Environment gets Bushed

[Narz]

Co2 is still not a pollutant.

Arsenic is natural in small quantities. Lets put tons of arsenic into the air and water & call it "natural".

 

[History_Buff]

Co2 is the basic building block of life. Trees take in Co2 from the atmosphere, and by using solar energy, they create organic compounds that are at the bottom of the food chain. Essentially all life is carbon based, because we consume plans as well as creatures that eat plants, getting our carbon from them. I'm kinda dumbfounded at what they don't teach in biology class anymore.

Of course it's a natural compound, and yes, plants depend on it for life. That doesn't exclude it from being a pollutant in the wrong concentration. Just like how if we increased nitrogen to 99% concentration, that would quickly be considered a pollutant. Ozone is responsible for shielding the Earth from quite a bit of space-borne radiation. I still wouldn't want to be breathing it in.

Co2 is still not a pollutant. Its not even the biggest driver in "global warming". What it is is a convenient scapegoat used to hoodwink the ignorant.

If all those people who cry about Co2 were really concerned they would stop breathing.

Skad, ignore Global Warming for a second. Let's pretend it's not even happening, and that CO2 has zero to do with it. Sufficiently high (very possible) concentrations of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide still has some pretty huge problems associated with it. In fact, it could plausibly be traced to a mass extinction, all without even considering Global Warming. Global Warming is just the biggest, most popular reason to reduce emissions.

 

[skadistic]

Well, be sure to write this to all those stupid climatologists. Guess they studied for nothing.

You mean the politically motivated ones? The ones who have a "consensus"? Maybe I should I post the graph that shows that while Co2 has risen sharply temp hasn't? I could also ask you if you know just how much radiant heat Co2 can trap and how much Co2 is in the air and how that is the biggest driver. Global warming that by the way isn't warming all that much. Its actually been with in +/- 1* for the last 20 years.

Yeah, and if all those people were really concerned about Iran they would sneak there and sabotage the missiles personally, right?

I believe you set up a strawman. Good for you!

 

[skadistic]

Arsenic is natural in small quantities. Lets put tons of arsenic into the air and water & call it "natural".

Thats a great post. Not once in there did you even bother to refute that Co2 is a pollutant. Good for you!

 

[skadistic]

Skad, ignore Global Warming for a second. Let's pretend it's not even happening, and that CO2 has zero to do with it. Sufficiently high (very possible) concentrations of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide still has some pretty huge problems associated with it. In fact, it could plausibly be traced to a mass extinction, all without even considering Global Warming. Global Warming is just the biggest, most popular reason to reduce emissions.

So how much Co2 would be needed to cause a mass extinction? Lets pretend that you have a good point here for a minute.........Great pretend time is over. Back to reality. Co2 is not a pollutant and its not the biggest driver to global warming.

 

[Ammar]

You mean the politically motivated ones? The ones who have a "consensus"?

Firstly, most natural scientists care very little about politics when working. But if there are so many who disagree, you surely won't have trouble finding me some published peer-reviewed articles which argue against global warming? Shouldn't be from the middle of the last century, though.

Maybe I should I post the graph that shows that while Co2 has risen sharply temp hasn't?

Sure, do so. Or are you just talk?

I could also ask you if you know just how much radiant heat Co2 can trap and how much Co2 is in the air and how that is the biggest driver.

Sure. Co2 had a measured concentration of 381 ppm in 2006 and is rising at roughly 2 ppm/year. What do you mean with driver? Driver for global warming or greenhouse effect? It's the strongest for the first and in second place after water (in gas form - missing the englisch word for that right now) concerning the second.

Global warming that by the way isn't warming all that much. Its actually been with in +/- 1* for the last 20 years.

Yes, well, unfortunately only within +0 to +1 not within -1 to +1. The fact is that even a +2 change would cause lots of problems.

I believe you set up a strawman. Good for you!

Thanks. All due to your inspiring presence.

 

[imperfect.la]

Wait Ammar, are you one of those guys that thinks coal makes us sick?

Moderator Action: That is borderline trolling - keep it civil.

 

[Ammar]

Wait Ammar, are you one of those guys that thinks coal makes us sick?

Wait imperfect, are you one of those idiots who just goes pissing around instead of actually ever contributing to a thread?

Moderator Action: Keep it civil, please
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[skadistic]

Firstly, most natural scientists care very little about politics when working.They care about that grant money though. Global warming is the best way to get that money But if there are so many who disagree, you surely won't have trouble finding me some published peer-reviewed articles which argue against global warming? Shouldn't be from the middle of the last century, though.Why would I look for something I'm not arguing?



Sure, do so. Or are you just talk?You should be more careful what you ask for

See how the blue line shoots up but the red one doesn't?




Sure. Co2 had a measured concentration of 381 ppm in 2006 and is rising at roughly 2 ppm/year.So how much is that in % of over all air and how much of the radiant energy is it that Co2 can trap? What do you mean with driver? Driver for global warming or greenhouse effect? BothIt's the strongest for the first So you can prove that right?and in second place after water (in gas form - missing the englisch word for that right now) concerning the second. Methane also traps more then Co2.



Yes, well, unfortunately only within +0 to +1 not within -1 to +1. The fact is that even a +2 change would cause lots of problems.What problems exactly? We have had a =1 swing and the world has seen +2 before and it didn't cause that big of a problem. Man was still here and kicking.





Thanks. All due to your inspiring presence.

So I am so inspiring that you need to use tactics that divert away from the real arguments. Thanks for blaming me for your lacking.

Moderator Action: And ditto for you.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Narz]

Thats a great post. Not once in there did you even bother to refute that Co2 is a pollutant. Good for you!

I don't need to refute the obvious. The dose makes the medicine. If you don't understand this simply fact you best be careful in the bathtub, lest you drown yourself.

 

[skadistic]

I don't need to refute the obvious. The dose makes the medicine. If you don't understand this simply fact you best be careful in the bathtub, lest you drown yourself.

So you agree with me. That's great. Its nice to see people who know Co2 isn't a pollutant.


So how big of a dose does Co2 need to be? Thats a simple fact right? You should know it since this is your argument right? If you don't know that simple fact your argument is nothing more then trying to look really deep but having no substance.

 

[bhsup]

Despite the 2007 court ruling requiring it to...

Clarification: The OP is totally false as the SC never did any such thing according to the very article linked. The SC ruled that the government has the authority to regulate green house gases, but it didn't (and I would tell it to piss off if it did) just pull some arbitrary regulations out from under its robes and tell the White House to follow them.

Still waiting for denials or evidence to back up OP.

@Narz: Apologies if you saw this before the edit. For some reason I was thinking you started this thread.

 

[imperfect.la]

Wait imperfect, are you one of those idiots who just goes pissing around instead of actually ever contributing to a thread?

No need for personal attacks bud.

 

[illram]

What's worse is continued political meddling with EPA scientists. The White House yet again pressured the EPA to reverse itself, this time reversing a previous EPA finding that enforcing the Clean Air act was an effective way of reversing emissions. It's their way of snuffing the court ruling that gave them the authority to do so, basically. Tactic 1 of claiming they lacked authority didn't work, on to tactic 2, because the White House always gets its way...

Another instance where science takes a back door to politics with this administration, and in a very cavalier way. (Typical of just about everything this administration does, really.)

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifTIO4F-5F4uJL8wnzMbDs3wSzzAD91RPPS00

In a 588-page federal notice, the Environmental Protection made no finding on whether global warming poses a threat to people's health, reversing an earlier conclusion at the insistence of the White House and officially kicking any decision on a solution to the next president and Congress.

 

[Ammar]

So I am so inspiring that you need to use tactics that divert away from the real arguments. Thanks for blaming me for your lacking.

Hmm, I divert while "They should just stop breathing" is a valid argument. I see.

A) Your graph is so useless that I don't know whether I should laugh or weak. How do you expect to read out anything for a particular century out of a graph with goes in steps of 50000 years? You could shift one of the two graphs 2000 years to the left or right and it would still look almost the same. Please show me a graph which argues your point and is on a more useful scale.

C) Who claimed we wouldn't survive a 2 degree shift? It would still be extremely bad for food-production. Back then the people could probably just all move north a little bit.

D) Concering the methane, that's wrong. I don't have the numbers right now and not the time to check them up, but I will do so later.

E) Well, if you say that all the scientists who argue for GW are basically bribed (I wonder why you assume that the grant-givers are so in favour of everybody believing in GW though, since the industry normally aguest against it), you should be able to find some honest scientists and cite their work. I could do the same for those who claim GW in man-caused, but honestly I think that's actually very easy (just begin with the UN reports).

 

[History_Buff]

So how much Co2 would be needed to cause a mass extinction? Lets pretend that you have a good point here for a minute.........Great pretend time is over. Back to reality. Co2 is not a pollutant and its not the biggest driver to global warming.

Once you get above 475-550 ppm. At this point you're filling the Oceans with so much Carbonic Acid that the pH levels start to vary significantly near the surface. Ocean life starts to die, as aquatic creatures are extremely sensitive to acidity changes. This would be extremely destabilizing to the ecosystem, and could cause widespread effects.

Or you can even get yourself into anoxic conditions, capable of causing H2S blooms, such as those occasionally seen in the Dead Sea and off the coast of Nigeria. Given the right conditions, a bubble will form under the ocean, and when that comes up, very bad things happen. It has been theorized as the cause of 'The Great Dying'. I would rather not be around for anything like that.

That's while ignoring the obvious contribution to Global Warming, since, those villainous scientists are all just out to trick us any way. Good thing we know that lighting is caused by the gods throwing things at us, and the sun is brought by a golden chariot riding across the sky.

 

[Sims2789]

The court has the ability to tell congress to control business? Really?

No, but it has the ability to figure out what a pollutant* is as defined by the Environmental Protection Act when the act describes, but doesn't explicitly mention, some pollutants.

*I'm not sure if this is the word used in the Act.

 

[Narz]

So you agree with me. That's great. Its nice to see people who know Co2 isn't a pollutant.

I know that the dose makes the medicine/poison.

So how big of a dose does Co2 need to be? Thats a simple fact right? You should know it since this is your argument right? If you don't know that simple fact your argument is nothing more then trying to look really deep but having no substance.

That's ********. Tell me how many times you'd have to get stabbed with a rusty fork in order to die (and how hard). If you can't tell me the exact figures, that means getting stabbed with rusty forks is actually good for you.

 

[skadistic]

Hmm, I divert while "They should just stop breathing" is a valid argument. I see.People expel Co2 when they breath. And with all the hot air the global warming people spew it would help.

A) Your graph is so useless that I don't know whether I should laugh or weak. So you don't understand it. There is nothing wrong with the graph and is very useful/How do you expect to read out anything for a particular century out of a graph with goes in steps of 50000 years? So you don't know how to read the graph?You could shift one of the two graphs 2000 years to the left or right and it would still look almost the same.And that negates that Co2 goes up and temp doesn't follow how exactly? Please show me a graph which argues your point and is on a more useful scale.No. The graph is fine as is. If you have problems with it then the problem is with you and not the graph.

C) Who claimed we wouldn't survive a 2 degree shift?I don't know where did I say any one did? It would still be extremely bad for food-production. Yeah because it was last time too. Like how grapes grew in England. Temp warming would actualy open up more arable land in places like the Canadian plains and in Russia.Back then the people could probably just all move north a little bit.Yeah because they had much more access to things like trains and planes.

D) Concering the methane, that's wrong. I don't have the numbers right now and not the time to check them up, but I will do so later.You do that. In the mean time......Compared with CO2, methane is 11–25 times more effective at absorbing infrared,

E) Well, if you say that all the scientists who argue for GW are basically bribedWhere did I say all of them? And where did I say bribed? (I wonder why you assume that the grant-givers are so in favour of everybody believing in GW though,Because its the hot new thing. since the industry normally aguest against it), you should be able to find some honest scientists and cite their work.I can. I can also show how scientists have been using flawed data and and intentually misleading the public. ( I'd ask you to call me out on that but when I back it up you'll cry about how you don't like the layout. I could do the same for those who claim GW in man-caused, but honestly I think that's actually very easy (just begin with the UN reports).

Yeah the ICPP is totally not biased.

A Climate of Belief (PDF) (Patrick Frank, Ph.D. Chemistry)

Carbon Dioxide is not the primary cause of global warming (PDF) (Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng.)

[ru=http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/images/ccr.pdf]Climate Change Re-examined (PDF) (Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, MIT)[/url]

CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF) (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc.)

Global Warming - Is Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rep? (PDF) (Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology)

The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide (Jeffrey A. Glassman, Ph.D. Applied Physicist and Engineer)

I got more neat links too.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

http://sepp.org/policy declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=1

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...limate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html

There is much more too.

 

[skadistic]

I know that the dose makes the medicine/poison.


That's ********. Tell me how many times you'd have to get stabbed with a rusty fork in order to die (and how hard). If you can't tell me the exact figures, that means getting stabbed with rusty forks is actually good for you.

So you don't have any substance. I didn't think you would. Have fun looking "deep".