is that it FOLLOWS warm periods. At 400ppm, it's a trace of a trace. And it isn't a danger to people. Most conference rooms at jobs are regularly above 1000ppm C02. Most American homes average beneath1000ppm, but a large minority average above 1000ppm. When they get as high a 2000, you're in drwosiness and headache territory. 

You have media narrative ABOUT peer reviewed science. I have peer reviewed science. We're naturally going to disagree.

plants wuld  not die if oil and coal stayed in the ground.

jerrab » 26 Jan 2026, 4:16 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 4:16 pm

plants wuld  not die if oil and coal stayed in the ground.

You would not be here to find out, dummy. 

*Roshambo » 26 Jan 2026, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 11:03 am

Do you possess any evidence that the information I shared concerning temperatures is incorrect? When it comes to the measurement and documentation of temperature, I do not place my trust in individuals like you. The climate is undergoing changes; why is "up for debate", and I have no desire to engage in this discussion. Demonstrate that the figures are erroneous.

https://i.postimg.cc/g0DKNx9y/GAT.jpg

Yeah, that's how it happens as you COME OUT OF AN ICE AGE, *******!!

Explain WHY none of these so called charlatans (*Climate scientists") have been able to create any model that HINDCASTS with any level of accuracy?? THAT should be easy since we already know the numbers!!

You're so **** EASY to manipulate. 
 

Beekeeper » 26 Jan 2026, 6:03 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 6:03 pm

Yeah, that's how it happens as you COME OUT OF AN ICE AGE, *******!!

Explain WHY none of these so called charlatans (*Climate scientists") have been able to create any model that HINDCASTS with any level of accuracy?? THAT should be easy since we already know the numbers!!

You're so **** EASY to manipulate.

Mathematics is regarded as both a discovery and an invention: we uncover essential truths and patterns that exist within the universe (such as prime numbers or the equation \(1+1=2\)), while simultaneously creating the language, symbols, axioms, and systems (including algebra, calculus, or particular geometries) necessary to articulate, investigate, and expand upon these discovered realities. This results in a combination of identifying pre-existing structures and developing tools to comprehend them.
 
 

jerrab » 26 Jan 2026, 4:16 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 4:16 pm

plants wuld  not die if oil and coal stayed in the ground.

Really??

Here's a REAL SCIENCE QUESTION for you!!

What GAS in our atmosphere do plants use to convert into sugar and release oxygen into the air that WE need to survive??

And what happens if that level of GAS get below a certain level and what happens to plants when it gets above that level??

GO!!

**** moron.

Beekeeper » 26 Jan 2026, 6:20 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 6:20 pm

Really??

Here's a REAL SCIENCE QUESTION for you!!

What GAS in our atmosphere do plants use to convert into sugar and release oxygen into the air that WE need to survive??

And what happens if that level of GAS get below a certain level and what happens to plants when it gets above that level??

GO!!

**** moron.

nothing to do with oil or coal.