Psychotic EPA Declares Carbon Dioxide A "Pollutant" And "Threat" To American People

writtenstyle said:
Ohh and guess what pathetic green liberal, if we did manage to eliminate all CO2, forgetting the fact that we would be dead. Ummm ALL THE TREES AND PLANTS WOULD DIE. This so called poison, is food for plant life.
Click to expand...
So what happens when the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere increases? To a point it helps sustain life, but too much, and it changes the equilibrium and can screw things up (just as too little will do the same). Forgetting anything about global warming (which of course is highly debated), if you significantly change any parts of the atmospheric makeup, there will be negative effects on something.

There's a difference between safe/normal levels of gasses, and unsafe levels. Give a human too much oxygen concentration, and there will be negative effects, just as not enough oxygen will - Oxygen toxicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Your argument doesn't really have any weight, other than a bad attempt at portraying only one side of extreme situations.
 


writtenstyle said:
Actually, the Supreme Court during Bush's admin. deemed CO2 a pollutant, and the EPA wanted to run with it. Bush said no, and didnt let the EPA run with the initiative completely. Bush ramed the beat that the Supreme Court created, but the SC is a higher power than the Bush admin. His hands were tied, and it was just a matter of time before a radical pres. came in and took advantage of this ruling.

Timing of this? Now with Cap and Trade looking at defeat, Obama needs a way to show Europe how great he is on Climate Change, ahead of the Copenhagen garbage.

Basically, with the Supreme Court recognizing CO2 as a pollutant, Obama can bypass congress and affect climate change legislation without the need for policy, through the EPA.

The Supreme Court gave him this ability. BTW, I am not a Bush supporter; I'm just sayin.

Shadow Gov't. at it's best.
Click to expand...
Shadow Gov't at it's best? It's called the powers/checks granted to each branch of government by the Constitution. Don't like it? Then you're a communist, Constitution-hating Marxist Obamanut. :)
 
johu said:
too much and it changes the equilibrium and can screw things up..
Click to expand...

Carbon dioxide makes up less than .5% of our atmosphere, and the earth has only gone up several tenths of a degree in past decades.

The earth has also clearly gone through huge warming and cooling cycles. Warming cycles, I might add, which commenced before humans even walked the earth, much less contributed to it with their smoggy factories and putrid vehicles.

It's highly irresponsible for anyone to state that a gas that comprises less than 1% of our atmosphere is causing the rise of several tenths of a degree, and that furthermore, we should spend trillions and critically hobble our economy to test this theory.

johu said:
Shadow Gov't at it's best? It's called the powers/checks granted to each branch of government by the Constitution. Don't like it? Then you're a communist, Constitution-hating Marxist Obamanut. :)
Click to expand...

:sadcrying4::sadcrying4: Wahhhhhh, conservatives are speaking the truth - time to whip out the victim card.
 
papajohn56 said:
If the earth's atmosphere was .5% arsenic gas we'd all be dead.
Click to expand...

You totally missed the point.

Nations are preparing to spend trillions of dollars because this gas is supposedly causing the 'glaciers to melt', and IT'S NOT EVEN 1% OF THE ATMOSPHERE! Are you kidding me?

Carbon dioxide isn't even 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere, and people are saying it's driving the engine of climate? You've got to be kidding me.
 
hellblazer said:
You totally missed the point.

Nations are preparing to spend trillions of dollars because this gas is supposedly causing the 'glaciers to melt', and IT'S NOT EVEN 1% OF THE ATMOSPHERE! Are you kidding me?

Carbon dioxide isn't even 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere, and people are saying it's driving the engine of climate? You've got to be kidding me.
Click to expand...
Do all small percentages make you angry?
 
hellblazer said:
You totally missed the point.

Nations are preparing to spend trillions of dollars because this gas is supposedly causing the 'glaciers to melt', and IT'S NOT EVEN 1% OF THE ATMOSPHERE! Are you kidding me?

Carbon dioxide isn't even 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere, and people are saying it's driving the engine of climate? You've got to be kidding me.
Click to expand...

...again, you totally missed the point. .5% is enough to make a difference in a lot of things. like I said, if it was .5% arsenic, it'd definitely influence things negatively. .5% to 1% is a big change, double, and yes it is a greenhouse gas. am I a doubter of climate change theories? yeah, but you shouldn't start making up science and making claims about numbers when you have no idea what they mean.

.5% is most definitely enough to influence things. if your uranium fuel rods went from .5% to 1% contaminated, the energy output of a reactor would drastically decrease

edit: going to qualify this with I did my senior thesis on atmospheric physics, specifically the upper atmosphere.
 
papajohn56 said:
...again, you totally missed the point. .5% is enough to make a difference in a lot of things. like I said, if it was .5% arsenic, it'd definitely influence things negatively. .5% to 1% is a big change, double, and yes it is a greenhouse gas. am I a doubter of climate change theories? yeah, but you shouldn't start making up science and making claims about numbers when you have no idea what they mean.

.5% is most definitely enough to influence things. if your uranium fuel rods went from .5% to 1% contaminated, the energy output of a reactor would drastically decrease
Click to expand...

Right, so far you've compared the earth's climate to a nuclear reactor and a human body - not exactly ideal metaphors, if you think about it. And it's not at .5%, it's at .4%. And it hasn't come anywhere close to doubling. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a percentage that small isn't going to be driving the climate, like they allege - I doubt you need a Phd to deduce something that obvious.

Are you actually asserting that .4% of the atmosphere is driving the climate?

BTW, the entire term 'greenhouse gas' is a loaded term. Lindzen's paper went a long way to challenging that concept.
 
hellblazer said:
Right, so far you've compared the earth's climate to a nuclear reactor and a human body - not exactly ideal metaphors, if you think about it. And it's not at .5%, it's at .4%. And it hasn't come anywhere close to doubling. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a percentage that small isn't going to be driving the climate, like they allege - I doubt you need a Phd to deduce something that obvious.

Are you actually asserting that .4% of the atmosphere is driving the climate?

BTW, the entire term 'greenhouse gas' is a loaded term. Lindzen's paper went a long way to challenging that concept.
Click to expand...

right, so far you've not seen that the atmosphere, a reactor, and the human body are all closed systems in which their composition changing can cause huge changes. there are systems where the introduction of 0.1% can change things drastically, or catalyze a system.

.4% isn't driving it entirely (in this system's case), but it can be enough to make a difference, and no the term "greenhouse gas" isn't really loaded, it's pretty well defined:

"Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range."

seems pretty cut and dry to me
 
johu said:
So what happens when the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere increases? To a point it helps sustain life, but too much, and it changes the equilibrium and can screw things up (just as too little will do the same). Forgetting anything about global warming (which of course is highly debated), if you significantly change any parts of the atmospheric makeup, there will be negative effects on something.

There's a difference between safe/normal levels of gasses, and unsafe levels. Give a human too much oxygen concentration, and there will be negative effects, just as not enough oxygen will - Oxygen toxicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Your argument doesn't really have any weight, other than a bad attempt at portraying only one side of extreme situations.
Click to expand...

Okay. The Earth has been here for 13 billion years
Humans have been here 10,000 years
What makes you God, that you know better than the Earth, how much CO2 is acceptable? This planet has found a way to regulate itself for billions of years without the need for us humans to help.

Humans are too small to really affect the Earth's atmosphere. I know you disagree (because you are small minded), but do you realize one volcano can wipe life off the Earth? The Earth is much more destructive to itself, than we are to it. If we cause global warming, why were there years in the 1400's that were hotter than years since the industrial revolution?

Common sense...the lack of it is going to kill us all. We are a world governed by a majority of the stupid, and they are going to take us all down.
 
papajohn56 said:
right, so far you've not seen that the atmosphere, a reactor, and the human body are all closed systems in which their composition changing can cause huge changes. there are systems where the introduction of 0.1% can change things drastically..
Click to expand...

Depending on how many factors are involved. The climate is a much more complex system than the human body or a reactor. The less factors in a closed system, the bigger an influence those individual factors have. And obviously the inverse is true when speaking about the climate system.

papajohn56 said:
.4% isn't driving it entirely (in this system's case), but it can be enough to make a difference
Click to expand...

What's a difference? .01 degree rise over 50 years? .1?

papajohn56 said:
"Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range."

seems pretty cut and dry to me
Click to expand...

Not really, many Marxist alarmists use the term to mean gases that cause warming on a large scale.
 
hellblazer said:
Depending on how many factors are involved. The climate is a much more complex system than the human body or a reactor. The less factors in a closed system, the bigger an influence those individual factors have. And obviously the inverse is true when speaking about the climate system.

What's a difference? .01 degree rise over 50 years? .1?

Not really, many Marxist alarmists use the term to mean gases that cause warming on a large scale.
Click to expand...

The climate is not more or less complex than the human body, it's just on a larger scale. For the atmosphere itself, there are probably an equal or less number of factors than there are in the body. you can't separate politics and science, and that's your major problem here.
 
papajohn56 said:
are you saying the EPA should regulate water vapor and declare it a danger too? better ban hydrogen cars
Click to expand...

No, I'm just saying it's not surprising that a government agency called the Environmental Protection Agency would try to regulate any type of greenhouse gas... People who act surprised need to get out more.

And to expand on my first statement, water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas, only because there is so much of it in the atmosphere. CO2 is a much more efficient gas when it comes to the greenhouse effect. And the fact that CO2 is the second on the list is exactly why the EPA wants to regulate it. Think of it this way... Water vapor is about 4% of the gas in the atmosphere and contributes about 50% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 on the other hand is about 0.04% of the atmosphere and contributes about 20% of the greenhouse effect.

I'm not saying if it should be regulated or not... I'm just saying this should be filed under the "no shit" category.
 
subigo said:
No, I'm just saying it's not surprising that a government agency called the Environmental Protection Agency would try to regulate any type of greenhouse gas... People who act surprised need to get out more.

And to expand on my first statement, water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas, only because there is so much of it in the atmosphere. CO2 is a much more efficient gas when it comes to the greenhouse effect. And the fact that CO2 is the second on the list is exactly why the EPA wants to regulate it. Think of it this way... Water vapor is about 4% of the gas in the atmosphere and contributes about 50% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 on the other hand is about 0.04% of the atmosphere and contributes about 20% of the greenhouse effect.

I'm not saying if it should be regulated or not... I'm just saying this should be filed under the "no shit" category.
Click to expand...

Water vapor levels are not measurable in terms of industrial output so it has no value to the politicians who are looking for an excuse to tax and control industries.

Think about it. It's all about the control.
 
politics should be banned on this forum. It really brings out the stupid in a lot of people.
 
writtenstyle said:
What makes you God, that you know better than the Earth, how much CO2 is acceptable?
<snip>
If we cause global warming, why were there years in the 1400's that were hotter than years since the industrial revolution?
Click to expand...
You must have missed my comment about "forget global warming". I was just stating that releasing gasses, compounds, or elements into certain environments can have an effect on things.

What makes us God, that we know how much lead is acceptable in drinking water? What about acceptable levels of arsenic? Amount of carbon monoxide that would poison someone? Acceptable level of bacteria left in waste water after sewage treatment, before it's returned to a source of water? What direct sources of pollution cause acid rain?

Yeah, I guess no scientists or scientific methods exist to measure, test, and prove these things.
 
hellblazer, I'm sorry but you have gotten to the point in this thread of just seeming to take desperate stabs to try and save yourself from arguments that you're losing yourself.

hellblazer said:
Depending on how many factors are involved. The climate is a much more complex system than the human body
Click to expand...

Really now? I hope you have some evidence to back that up, because chemicals and your cells get REALLY damn micro and can have a noticeable impact on your body. That's just a perfect example of trying to stay alive with your "the .4% doesn't do anything" argument. You're just taking shots in the dark here and most people are smart enough to pick that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom