Posted on 10/16/2008 3:34:41 PM PDT by xcamel
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=alHWVvGnkcd4&refer=canada
Link only
This is important
Big money from the NRDC, and the Sierra Club...
Scrappleface?
If this is for real, he needs to be institutionalized not voted for.
Obama is a clueless moron.
Gondring, you have your head firmly planted where the sun don’t shine. CO2 as you say is essential and natural. so how can it be a pollutant also? CO2 comprises less than 4% of the atmosphere, which is low by historical standards. more CO2 equals more luxuriant plant life. we need more, not less CO2 for better crop yields. you combine soot with CO2, as if they were the same. CO2 is colorless, and odorless. Geez!!
Is there any other kind????
I know I am a sinner, but a polluter as well?
Oh, the humanity.
Exactly. And carbon dioxide is only present in trace amounts. A recent estimate is 380 parts per million, up from about 320 ppm 50 years ago. No one, I repeat, no one, knows how much CO2 is present due to industrial activity.
The Gorons and other socialists such as BHO talk about “greenhouse gasses” as if they were all the evil output of capitalism. In fact, greenhouse gasses are normal and essential to keep the earth warm enough for humans. One of the major greenhouse gasses is water vapor. Another is methane, which comes primarily from cows and Democrats.
The earth’s climate is very poorly understood by scientists, except of course the pseudo-scientists who think they can predict the sea level at New York City 70 years from now. Our climate experts can’t even accurately tell us where a hurricane will land in 48 hours.
Obama in the White House with the Democrat Congress would saddle the United States with economy-killing new regulations and taxes in their religious Jihad aimed at non-existent, man-made, “global warming”.
CO2 levels were much higher in the past. Flora thrived, Fauna thrived. World was a warmer, wetter place. But that was long ago, things will be getting cooler from now on, as they have been for eons. The thought that man can affect this sytem to any extent is brilliance or sheer folly.
He’s going to start taxing us for breathing. F@cking socialist pompous ass.
I have read that a recent substantial reduction in sunspots on the sun will likely lead to much colder temperatures on earth.
The activities of man on earth are of little consequence compared to natural forces.
I just don't agree. Maybe we're just hashing semantics, but it seems to me that a substance that belongs there, is beneficial in the quantities that are present, and/or the quantities present are within the "normal" proportions that have been measurable over time... is not a "pollutant".
In my estimation a "pollutant" is something that does not belong there, or is in abnormal, artificially induced quantities that cause harm of some kind. I remain unconvinced that CO2 is causing any harm whatsoever.
I am increasingly persuaded that CO2 is an ~effect~ of climate change, not a cause. The oceans are a massive gas sink. As ocean temperatures rise, the solubility of CO2 in seawater goes down-- more gas is released into the atmosphere. When ocean temperatures decrease, more CO2 is dissolved into the water. I think the capacity of the world's oceans to alter the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes any effort on our part... moot.
If you think differently, I'm happy to listen.
Good idea. Now, my proposal to cut CO2 emissions in half - all Obama supporters should stop breathing.
Not the first to suggest it...
OK. here are some facts.
Carbon Dioxide is an essential gas in the makeup of the atmosphere. Without it all life on Earth would die. It’s no more a “pollutant” than is Oxygen.
Another fact: 500 million years ago CO2 levels were likely 10 times higher than now. There were no SUVs 500 million years ago.
HOW CAN DEMOCRATS NOT SEE THIS? They want everyone else's stuff, and think that oh well business is so rich they can just afford to lose millions, or Joe making 120K can afford a 30% tax increase.... well joe will leave the country and so will big business. Then where the damn socialists gonna create create jobs from? How are they going to employ all those shiny new college grads? The college grads will be smart enough to go to Australia or somewhere else where people can make a fair living with out a goverbnebt reaching in and giving them a wedgie every time we bend over to pick up the ruins Obama and Socialists leave us.
I am Scared and Pissed off.
That's why I said "sooty"...to emphasize that I had said "carbon," not "carbon dioxide."
The argument given was something like:
"Carbon Dioxide is Essential for Life and therefore it can't be a pollutant."And I disproved it by example: Carbon is essential for life, but when carbon is emitted as particulate matter, it's a pollutant (a conclusion you accepted).
armydoc>However, sooty emissions are a thing of the past, given clean coal technology.
So you are accepting the idea that we can limit emissions. Well, similarly, Barack Obama wants to list CO2 as a pollutant that can be "treated" with technology and have emissions reduced. Do we really want to argue that?
armydoc>No, the real issue is capping CO2 output in the name of dubious, emotional "science".
Exactly. But the argument given did not address this issue. It provided a tangential and fallacious argument. Maceman "gets it" thus:
The point is that once the government can declare CO2 to be a pollutant, and has the power to regulate it, there is virtually no aspect of human activity over which it can be denied from exercising authority and control.This needs to be fought vigorously and rigorously, not fallaciously. :-)
>Ramius:
In my estimation a "pollutant" is something that does not belong there, or is in abnormal, artificially induced quantities that cause harm of some kind. I remain unconvinced that CO2 is causing any harm whatsoever.This is a different argument than the one to which I responded. This one is saying that you disagree whether it's causing harm or not, and that's a very valid point of disagreement. My beef was with the initial post, which didn't have this qualifier in it. Perhaps semantics, but it's an important distinction since we can't assume everyone agrees that CO2 is causing no harm.
I am increasingly persuaded that CO2 is an ~effect~ of climate change, not a cause.
I think that's true most of the time. But as gets pointed out, there were no SUVs in the Mesozoic. So we've never had CO2 forcings from industrial emissions, transportation sector, etc. So just because the atmospheric CO2 levels have been an effect under normal, variable conditions, that doesn't mean that it can't go the opposite way with a forcing of CO2.
For example, you can add ice (cause) to a drink to make it colder (effect). But then if you force the system by making the drink colder (put it into the freezer), the cause and effect can reverse--you get ice.
While I don't believe that CO2 is forcing temperature to the extent the IPCC does, it's silly to think that 800-year lags, etc., can put the question to rest, as the whole point of the enviro crowd is that the system is NOT operating the way it does naturally.
Try educating yourself, and rise from ignorance into understanding.
Technology won't seem so much like magic, and
logic won't seem like insanity. ;-)
Many pollutants are not poisons...except for the fact that the dose makes the poison. Dihydrogen monoxide is a poison in sufficient dosage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.