Climate change messed up Mars

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

... eehhhbuhuurrrrr

Wanna try again in English ?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Wanna try again in English ?

Ok... eehhubbuhrrrrr duuunHAMMMMMM the "independent"...

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Ok eehhubbuhrrrrr duuunHAMMMMMM
English ?

Looks like your kinda woman whiffy,

[IIFFOFRDB]

ManBearPig save the 0zombies...

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You think you can call me stupid, lol. But you're the one that totes the idea that something can come from nothing. Now that's ridiculous.


Jim

woomby the EUNUCH believes that one day grow some balls and he'll finally be able to get a hard on too !

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by timpage

Yes, the current version of the "Know Nothings" from days of yore....fucking idiots make decisions about scientific matters based on Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart editorials and are apparently unaware that NASA has had a rover cruising around Mars for the last decade. Maroons.

Something is confusing here Tim, we all know that Climate change is the result of the use of carbon based fuels burned by human life forms on this planet. So what is confusing is how climate change could have occurred and destroyed Mars when it is the direct result of man abuse of the planet. Are you saying you have proof of higher forms of life living on mars and using carbon based fuels? If not that how did this change occur on Mars, the liberals have been saying for years that it is not a natural occurance but rather the result of man. Can you please explain this to me? Or are you really saying that it is a natural occurance and obviously it occurs whether there is human life present or not. I will await your educated response to my questions.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Something is confusing here Tim, we all know that Climate change is the result of the use of carbon based fuels burned by human life forms on this planet. So what is confusing is how climate change could have occurred and destroyed Mars when it is the direct result of man abuse of the planet. Are you saying you have proof of higher forms of life living on mars and using carbon based fuels? If not that how did this change occur on Mars, the liberals have been saying for years that it is not a natural occurance but rather the result of man. Can you please explain this to me? Or are you really saying that it is a natural occurance and obviously it occurs whether there is human life present or not. I will await your educated response to my questions.

Because Mars and Earth are exactly the same...

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Because Mars and Earth are exactly the same...

Never said they were and for this example it is not necessary for them to be the same. The question is "is climate change a normal result in the lifespan of a planet" or is it the result "of mans abuse of the planet and something that man can change". So please stop trying to delfect the conversation.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Never said they were and for this example it is not necessary for them to be the same. The question is "is climate change a normal result in the lifespan of a planet" or is it the result "of mans abuse of the planet and something that man can change". So please stop trying to delfect the conversation.

No, it is absolutely necessary for them to be the same. Why would you compare apples and oranges? There are so many differentiations between Mars and Earth that to try and compare climate change by using them to make the comparison is absolutely ludicrous. It's not deflection(notice the correct spelling), it's simply calling you out for making a stupid remark.

[IIFFOFRDB]

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

No, it is absolutely necessary for them to be the same. Why would you compare apples and oranges? There are so many differentiations between Mars and Earth that to try and compare climate change by using them to make the comparison is absolutely ludicrous. It's not deflection(notice the correct spelling), it's simply calling you out for making a stupid remark.

No as I stated before, since the left put forth their theory that planetary climate change is the result of human activity, my statement simply asks how there can be planetary climate change without the presence of human life. I am not comparing the climate change between the two planets, therefore they do not have to be the same. I am however questioning how there can be planetary climate change without human life since the left has pointed out the humans are the cause of it. Many anti climate change groups have put forth the idea that planetary climate change is the result of natural activity in the lifecycle of the planet and is not the result of human life, the left has trashed this. So I'll ask this again, if climate change is the result of human activity, how can climate change be occurring on an uninhabited planet.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

No as I stated before, since the left put forth their theory that planetary climate change is the result of human activity, my statement simply asks how there can be planetary climate change without the presence of human life. I am not comparing the climate change between the two planets, therefore they do not have to be the same. I am however questioning how there can be planetary climate change without human life since the left has pointed out the humans are the cause of it. Many anti climate change groups have put forth the idea that planetary climate change is the result of natural activity in the lifecycle of the planet and is not the result of human life, the left has trashed this. So I'll ask this again, if climate change is the result of human activity, how can climate change be occurring on an uninhabited planet.

Because the planets don't have the same climate, you giant fucking RETARD. Jesus Christ, are you really that fucking stupid?

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Because the planets don't have the same climate, according to your people climate change is not a natural occurance, it is caused by humans so the presence of humans should change the climate regardless of its makeup and the lack of human presence should mean there is no climate change regardless of the climate makeup you giant fucking RETARD you obviously have no answer because your talking points don't cover this. Jesus Christ, are you really that fucking stupid?

It shouldn't matter what the climate is with regards to whether climate change is caused by humans as being put forth by the left. Ill try to make this a little clearer for you since by the use of the name calling you are running out of responses. The left says climate change is caused by humans, so using this theory, if there are no humans there should be no climate change. So how could climate change have killed mars since there has been no human life on that planet. Even a blind man can see this point so if your response is your usual drivel than do everyone a favor and save your load of bullshit.