DC Tom Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 Look Smart Guy, the issue is simple. Just because it doesn't fit your world view doesn't make it so. Come on, dispute the facts that I posted earlier. It's much harder than sitting on your throne declaring yourself smarter than others without ever offering a scrap of evidence Psudeo-intellectualls like you are so tiresome. You remind me of this guy: DC Tom It would make sense if DC stands for DC Comics. If the issue is so simple, how is it that you can't manage to distinguish between "carbon dioxide" and "industrial emissions"? That's pretty central to the question of what is and is not a "dangerous pollutant". You apparently don't even know what the issues is that's being discussed. So I'm supposed to dispute...what, exactly? Am I supposed to be impressed by your ability to parrot web pages that are at best tenuously linked to a topic of discussion you can't identify? Do you think you're cowing me with your complete inability to understand that a blanket condemnation of CO2 as a "dangerous pollutant" is a fallacy since only some CO2 emissions are "polluting", and the label itself is therefore ridiculous in that it can't possibly distinguish between natural and "pollutant" CO2? Frankly, I find it amazing that you think the distinction between polluting and non-polluting sources of carbon dioxide is "pseudo-intellectualism". It's actually a pretty basic point. My three year old niece even gets it. Of course, she's probably a hell of a lot better educated than you anyway.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 Are you saying asthma is caused by CO2??? I think the rise in asthma is caused by parents wanting their kids to live in sterile bubbles. Kids aren't exposed to the normal environmental stuff (mold, bacteria, and other stuff in the air). Let them eat dirt and get a resistance to those things. IMO, by not wanting to expose people to certain things... You bacially are. I don't understand why we "wrap" houses tighly up... I always thought it was good for houses to "breath." Now, I am not saying drafty and inefficient. I heard somewhere that asthma can be linked to things like cockroach droppings... Do "we" "clean" like we used to?
Max Fischer Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 If the issue is so simple, how is it that you can't manage to distinguish between "carbon dioxide" and "industrial emissions"? That's pretty central to the question of what is and is not a "dangerous pollutant". You apparently don't even know what the issues is that's being discussed. So I'm supposed to dispute...what, exactly? Am I supposed to be impressed by your ability to parrot web pages that are at best tenuously linked to a topic of discussion you can't identify? Do you think you're cowing me with your complete inability to understand that a blanket condemnation of CO2 as a "dangerous pollutant" is a fallacy since only some CO2 emissions are "polluting", and the label itself is therefore ridiculous in that it can't possibly distinguish between natural and "pollutant" CO2? Frankly, I find it amazing that you think the distinction between polluting and non-polluting sources of carbon dioxide is "pseudo-intellectualism". It's actually a pretty basic point. My three year old niece even gets it. Of course, she's probably a hell of a lot better educated than you anyway. I did not make that argument. The discussion began with CO2 pollutants -- YOU interpreted that to mean a ban on ALL CO2 -- including natural CO2. That was your straw-man, Comic Book Guy, not mine. You are the one who brought up the blanket condemnation of all CO2, not me. Good God, man; shelve the pompous arrogance and take a breath. The first article is about "emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers." Did you read it? That's what this thread is about, genius. You started your breathless attack not on the article, not on what I said, but using the straw-argument that I was against ALL CO2. No, not even close. To prove that point I provided two scientific articles (you call offering evidence to debate "parroting" - sorry, I'm not a expert on the subject - are you?) making the point that the earth's natural CO2 balance is out of whack and due to the UN-natural emissions. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Your rush to win an argument again clouds your basic common sense.
Wacka Posted October 18, 2008 Author Posted October 18, 2008 How do you know that the CO2 balance is out of whack? Did Al Gore tell you so? Did you know that when the dinosaurs were alive the Co2 levels were much higher? That might be the normal level for the earth, not the levels we have now. And like I said, CO2 is CO2, no matter what the source.
Max Fischer Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 How do you know that the CO2 balance is out of whack? Why don't you conduct a simple Google search or perhaps get a clue? Did you know that when the dinosaurs were alive the Co2 levels were much higher? Do you mean 6,000 years ago when people and dinosaurs roamed together? Yup, CO2 levels are now higher than they were since the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Of course, if you did just a little research or even read the article that I posted earlier, you would see that the levels remain nearly constant and in balance up to the industrial revolution (do you want me to research "industrial revolution" for you, too?), then they started to rise steadily since then. And like I said, CO2 is CO2, no matter what the source. Natural CO2 is not a problem but the questions is whether the industrial CO2 is contributing to dangerously high levels -- and are the high levels having a negative effect on our health and environment. If you believe that humans did well when they roamed with the dinosaurs then there's nothing to discuss. If you think that humans did not live with dinosaurs and the situation may be different then maybe you'll want to look up the facts.
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 How do you know that the CO2 balance is out of whack? Did Al Gore tell you so? scientists say so Scientists have found new evidence that the Earth's natural feedback mechanism regulated carbon dioxide levels for hundreds of thousands of years. But they say humans are now emitting CO2 so fast that the planet's natural balancing mechanism cannot keep up. Did you know that when the dinosaurs were alive the Co2 levels were much higher? the same article says that using evidence from an Antarctic ice core, the team calculated that over a period of 610,000 years the long-term change in atmospheric CO2 concentration was just 22 parts per million (ppm). Look at this graph (and it's sources) That might be the normal level for the earth, not the levels we have now. And like I said, CO2 is CO2, no matter what the source. not if man-made sources generate more than nature's ability to absorb it, but why let science ruin a good theory?
Wacka Posted October 23, 2008 Author Posted October 23, 2008 Are you saying asthma is caused by CO2??? I think the rise in asthma is caused by parents wanting their kids to live in sterile bubbles. Kids aren't exposed to the normal environmental stuff (mold, bacteria, and other stuff in the air). Let them eat dirt and get a resistance to those things. I wrote this last week and lo and behold, there are new studies out that show that children who grow up on farms have less asthma and food allergies. There was also a study that showed that there was less asthma in East Germany than West Germany although East Germany had a lot more pollution. I heard it on the local news, so no link. Sorry.
Recommended Posts