Psychotic EPA Declares Carbon Dioxide A "Pollutant" And "Threat" To American People
- Thread starter hellblazer
- Start date
Yeah, I stopped arguing about that because it all seemed pretty pointless. I never even said it won't affect it; I simply noted it was less than 1% of the atmosphere and people can draw their own conclusions - although I think papajohn likes to argue simply for the sake of argument sometimes, which is where I got to the point where I didn't even know what we were talking about or what egregious claim I was supposed to be defending. Nothing against you, papa, I'm sure you have your reasons, it all just seemed pretty pointless to me in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately, neither one of us knows to what degree, if any, the .4% CO2 is responsible for the .3 degree rise in temperature, so I won't waste further time on probabilities or possibilities.
I agree though, the main focus got off track; namely, governments take this theory seriously and are preparing to enact laws based on it, such as the Copenhagen conference and this recent EPA ruling.
no, my problem is you don't have the knowledge in the matter to know whether or not it could possibly have caused the change, but your posts are acting like it's 100% fact that it's impossible. This EPA rule is bullshit and is just more government intervention - but you're trying to argue the science with someone who has done the science, and I'm not even disagreeing with a lot of your argument, but you really have no idea what you're talking about and it shows, and I don't mean that as an insult. it's that kind of thing when you get in a discussion/argument with someone who does have some power, that hurts the cause by presenting just things you're presuming are right, without any backing
All this just for carbon trading.
Kinda weird that Al Gore is head of the company which will be the stock exchange...
And if polluting companies buy their credits from green companies, how is that going to stop polluting???
Kinda weird that Al Gore is head of the company which will be the stock exchange...
And if polluting companies buy their credits from green companies, how is that going to stop polluting???
*Ask a libfuck who Enron is and they will try to slap you in the face with their limp wrist.
*Ask a libfuck what global warming is and they ill go into this 2 hour speech (include self written climate poetry) about how we MUST save the environment within the next 2 weeks or all the polar bears will die and civilization will end.
The Ironic thing is Enron along side others (including Big Al) dreamed up global warming in the Clinton years to make billions. LOL...Enron is one of the pioneers of trading carbon credits. They were posed to make billions and billions of dollars. Libfucks HATE Enron...bet they didn't know that their cause was a designed by Enron!
*Ask a libfuck what global warming is and they ill go into this 2 hour speech (include self written climate poetry) about how we MUST save the environment within the next 2 weeks or all the polar bears will die and civilization will end.
The Ironic thing is Enron along side others (including Big Al) dreamed up global warming in the Clinton years to make billions. LOL...Enron is one of the pioneers of trading carbon credits. They were posed to make billions and billions of dollars. Libfucks HATE Enron...bet they didn't know that their cause was a designed by Enron!
That was a baseless stab. At least contribute something of substance to the thread. Your shot at Popeye was loaded with undertones serving no other purpose but to discredit your contribution.
Back on topic: What are your thoughts on research that shows that methane is much more problematic than CO2 in terms of the greenhouse effect?
I read recently that atmospheric CO2 is actually subject to diminishing returns in terms of the amount of heat retained per molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, each additional pound of CO2 in the atmosphere does less "damage" than the last. Did your research show this as well?
And have you read any of the studies that talk about how CO2 was at (quoting from memory here) something like 1,000 ppm 10,000 years ago, and was reduced to current levels (500 ppm, or whatever) over time? I have also read that 1,000 ppm (I think that's the correct unit) is not fatal to humans, but would increase plant growth (and therefore crop yields) by some large factor.
I noticed you said you didn't agree with the legislation and that you just wanted to produce some facts about CO2. Is the CO2 vs. Methane factor what you were referring to or is there something else?
Never said that.
You mean your senior thesis? Your thesis was on to what degree .4% of the atmosphere drives climate temperatures? By all means, share.
Again, I never said it has no effect. I simply stated how miniscule of a percentage it is. You immediately took that to mean I was saying it had no effect. My mistake was actually responding to your knee-jerk reaction in kind. To think it has no effect whatsoever would be ridiculous. But the question is, to what degree? How much influence? Ultimately, it's a pointless argument because nobody on the planet knows that answer.
So I'll simply return to my original intention; sharing that simple fact with people and they can make up their own minds. But thanks for the lecture, anyways.
Ok, you are right about the monoxide/dioxide thing. However monoxide oxidizes into dioxide in the atmosphere, albeit slowly.
And I have to admit, Climate change is likely not caused by us. At least not completely. I do understand the world goes through cold/hot cycles. In fact, personally I feel desertification and acidification of the Oceans is a lot more of a big deal (and yet since it doesn't fit certain agendas doesn't get coverage).
I also believe climate change is pushed with a political agenda to further certain interests, plus it sits well with most people, since it sounds a hell of a lot better to say we can change it, than, it is changing and there is nothing we can fucking do about it. I mean, I remember when they discovered the holes in the ozone layer and declared we caused them; there was huge media behind this. But then, years later, they discovered that the holes took thousands of years to create, therefore imposible for us to have cause; no media attention.
However, you should be able to admit that increased levels of carbon dioxide is a factor in global warming. How much of a factor and to what degree it is anthropogenic, is completely debatable in my opinion. I think it does have some effect and in general I like anything that reduces the damage we cause to our ecosystem (not the planet, the planet will be just find when we off ourselves). However, I do agree the way the current administration is dealing with the cap and trade bullshit is rediculous (although Bush would have done the same, only Ron Paul is different, but he would be shot if elected, so anyways...) So I understand why my post was deuchbaguish... forgive me, I was just having a bad day.
And I have to admit, Climate change is likely not caused by us. At least not completely. I do understand the world goes through cold/hot cycles. In fact, personally I feel desertification and acidification of the Oceans is a lot more of a big deal (and yet since it doesn't fit certain agendas doesn't get coverage).
I also believe climate change is pushed with a political agenda to further certain interests, plus it sits well with most people, since it sounds a hell of a lot better to say we can change it, than, it is changing and there is nothing we can fucking do about it. I mean, I remember when they discovered the holes in the ozone layer and declared we caused them; there was huge media behind this. But then, years later, they discovered that the holes took thousands of years to create, therefore imposible for us to have cause; no media attention.
However, you should be able to admit that increased levels of carbon dioxide is a factor in global warming. How much of a factor and to what degree it is anthropogenic, is completely debatable in my opinion. I think it does have some effect and in general I like anything that reduces the damage we cause to our ecosystem (not the planet, the planet will be just find when we off ourselves). However, I do agree the way the current administration is dealing with the cap and trade bullshit is rediculous (although Bush would have done the same, only Ron Paul is different, but he would be shot if elected, so anyways...) So I understand why my post was deuchbaguish... forgive me, I was just having a bad day.
At one point which marked the divisor line between two paleontological periods, there was over 300x the levels of current carbon dioxide... but that cause a catastrophe among larger more complex creatures. I am interested in the diminishing returns of the heating effect of carbon dioxide.
Anyone else notice that Canada & Austrailia have completely rejected this whole co2 thing?
One interesting report that came out during this past week has been how the EU paid over 5 billion euros to companies
to buy "Carbon Credits" and these companies took the money and ran.
What you all need to realize is that the companies that DO participate in carbon elimination are doing some pretty scary
stuff, like dumping barges full of iron oxide in the ocean to promote algea growth that consumes co2. This might sound
all good and nice , but they're artificially changing the lifecycle of animals in the ocean to do this.
One interesting report that came out during this past week has been how the EU paid over 5 billion euros to companies
to buy "Carbon Credits" and these companies took the money and ran.
What you all need to realize is that the companies that DO participate in carbon elimination are doing some pretty scary
stuff, like dumping barges full of iron oxide in the ocean to promote algea growth that consumes co2. This might sound
all good and nice , but they're artificially changing the lifecycle of animals in the ocean to do this.
Shell,Partners Get Government Funds For Canada Carbon-Capture Project
green = signed Kyoto Protocol
grey = undecided
red = declared no intention to sign
HarveyJ
He is - THE CACTUS!
Sorry, but that has got to be bullshit. Biology and Chemistry says so.
1,000ppm is 1%. At 1% CO2 concentrations, humans start to experience discomfort within a short period of time, and over a longer period of time (which it would have to be if the entire atmosphere had a make up like that) blood would toxify.
As it is, current levels in most metropolitan areas is ~350ppm. Places like L.A. and Beijing only get as high as 500ppm according to articles I've come across in New Scientist.
Shell,Partners Get Government Funds For Canada Carbon-Capture Project
green = signed Kyoto Protocol
grey = undecided
red = declared no intention to sign
Wow, that's great to know China is on board with reducing pollution. I was worried about them for a second, but thankfully you produced that lovely map.
China has proposed that it will cut its "carbon intensity" -- the amount of carbon emitted per percentage point of gross domestic product -- by 40% to 45% by 2020.
Envoy Says U.S. Won't Pay China to Cut Emissions - WSJ.com
Envoy Says U.S. Won't Pay China to Cut Emissions - WSJ.com