DC Tom Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 nice spin CO2 spewing from coal fired power plants isn't exactly a natural process nor a vital component of the biosphere No spin. If CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, it's a dangerous pollutant. If industrial emissions are a pollutant, say so. That's the whole problem with the "global warming debate". It's only 20% science, impossible to discuss because it's buried under the 80% that's alarmist crap.
Ramius Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 CO2 is CO2. It doesn't matter whether it comes out of a smoke stack or you mouth or a toad's mouth or a bacteria. I have to admit, the CO2 that comes out of a smokestack is not nearly as amusing/hilarious as the CO2 that comes from your mouth.
blzrul Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 I have to admit, the CO2 that comes out of a smokestack is not nearly as amusing/hilarious as the CO2 that comes from your mouth. Ten points for you on that one. Wackaa would argue against ricin's being declared a danger, if Obama said it. On the other hand if a wingnut stated that puppies cause erectile dysfunction, he'd start a movement to round 'em up and gas 'em.
Chilly Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Ten points for you on that one. Wackaa would argue against ricin's being declared a danger, if Obama said it. On the other hand if a wingnut stated that puppies cause erectile dysfunction, he'd start a movement to round 'em up and gas 'em. Oh, so he's the Republican version of you?
Wacka Posted October 17, 2008 Author Posted October 17, 2008 Ten points for you on that one. Wackaa would argue against ricin's being declared a danger, if Obama said it. On the other hand if a wingnut stated that puppies cause erectile dysfunction, he'd start a movement to round 'em up and gas 'em. I'd say you're probably the poster girl for erectile dysfunction.
swede316 Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 What, is Obama going to outlaw yeast? If he outlaws yeast...there would be no beer...If there is no beer...Budweiser or Coors would make sure there is no Obama.
ieatcrayonz Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 You mean the scientists that say CO2 is a vital component of the biosphere? 'Cause things like plants use it? A dangerous pollutant that's simultaneously highly important. Brilliant. C'mon, we're not talking about PCBs or dioxin here, we're talking about an atmospheric component created by natural processes. What, is Obama going to outlaw yeast? Dude that was uncalled for. Clinton was the womanizer not Obama. And even if he was, as president I'm sure he would have his choice of many without having to worry about yeast.
Max Fischer Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 You mean the scientists that say CO2 is a vital component of the biosphere? 'Cause things like plants use it? A dangerous pollutant that's simultaneously highly important. Brilliant. C'mon, we're not talking about PCBs or dioxin here, we're talking about an atmospheric component created by natural processes. What, is Obama going to outlaw yeast? EPA re: Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted in a number of ways. It is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle and through human activities like the burning of fossil fuels. Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’ and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’ When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. -- Won't you consider that the CO2/nature balance has been a bit out of whack for oh, I don't know, over 200 years. The amount of CO2 has risen while nature's counterbalance has decreased thus throwing the whole thing off? -- Don't you think its possible, and even logical, that this imbalance can contribute to climate and health problems worldwide? -- Do you seriously believe that by reducing CO2 emissions from cars and industrial plants that we will reduce CO2 levels LOWER than in 1770, thus throwing off nature's balance the other way? -- You're not nearly as smart as you say you are. First-ever study to link increased mortality specifically to carbon dioxide emissions While it has long been known that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to climate change, the new study details how for each increase of one degree Celsius caused by carbon dioxide, the resulting air pollution would lead annually to about a thousand additional deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in the United States, according to the paper by Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. Worldwide, upward of 20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Yep, go through central PA and WV in the middle of the Night and you can see all the soot being belched into the air by the night running of the coal power and industrial plants. Air down wind of these things is actually worse at night on the Atlantic Coast from NJ to Richmond, VA than during the day. I thought is was fog at first, but it is these cos dirty little secret so that they can avoid upgrading the scrubbers on their stacks.
SD Jarhead Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 I'd say you're probably the poster girl for erectile dysfunction. Wait, I thought 'she' was a dude? Now I'm confused.
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 EPA re: Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted in a number of ways. It is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle and through human activities like the burning of fossil fuels. Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’ and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’ When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. -- Won't you consider that the CO2/nature balance has been a bit out of whack for oh, I don't know, over 200 years. The amount of CO2 has risen while nature's counterbalance has decreased thus throwing the whole thing off? -- Don't you think its possible, and even logical, that this imbalance can contribute to climate and health problems worldwide? -- Do you seriously believe that by reducing CO2 emissions from cars and industrial plants that we will reduce CO2 levels LOWER than in 1770, thus throwing off nature's balance the other way? -- You're not nearly as smart as you say you are. First-ever study to link increased mortality specifically to carbon dioxide emissions While it has long been known that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to climate change, the new study details how for each increase of one degree Celsius caused by carbon dioxide, the resulting air pollution would lead annually to about a thousand additional deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in the United States, according to the paper by Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. Worldwide, upward of 20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas. But apparently I'm smarter than you think I am, considering that you didn't even understand what I posted: carbon dioxide isn't the issue. Industrial emissions are the issue. Labelling CO2 as a "dangerous pollutant", while it appeals to simpletons such as yourself, only clouds the issue. Is labelling the wine industry a generator of dangerous pollutants going to solve global warming? bull sh-- like this doesn't solve the problem, it hinders solving the problem. It only serves to make idiots like you feel good about your own inaction.
erynthered Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 'July 14th 1998, 10:44 AM' post='1172849']But apparently I'm smarter than you think I am, considering that you didn't even understand what I posted: carbon dioxide isn't the issue. Industrial emissions are the issue. Labelling CO2 as a "dangerous pollutant", while it appeals to simpletons such as yourself, only clouds the issue. Is labelling the wine industry a generator of dangerous pollutants going to solve global warming? bull sh-- like this doesn't solve the problem, it hinders solving the problem. It only serves to make idiots like you feel good about your own inaction. There. I pre dated for him, maybe now he'll get it.
Max Fischer Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 There. I pre dated for him, maybe now he'll get it. You can't even give us a straight answer on who you're voting for and why.
Max Fischer Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 But apparently I'm smarter than you think I am, considering that you didn't even understand what I posted: carbon dioxide isn't the issue. Industrial emissions are the issue. Labelling CO2 as a "dangerous pollutant", while it appeals to simpletons such as yourself, only clouds the issue. Is labelling the wine industry a generator of dangerous pollutants going to solve global warming? bull sh-- like this doesn't solve the problem, it hinders solving the problem. It only serves to make idiots like you feel good about your own inaction. 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.
erynthered Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 You can't even give us a straight answer on who you're voting for and why. I told you. And I even said who I would be voting for in 08 back in 1984. You'll never out live that !@#$ up stupid. Thanks. You know RCow by any chance?
Max Fischer Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 I told you. And I even said who I would be voting for in 08 back in 1984. You'll never out live that !@#$ up stupid. Thanks. You know RCow by any chance? What's an RCow? You said you're voting for Obama but you've never said an honest and insightful thing on this board.
Da Big Man Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 I heard they were going to declare Saturday and Sunday as official weekend days and spend billions getting the word out. Thats hillarious. He will also make sure medical marijuana will be delivered to every home. And the smoke will mix with the CO2 to lessen its effects or you will be so high you won't care Friday nights will be declared hate America night when we can bash every good thing about this country and be made to feel guily about how well we do. Of course republicans must work extra hard to pay for all those do nothing eighteen to twentysomethings who play SOCOM all day and fry their minds out claiming to know everything. I call them waterbong philosophers, deep thinkers who have zero direction. All they know is they, for some reason unknown to them, they want to elect Obama. Maybe cause he is a Muslim, maybe cause he is black, maybe cause they believe all the BS he pitches as they watcht the TV glossy eyed looking over their bowl of Capn' Crunch. who knows. It's kinda like the latte craze, it's just a fad.
erynthered Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 What's an RCow? You said you're voting for Obama but you've never said an honest and insightful thing on this board. Insightful? Just like a lib, You want that cozy fuzzy feeling with everything in life. Grow up. Hows that for insightful.
Max Fischer Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 Insightful? Just like a lib, You want that cozy fuzzy feeling with everything in life. Grow up. Hows that for insightful. You are by far the biggest moron on this board. And that's saying a lot.
EC-Bills Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 You are by far the biggest moron on this board. And that's saying a lot. Nope, sorry but Wacka has that role. Now if you say Eryn is the biggest fag on this board, you would be correct.
Recommended Posts