Ruh Roh! Key phrase---"But what if CO2 isnt a pollutant?" IF? Srsly? Despite the SCOTUS saying it is based on that fine panel of scientists, it's natural. No wonder nobody is claiming that they wrote this piece. But, whoever did is steering the anti-denialists towards Brian Sussman so he can take the brunt of the harassment from the ecowankers. Think anyone in the NEA will bother with this report? Nope. Time to further defang the epa.
1 posted on
05/01/2017 6:21:02 AM PDT by
rktman
To: rktman
Just picture Charleton Heston shouting:
“CO2 IS PLANT FOOD! ...IT’S PLANT FOOOOOD!!!!”
2 posted on
05/01/2017 6:27:24 AM PDT by
Mr. K
(***THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE OF OBAMACARE REPEAL THAT IS WORSE THAN KEEPING IT ONE MORE DAY***)
To: rktman
CO2 wasn’t ruled a pollutant in an effort to save mankind or the planet.
CO2 was ruled a pollutant to justify a bigger, stronger, more pervasive Nanny state and to justify massive wealth redistribution.
3 posted on
05/01/2017 6:27:59 AM PDT by
Vlad The Inhaler
(Best Long Term Prepper Tactic: Beat The Muslim Takeover - Have Big Families)
To: rktman
Don’t assume people know the definition of the word “pollutant”.
4 posted on
05/01/2017 6:29:11 AM PDT by
gr8eman
(Facts and evidence are bourgeois constructs weaponized by patriarchal penis-people)
To: rktman
I’m trying to sell my extra large super-duper CO2 scrubbers to the UN - I guarantee that all CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere and all CO2 sources will be permanently sequestered in underground bunkers by whatever means necessary ... all hail Gaia! The Earth will soon be CO2 free!!
5 posted on
05/01/2017 6:30:24 AM PDT by
PIF
(They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
To: rktman
To prevent this (Global Warming) catastrophe, a vast regulatory infrastructure needs to be created, even if it means sacrificing jobs, economic efficiency, personal freedoms or national sovereignty itself. The left-wing professors want Other Peoples Money for their research projects and the Democrats want to control every aspect of our lives. Such a deal.
6 posted on
05/01/2017 6:31:50 AM PDT by
libertylover
(In 2016 small-town America got tired of being governed by people who don't know a boy from a girl.)
To: rktman
The researchers claim they could find no evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that we analyzed. misinterpreted data + dishonesty/lies + simplified dramatic statements + scare tactics/mass hysteria = libtard science
7 posted on
05/01/2017 6:34:41 AM PDT by
mjp
((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
To: rktman
I had to harvest my timber last year due to signs of extreme stress. We figured most of the damage came from four years of drought on the west coast, they were dying.
An alternative theory may be, since the government crack down on CO2, the very food source for my trees, maybe that is what is killing our trees in the NW? A CO2 drought brought on by Obama, the EPA and the Supreme Court!
9 posted on
05/01/2017 6:44:17 AM PDT by
thirst4truth
(America, What difference does it make?)
To: rktman
"Key phrase---"But what if CO2 isnt a pollutant?" IF? Srsly? Despite the SCOTUS saying it is based on that fine panel of scientists, it's natural." Any chemical can be a pollutant in the wrong place and/or at the wrong concentration. In the same way that any plant can be a weed for similar reasons. A stalk of corn in a cotton or soybean field is a weed. That said, I think "global warming" is not real.
11 posted on
05/01/2017 6:48:19 AM PDT by
Wonder Warthog
(The Hog of Steel and NRA Life Member)
To: rktman
The level of the so-called pollutant carbon dioxide, or CO2, is rising in the atmosphere, Okay. I'll bite. What has it risen to? Last time I checked I think CO2 made up something like .03% (that's three/one hundredths of a percent for those of you who are decimal-pointly challenged) of our atmosphere.
12 posted on
05/01/2017 6:52:49 AM PDT by
Texas Eagle
(If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
To: rktman
.....Thats precisely the shocking finding of a new report from statistician Jim Wallace, climatologist John Christy and meteorologist Joe DAleo, who contend the Environmental Protection Agency erred when it ruled CO2 is a pollutant in 2009.....
Climatology—real science!
“Climate science”—fake science!!!! You know, all those models!
PHOOEY!!!!
13 posted on
05/01/2017 6:54:04 AM PDT by
Honorary Serb
(Kosovo is Serbia! Free Srpska! Abolish ICTY!)
To: rktman
CO2 is 0.04% of Earths atmosphere.
14 posted on
05/01/2017 6:54:18 AM PDT by
Oldeconomybuyer
(The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
To: rktman
Things for the marchers to consider....
Sussman similarly dismissed the recent March for Science, not as a defense of scientific but as a fresh public venue for Trump haters to parade their ignorant nonsense....
The March for Science was a confusing event, he commented. It risks associating the term science with left-wing politics which would ultimately not be good for those who claim a scientific mindset. But what I think is more damaging is the idolization of science. It risks becoming religious with people marching through the streets proclaiming that if we just all looked to science we would find utopia, heaven on Earth.
20 posted on
05/01/2017 7:32:14 AM PDT by
ptsal
To: rktman
The GOVERNMENT SPONSORED SCIENTIST, were also caught placing about a third of their temperature sensors wrongfully over areas with cement on the ground.
This gave false warmer readings due to the cement which is why sensors go over ground.
21 posted on
05/01/2017 7:36:36 AM PDT by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God Bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: rktman
CO2 is no more a pollutant then O2
Plants take in CO2 and emit O2
Animals take in O2 and emit C02
Its a Beautiful Natural Symbiotic cycle
25 posted on
05/01/2017 8:25:29 AM PDT by
tophat9000
(Tophat9000)
To: rktman
Yea, but... if you fill a bucket with gasoline and light it, it produces some CO2... and if you measure the temperature just above the flame you'll see its warm/hot.
Therefore, the CO2 must be causing warming!
Can I get my government grant now to write this up in a scientific paper? $5 million will get me started.
To: rktman
28 posted on
05/01/2017 9:25:24 AM PDT by
aquila48
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson