AOC states we haven't seen Co2 levels like this since the Pliocene period

[daveman]

Make sure to install those side pipes to blast cyclists with your diesel soot. You don't want to look weak.

I don't suppose you know about diesels and DEF now.
Just another example of how stupid you are.

Obviously I do as I just mentioned them, dope.

No you didn't, you talked about diesels and blasting soot on cyclists.
If you knew what DEF is, and that pretty much all diesels use it, you would know there isn't any soot, dope.

Double down on stupid if you want to though.

you would know there isn't any soot, dope.

Rolling coal !........

Coal rollers put modified chips in their trucks. That's not a factory chip; it's custom programming. Factory chips meet EPA emissions standards for, among other things, particulates.

 

[daveman]

School who?

You were to stupid to comprehend what it said you stupid fuck

LOL...
Tell us how living plants emit CO2, dope

didnt you graduate from the 2nd grade yet?

didnt you graduate from the 2nd grade yet?

^ This is a grown man. Uff.

You just told someone to kill himself. You need to shut the fuck up.

Because he stated people needed to die, dope.

You made it personal. Unacceptable. And more than likely against board rules.

 

[daveman]

It's like I posted earlier. Global Warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the US couldn't fill it up. The more we spend on it, the worse the supposed problem gets, and the more they want.

The real problem in the US is consumers have no idea how much of their money goes towards green. That's why every product should have a label by law that states how much money goes towards green to produce that product. If Americans actually knew how much all this is costing them, they wouldn't be so anxious for more regulations and costs in the future.

They go out and ask people if they want a cleaner environment? Well duh, HTF do they think people will answer? Now go out and ask them if they'd like a cleaner environment if government sends them a bill for $1,000 a year and see what they say.

So anybody that tells you our country wants to be greener, tell them they are F.O.S.

Man, you are still looking in the rearview mirror, you better watch the road.
They want to get rid of the Electoral College so New York City can tell folks in Tennessee to put a windmill in their front yard and send them the juice.

Marxism 101

View attachment 261545

So renting an apartment in the city is producing all that pollution?

Is that what I said? Hint: No, you retard.

 

[daveman]

More CO two usually makes plants and insects bigger as witnessed by earth's past. I haven't seen either get bigger.

Studies have shown that higher CO2 can help plant growth but nutrition levels can lessen. When you look at a crop like corn, it loses a percentage pf its production with each degree day over 90/95.

Corn is grown for ethanol production at the insistence of the left, to lessen the use of fossil fuels. Corn production requires massive amounts of fertilizer, which runs off the farmland into rivers, some of which winds up in the Gulf of Mexico...causing algal blooms which consume seawater oxygen when they die off. The oxygen depletion causes a massive dead zone every year. In 2017, it was the size of New Jersey.

Congratulations, leftist "environmentalists": You're killing the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[Flopper]

More CO two usually makes plants and insects bigger as witnessed by earth's past. I haven't seen either get bigger.

Probably so, but not good news. The reason is the greener areas are where co2 emissions are rising due to increase human activity which is usually more than offset by reduction in the size of forests and addition CO2 emission due to man.

When scientists talk about co2 levels of the atmosphere they are talking about levels measured in 2 places selected for their purity of the air, Cape Grim, on the Tasmania’s west coast, Mauna Loa in Hawaii. CO2 levels are also measured in 66 countries. Mauna Loa is quoted most often because they have been measuring CO2 levels there for over 50 years.

Since CO2 levels may go anywhere from 50 to over 1000ppm depending on air pollution, no two readings around the world are likely to be the same. So the readings we see from Mouna Loa are useful in determining a trend. The trend in rising levels has been confirmed at Cape Grim and other stations. Readings in remote old growth forest are likely to be less than a hundred. In cities with high pollution levels they can reach 1000 which is where most people start having some distress breathing.

You can buy a co2 meter at home depot to use to measure indoor air quality.

First, how did you get my graduation picture? Second, My indoor air quality is good-unless I eat beans. Third, I would think the best thing we could do today to help the environment as a whole, is to preserve the rain forests.

The rain forest is tough. They are almost all in undeveloped areas where the people are dirt poor. Clearing the land means farming, jobs, etc. Once developed it's gone forever along with the thousands of species of plant and animal life that exist nowhere else. However to local people those plants and animals are pests that harbor disease and the forest is not their friend.

You can't just buy the land and put up no trespassing signs. The people in those areas have to learn that it is a precious resource. Selling people on that whose children are dying from tropical diseases, who have little or no jobs, education, or a future is almost impossible.

A lot of the rain forest is protected. That means something in America but in many countries it just means the right amount of money has go into the right hands. And little by little the rain forest disappears, except for a few acres of roadside park that become a monument to man's greed and stupidity.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You love Trumnp's trasde war is is nothing but a huge tax increase that hits poor people.

Yet never a concern about the poor people when they had their cigarettes taxed by Obama, or their increased costs for fuel, or environmental regulations that made their products more expensive.

Don't you dare have a fit because vehicle emissions inspection cost money. It is part of owning a vehicle.

That's not part of owning a vehicle. It's part of an overbearing federal government.

Do, we should have no regulations on vehicles.

Let people run them without brakes or any emission nooooooooooo because that wopuld be governmdnt interference.

Emission testing is ridiculous. Any vehicle made in the last 15 years has all kinds of pollution crap on it already. Any truck manufactured in the last five the same.

It's nothing but bureaucracies increasing the size of government and accomplishing nothing at the same time, just like here in Cleveland. It's a huge waste of money; money that can be used for more productive things.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

Man certainly can control the CO2 that he puts in the air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, man is responsible for putting some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is only about 3% of total CO2 emission so it might seem insignificant but it's not.

The oceans, our forests, and the atmosphere has been a huge CO2 sink. They have absorbed enough C02 to keep our CO2 level in the atmosphere fairly stable for thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

With the industrial revolution, 3 things happens that effect C02 levels. We destroyed about 25% of the worlds forests which has reduced CO2 absorption. We are adding about 24 billion tons of addition CO2. And lastly, studies are showing that ocean absorption of CO2 is beginning to decrease. As a result we now have the highest level of CO2 in our atmosphere since humans began to walk the earth and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to rise.

I don't know anything about the effectiveness of vehicle emission testing in your state. However, in Washington State air quality is much cleaner than when the program began in 1982 due to programs such as emission testing and improvements in technology. As a result, the state is abolishing emission testing this year. One of the mangers in a state emission testing station said, "When we started testing in the 1980's, 1 out of ever 50 vehicles fail to pass. Today it's about 1 in 500. The emission control systems in cars today are so good and most of the old high pollution vehicles are gone, there isn't as much need for testing."

There is no federal requirement for emission testing. While the federal government's Clean Air Act stipulates air quality levels for the entire country, how these targets are achieved is left up to each state.

No, it is the federal EPA that forced us into that program. They did the same thing with our water as well. We are currently trying to get out of it as long as we have a Republican Governor and President, but I haven't heard anything as of late.

As I already posted, the US is doing more than her share of cleaning up the planet. It's the other countries that we have no control over that's adding to the Co2 levels.

I agree, the US is probably doing more than other nations in reducing CO2 levels. However, the US is also the 2nd largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the largest on per ca pita basis. Since China is the highest emitter in tons per year but is low as a per capita emitter, the Paris Accords assigned the US with a higher annual reduction goal than China which gave Trump a good excuse to refuse to support the accords arguing that US was doing enough and it was China's turn to bear the load.

This reminds me of a situation that occurred in a small Louisiana town on the banks of the Mississippi about 60 or 70 years ago. The Mississippi was experiencing some of the worst flooding in many years. In this little town the mayor and city council organized blacks who lived nearest the river to sandbag since they would suffer the most damage. The White people provided supplies, coffee and sandwiches. This went on day and all night and into the next day. Then some of the blacks noticed something was missing, white folks who sat on their porches watching the work. Since white people owned the shacks they rented, the blacks thought the whites should do some work. One thing lead to another and the hundreds of blacks walked off. And since there weren't enough workers, the river did what it always does. It rose, flooded all the homes. What was left was not worth saving. I expect something similar on a global scale as climate changes and the nations most responsible do little or nothing because they've done their share.

The difference in your analogy is that they knew the river would rise and flood. We don't know what increased Co2 or any other gas would do. Most of the climate models were wrong in the past, and all they have to go on are those models.

Many years ago our river started fire. The theory was that if they dumped chemicals into such a huge amount of water like the Great Lakes, those chemicals would dissipate and never be noticed. Well they were wrong, but it took empirical evidence before they did something about it. Water simply doesn't catch on fire.

With global warming (or climate change if you will) we don't have empirical evidence of anything. We have predictions, models, but nothing concrete.

We have Alexandria Kelly Bundy who says we only have 12 years to exist; Beto says 10. Now we've all seen these predictions before and they never materialized. Increased hurricanes, increased tornados, increased earth quakes, cities buried under water, you name it, and somebody predicted it years ago.

The sooner government can control fuel and healthcare, the sooner they will have total control over the people. That's what this is really all about.

Ray got his PhD from the Limbaugh Institute.

We know hoe high CO2 affects our climate.

It is SCIENCE.

I wish you uneducated assfucks would quit pretending you actually know something & STFU.

If in 1990, a scientist said that if we continues with emission on the current pace that NY could be flooded as early as in 20 years is not saying it will happen. They are saying it could happen. As our CO2 levels increase there is a range of effects. Stating what the worst could be is not a fucking promise.

It does not mean the models are wrong.

For you stupid assfucks out there, some action has been taken & that would change the models.

When your doctor tells you smoking could kill you in 30 years & you go from 3 packs a pack to one, that changes your outlook.

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

You stupid fucks think we can wait until the worse effects hit, we can just cut our emissions & everything.

There is a multi decade delay.

Why the fuck are you too stupid to get it.

Dave, I'm pushing 60 now, and I remember as a child when we were trying to make our country more green. It hasn't stopped. No matter how much we do, they only want more. And there is no end in sight.

And with every so-called improvement, it comes at a cost. Oh......you may not see it. The government doesn't send us each a bill for our cost of green. It's intrinsic in everything we buy. You're paying for it, you just don't know it. Maybe if you did, you wouldn't be such a pushover for all this doom and gloom talk.

So what did we do since that time?

Outlawed DDT.
Outlawed lead in gasoline and paint.
Outlawed asbestus.
Outlawed Fluorocarbons in spray cans.
CAFE standards on cars.
CAFE standards on trucks.
Vast expansion of cleaner burning gasoline blends across the country.
Environmental friendly anti-freeze.
Outlawed incinerators in homes that burned garbage.
The elimination of styrofoam containers for fast food products.
Much lower sulfur content in diesel fuel.
Federal requirement of Diesel Emission Fluid in all diesel vehicles manufactured after 2010.
The elimination of incandescent light bulbs.
Elimination of toilets with 2 gallon tanks.
Environment friendly home and business insulation.
Mandated recycling programs.
New environmental standards for lawn equipment.
Electric cars.
Burning up our food supply to manufacture ethanal.
Water saving shower heads.
Increased energy efficiency on appliances.

Now these are just SOME of the changes on a national level. Then there are more at state and city levels such as a ban on plastic straws, a ban on helium balloons, bans on plastic grocery bags, bans on the use of tobacco products, bans on wood burning fires, emission testing on vehicles, and in NYC, a consideration of banning hotdogs.

And after all this (and much more) what have we got to show for it? The environment is in more danger now than it's ever been according to environmentalists.

 

[Flopper]

More CO two usually makes plants and insects bigger as witnessed by earth's past. I haven't seen either get bigger.

Studies have shown that higher CO2 can help plant growth but nutrition levels can lessen. When you look at a crop like corn, it loses a percentage pf its production with each degree day over 90/95.

Corn is grown for ethanol production at the insistence of the left, to lessen the use of fossil fuels. Corn production requires massive amounts of fertilizer, which runs off the farmland into rivers, some of which winds up in the Gulf of Mexico...causing algal blooms which consume seawater oxygen when they die off. The oxygen depletion causes a massive dead zone every year. In 2017, it was the size of New Jersey.

Congratulations, leftist "environmentalists": You're killing the Gulf of Mexico.

No, not the left. Trump has announced plans to put more ethanol in gasoline. The proposed regulations would allow 15-percent ethanol fuels to be sold year-round, including in the summer. The high-ethanol fuel is currently banned by the EPA for sale during the summer driving season, which begins June 1, because of its high fuel volatility rating, which can hurt engine performance and can contribute to smog, especially during summer.

 

[Flopper]

You love Trumnp's trasde war is is nothing but a huge tax increase that hits poor people.

Yet never a concern about the poor people when they had their cigarettes taxed by Obama, or their increased costs for fuel, or environmental regulations that made their products more expensive.

Don't you dare have a fit because vehicle emissions inspection cost money. It is part of owning a vehicle.

That's not part of owning a vehicle. It's part of an overbearing federal government.

Do, we should have no regulations on vehicles.

Let people run them without brakes or any emission nooooooooooo because that wopuld be governmdnt interference.

Emission testing is ridiculous. Any vehicle made in the last 15 years has all kinds of pollution crap on it already. Any truck manufactured in the last five the same.

It's nothing but bureaucracies increasing the size of government and accomplishing nothing at the same time, just like here in Cleveland. It's a huge waste of money; money that can be used for more productive things.

Emission testing was an important tool in reducing air pollution in the 80's. It also pushed auto manufactures to lower emissions well beyond just catalytic converters. The result has been much cleaner air that meets EPA standards. Washington was the first state to remove the testing requirements and other states will likely follow.

 

[Flopper]

Man certainly can control the CO2 that he puts in the air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, man is responsible for putting some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is only about 3% of total CO2 emission so it might seem insignificant but it's not.

The oceans, our forests, and the atmosphere has been a huge CO2 sink. They have absorbed enough C02 to keep our CO2 level in the atmosphere fairly stable for thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

With the industrial revolution, 3 things happens that effect C02 levels. We destroyed about 25% of the worlds forests which has reduced CO2 absorption. We are adding about 24 billion tons of addition CO2. And lastly, studies are showing that ocean absorption of CO2 is beginning to decrease. As a result we now have the highest level of CO2 in our atmosphere since humans began to walk the earth and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to rise.

I don't know anything about the effectiveness of vehicle emission testing in your state. However, in Washington State air quality is much cleaner than when the program began in 1982 due to programs such as emission testing and improvements in technology. As a result, the state is abolishing emission testing this year. One of the mangers in a state emission testing station said, "When we started testing in the 1980's, 1 out of ever 50 vehicles fail to pass. Today it's about 1 in 500. The emission control systems in cars today are so good and most of the old high pollution vehicles are gone, there isn't as much need for testing."

There is no federal requirement for emission testing. While the federal government's Clean Air Act stipulates air quality levels for the entire country, how these targets are achieved is left up to each state.

No, it is the federal EPA that forced us into that program. They did the same thing with our water as well. We are currently trying to get out of it as long as we have a Republican Governor and President, but I haven't heard anything as of late.

As I already posted, the US is doing more than her share of cleaning up the planet. It's the other countries that we have no control over that's adding to the Co2 levels.

I agree, the US is probably doing more than other nations in reducing CO2 levels. However, the US is also the 2nd largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the largest on per ca pita basis. Since China is the highest emitter in tons per year but is low as a per capita emitter, the Paris Accords assigned the US with a higher annual reduction goal than China which gave Trump a good excuse to refuse to support the accords arguing that US was doing enough and it was China's turn to bear the load.

This reminds me of a situation that occurred in a small Louisiana town on the banks of the Mississippi about 60 or 70 years ago. The Mississippi was experiencing some of the worst flooding in many years. In this little town the mayor and city council organized blacks who lived nearest the river to sandbag since they would suffer the most damage. The White people provided supplies, coffee and sandwiches. This went on day and all night and into the next day. Then some of the blacks noticed something was missing, white folks who sat on their porches watching the work. Since white people owned the shacks they rented, the blacks thought the whites should do some work. One thing lead to another and the hundreds of blacks walked off. And since there weren't enough workers, the river did what it always does. It rose, flooded all the homes. What was left was not worth saving. I expect something similar on a global scale as climate changes and the nations most responsible do little or nothing because they've done their share.

The difference in your analogy is that they knew the river would rise and flood. We don't know what increased Co2 or any other gas would do. Most of the climate models were wrong in the past, and all they have to go on are those models.

Many years ago our river started fire. The theory was that if they dumped chemicals into such a huge amount of water like the Great Lakes, those chemicals would dissipate and never be noticed. Well they were wrong, but it took empirical evidence before they did something about it. Water simply doesn't catch on fire.

With global warming (or climate change if you will) we don't have empirical evidence of anything. We have predictions, models, but nothing concrete.

We have Alexandria Kelly Bundy who says we only have 12 years to exist; Beto says 10. Now we've all seen these predictions before and they never materialized. Increased hurricanes, increased tornados, increased earth quakes, cities buried under water, you name it, and somebody predicted it years ago.

The sooner government can control fuel and healthcare, the sooner they will have total control over the people. That's what this is really all about.

Ray got his PhD from the Limbaugh Institute.

We know hoe high CO2 affects our climate.

It is SCIENCE.

I wish you uneducated assfucks would quit pretending you actually know something & STFU.

If in 1990, a scientist said that if we continues with emission on the current pace that NY could be flooded as early as in 20 years is not saying it will happen. They are saying it could happen. As our CO2 levels increase there is a range of effects. Stating what the worst could be is not a fucking promise.

It does not mean the models are wrong.

For you stupid assfucks out there, some action has been taken & that would change the models.

When your doctor tells you smoking could kill you in 30 years & you go from 3 packs a pack to one, that changes your outlook.

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

You stupid fucks think we can wait until the worse effects hit, we can just cut our emissions & everything.

There is a multi decade delay.

Why the fuck are you too stupid to get it.

Dave, I'm pushing 60 now, and I remember as a child when we were trying to make our country more green. It hasn't stopped. No matter how much we do, they only want more. And there is no end in sight.

And with every so-called improvement, it comes at a cost. Oh......you may not see it. The government doesn't send us each a bill for our cost of green. It's intrinsic in everything we buy. You're paying for it, you just don't know it. Maybe if you did, you wouldn't be such a pushover for all this doom and gloom talk.

So what did we do since that time?

Outlawed DDT.
Outlawed lead in gasoline and paint.
Outlawed asbestus.
Outlawed Fluorocarbons in spray cans.
CAFE standards on cars.
CAFE standards on trucks.
Vast expansion of cleaner burning gasoline blends across the country.
Environmental friendly anti-freeze.
Outlawed incinerators in homes that burned garbage.
The elimination of styrofoam containers for fast food products.
Much lower sulfur content in diesel fuel.
Federal requirement of Diesel Emission Fluid in all diesel vehicles manufactured after 2010.
The elimination of incandescent light bulbs.
Elimination of toilets with 2 gallon tanks.
Environment friendly home and business insulation.
Mandated recycling programs.
New environmental standards for lawn equipment.
Electric cars.
Burning up our food supply to manufacture ethanal.
Water saving shower heads.
Increased energy efficiency on appliances.

Now these are just SOME of the changes on a national level. Then there are more at state and city levels such as a ban on plastic straws, a ban on helium balloons, bans on plastic grocery bags, bans on the use of tobacco products, bans on wood burning fires, emission testing on vehicles, and in NYC, a consideration of banning hotdogs.

And after all this (and much more) what have we got to show for it? The environment is in more danger now than it's ever been according to environmentalists.

Ridiculous!
The ban on widespread use of DDT is one smartest things the government has done.
Studies show a range of human health effects linked to DDT which include:

• breast & other cancers
• male infertility
• miscarriages & low birth weight
• developmental delay
• nervous system & liver damage

In addition it is an ecological nightmare. The ecological ramifications of DDT-use resulted in massive and widespread population declines of many species of our birds over large geographic areas. Populations of Bald eagles and other birds crashed when DDT thinned their eggs, killing their embryos. At the rate we were losing Bald Eagles, the emblem of the nation, they would have been extinct by now as well as hundreds of other birds. Studies of fish also reveal declines in fresh water bass, trout, perch, and bluegills/

Asbestos exposure is the No. 1 cause of work-related deaths in the world. Approximately 90,000 people die from asbestos-related diseases globally each year. An estimated 125 million people worldwide remain at risk of occupational exposure to asbestos. I guess you think that we should still be using it.

In you perfect world, I guess there would be no mandated recycling so we would have 31.2 billion pounds of additional waste in landfills every single day, an additional 20,000 people a year dying with respiratory diseases resulting from increased air pollution, hundreds of children every year dying of lead positioning etc. etc...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.

Oh right, that must be it.

View attachment 261496

Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

So given the trillions that were already spent on this farce, and it's proven to be a failure, how much more should we spend?

This all reminds me of what happened (and is still happening) here. Years ago the feds said our air was unacceptable. So they forced us into this E-check program. Ten years later, they once again tested the air with no change in the quality of air. And keep in mind, during that time, our steel mills shutdown. They reopened again later, but with much more green initiatives.

The billions we spent in that decade of E-cehck could have went to better things such as the homeless, our roads, reducing taxation, a number of things. But even after the negative results of this failed program, the feds insisted we continue it.

So all this goes to support my point. Combating global warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the country could never fill it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, but expecting different results each time."

The problem is we can't control Co2 either. God does.

LOL....
So god is fucking us and not humans?

Fucking us because the earth is not meeting your expectations? Don't worry about trying to control the climate. It's out of your pay grade.

You are a complete idiot. You run to god as an explanation because you're not capable of understanding even the most basic fact surrounding greenhouse gas.

The sources are measurable. God isn't one of them.

 

[RealDave]

Man certainly can control the CO2 that he puts in the air. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, man is responsible for putting some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is only about 3% of total CO2 emission so it might seem insignificant but it's not.

The oceans, our forests, and the atmosphere has been a huge CO2 sink. They have absorbed enough C02 to keep our CO2 level in the atmosphere fairly stable for thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

With the industrial revolution, 3 things happens that effect C02 levels. We destroyed about 25% of the worlds forests which has reduced CO2 absorption. We are adding about 24 billion tons of addition CO2. And lastly, studies are showing that ocean absorption of CO2 is beginning to decrease. As a result we now have the highest level of CO2 in our atmosphere since humans began to walk the earth and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to rise.

I don't know anything about the effectiveness of vehicle emission testing in your state. However, in Washington State air quality is much cleaner than when the program began in 1982 due to programs such as emission testing and improvements in technology. As a result, the state is abolishing emission testing this year. One of the mangers in a state emission testing station said, "When we started testing in the 1980's, 1 out of ever 50 vehicles fail to pass. Today it's about 1 in 500. The emission control systems in cars today are so good and most of the old high pollution vehicles are gone, there isn't as much need for testing."

There is no federal requirement for emission testing. While the federal government's Clean Air Act stipulates air quality levels for the entire country, how these targets are achieved is left up to each state.

No, it is the federal EPA that forced us into that program. They did the same thing with our water as well. We are currently trying to get out of it as long as we have a Republican Governor and President, but I haven't heard anything as of late.

As I already posted, the US is doing more than her share of cleaning up the planet. It's the other countries that we have no control over that's adding to the Co2 levels.

I agree, the US is probably doing more than other nations in reducing CO2 levels. However, the US is also the 2nd largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the largest on per ca pita basis. Since China is the highest emitter in tons per year but is low as a per capita emitter, the Paris Accords assigned the US with a higher annual reduction goal than China which gave Trump a good excuse to refuse to support the accords arguing that US was doing enough and it was China's turn to bear the load.

This reminds me of a situation that occurred in a small Louisiana town on the banks of the Mississippi about 60 or 70 years ago. The Mississippi was experiencing some of the worst flooding in many years. In this little town the mayor and city council organized blacks who lived nearest the river to sandbag since they would suffer the most damage. The White people provided supplies, coffee and sandwiches. This went on day and all night and into the next day. Then some of the blacks noticed something was missing, white folks who sat on their porches watching the work. Since white people owned the shacks they rented, the blacks thought the whites should do some work. One thing lead to another and the hundreds of blacks walked off. And since there weren't enough workers, the river did what it always does. It rose, flooded all the homes. What was left was not worth saving. I expect something similar on a global scale as climate changes and the nations most responsible do little or nothing because they've done their share.

The difference in your analogy is that they knew the river would rise and flood. We don't know what increased Co2 or any other gas would do. Most of the climate models were wrong in the past, and all they have to go on are those models.

Many years ago our river started fire. The theory was that if they dumped chemicals into such a huge amount of water like the Great Lakes, those chemicals would dissipate and never be noticed. Well they were wrong, but it took empirical evidence before they did something about it. Water simply doesn't catch on fire.

With global warming (or climate change if you will) we don't have empirical evidence of anything. We have predictions, models, but nothing concrete.

We have Alexandria Kelly Bundy who says we only have 12 years to exist; Beto says 10. Now we've all seen these predictions before and they never materialized. Increased hurricanes, increased tornados, increased earth quakes, cities buried under water, you name it, and somebody predicted it years ago.

The sooner government can control fuel and healthcare, the sooner they will have total control over the people. That's what this is really all about.

Ray got his PhD from the Limbaugh Institute.

We know hoe high CO2 affects our climate.

It is SCIENCE.

I wish you uneducated assfucks would quit pretending you actually know something & STFU.

If in 1990, a scientist said that if we continues with emission on the current pace that NY could be flooded as early as in 20 years is not saying it will happen. They are saying it could happen. As our CO2 levels increase there is a range of effects. Stating what the worst could be is not a fucking promise.

It does not mean the models are wrong.

For you stupid assfucks out there, some action has been taken & that would change the models.

When your doctor tells you smoking could kill you in 30 years & you go from 3 packs a pack to one, that changes your outlook.

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

You stupid fucks think we can wait until the worse effects hit, we can just cut our emissions & everything.

There is a multi decade delay.

Why the fuck are you too stupid to get it.

Dave, I'm pushing 60 now, and I remember as a child when we were trying to make our country more green. It hasn't stopped. No matter how much we do, they only want more. And there is no end in sight.

And with every so-called improvement, it comes at a cost. Oh......you may not see it. The government doesn't send us each a bill for our cost of green. It's intrinsic in everything we buy. You're paying for it, you just don't know it. Maybe if you did, you wouldn't be such a pushover for all this doom and gloom talk.

So what did we do since that time?

Outlawed DDT.
Outlawed lead in gasoline and paint.
Outlawed asbestus.
Outlawed Fluorocarbons in spray cans.
CAFE standards on cars.
CAFE standards on trucks.
Vast expansion of cleaner burning gasoline blends across the country.
Environmental friendly anti-freeze.
Outlawed incinerators in homes that burned garbage.
The elimination of styrofoam containers for fast food products.
Much lower sulfur content in diesel fuel.
Federal requirement of Diesel Emission Fluid in all diesel vehicles manufactured after 2010.
The elimination of incandescent light bulbs.
Elimination of toilets with 2 gallon tanks.
Environment friendly home and business insulation.
Mandated recycling programs.
New environmental standards for lawn equipment.
Electric cars.
Burning up our food supply to manufacture ethanal.
Water saving shower heads.
Increased energy efficiency on appliances.

Now these are just SOME of the changes on a national level. Then there are more at state and city levels such as a ban on plastic straws, a ban on helium balloons, bans on plastic grocery bags, bans on the use of tobacco products, bans on wood burning fires, emission testing on vehicles, and in NYC, a consideration of banning hotdogs.

And after all this (and much more) what have we got to show for it? The environment is in more danger now than it's ever been according to environmentalists.

Lets go back & eliminate all those actions.

Then you can live in that world that you so deeply desire. Thousands & thousands of dead Americans, Air that is dangerous to breathe. Water shortages, etc.

Each had a purpose.

Pushing for higher mpgs. You run in circles screaming OMG OMG OMG yet it not only reduced oil imports from the countries you musty love but reduced the pollution & emissions. I mean are you actually too stupid to see the good this did?
Do you think we should put lead back in paint? Really?

Laws were put in place to reduce the sulfur in diesel helped end the threat of acid rain. I guess you think we sjhould have done nothing & allowed our lakes & rivers to die.

Without recycling, our landfills would be exploding.

The use of ethanol in gasoline had nothing to do with emissions. It was about importing less oil.

Energy Star program for more efficient appliances. You want inefficient appliances & to invest in expanding our electric supply?

Every one of those things you listed worked & helped improve our country.

Do you hate America? Do you want to live in pollution?

 

[RealDave]

You love Trumnp's trasde war is is nothing but a huge tax increase that hits poor people.

Yet never a concern about the poor people when they had their cigarettes taxed by Obama, or their increased costs for fuel, or environmental regulations that made their products more expensive.

Don't you dare have a fit because vehicle emissions inspection cost money. It is part of owning a vehicle.

That's not part of owning a vehicle. It's part of an overbearing federal government.

Do, we should have no regulations on vehicles.

Let people run them without brakes or any emission nooooooooooo because that wopuld be governmdnt interference.

Emission testing is ridiculous. Any vehicle made in the last 15 years has all kinds of pollution crap on it already. Any truck manufactured in the last five the same.

It's nothing but bureaucracies increasing the size of government and accomplishing nothing at the same time, just like here in Cleveland. It's a huge waste of money; money that can be used for more productive things.

So, we should just trust people & corporations because no one would every disconnect shit or parts never fail.

 

[RealDave]

It's like I posted earlier. Global Warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the US couldn't fill it up. The more we spend on it, the worse the supposed problem gets, and the more they want.

The real problem in the US is consumers have no idea how much of their money goes towards green. That's why every product should have a label by law that states how much money goes towards green to produce that product. If Americans actually knew how much all this is costing them, they wouldn't be so anxious for more regulations and costs in the future.

They go out and ask people if they want a cleaner environment? Well duh, HTF do they think people will answer? Now go out and ask them if they'd like a cleaner environment if government sends them a bill for $1,000 a year and see what they say.

So anybody that tells you our country wants to be greener, tell them they are F.O.S.

Man, you are still looking in the rearview mirror, you better watch the road.
They want to get rid of the Electoral College so New York City can tell folks in Tennessee to put a windmill in their front yard and send them the juice.

Marxism 101

View attachment 261545

So renting an apartment in the city is producing all that pollution?

Is that what I said? Hint: No, you retard.

Sure you did. "I live where its green so I am doing it wright & you live in the city & look what you are doing.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Uff...
Our ability to measure the output of CO2 shows us it isn't nature, dope.

No, it doesn't show anything of the sort. If there were any correlation between what we are doing and actual climate, our levels would be going down, wouldn't they? If you fix your leaky pipes under your kitchen sink, but still mopping up water all the time, obviously it must be something else, correct?

No, it doesn't show anything of the sort. If there were any correlation between what we are doing and actual climate, our levels would be going down, wouldn't they? If you fix your leaky pipes under your kitchen sink, but still mopping up water all the time, obviously it must be something else, correct?

No, not correct at all.
The measurements don't show any natural sources of carbon emissions that even come close to human emissions.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by 50% since the industrial revolution.

The correlation is obvious. Children all over the world understand this.

But if we are decreasing our human made Co2 all the time, and it's not working, then obviously the additional CO2 is coming from somewhere else.

But if we are decreasing our human made Co2 all the time, and it's not working, then obviously the additional CO2 is coming from somewhere else.

We aren't decreasing it, dope. That's the point.

We are dope, others are not.

From the June 2018 BP Statistical Review of Global Energy (67th edition) here are some details on C02 emissions in 2017:

1. Global CO2 emissions from energy in 2017 grew by 1.6% (and 426.4 million tons, see data here), rebounding from the stagnant volumes during 2014-2016, and faster than the 10-year average of 1.3%.

2. Declines in CO2 emissions in 2017 were led by the US (-0.5% and 42 million tons, see chart above). This is the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world. This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years.

3. Carbon emissions from energy use from the US are the lowest since 1992, the year that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into existence. The next largest decline was in Ukraine (-10.1% and 28.1 tons).

Chart of the day: In 2017, US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world for 9th time this century - AEI

We are dope, others are not.

Humans. Humans are not, dope.
That's why it's not decreasing.

This is what you posted

But if we are decreasing our human made Co2 all the time, and it's not working, then obviously the additional CO2 is coming from somewhere

Yes. Somewhere is other humans.

 

[RealDave]

More CO two usually makes plants and insects bigger as witnessed by earth's past. I haven't seen either get bigger.

Studies have shown that higher CO2 can help plant growth but nutrition levels can lessen. When you look at a crop like corn, it loses a percentage pf its production with each degree day over 90/95.

Corn is grown for ethanol production at the insistence of the left, to lessen the use of fossil fuels. Corn production requires massive amounts of fertilizer, which runs off the farmland into rivers, some of which winds up in the Gulf of Mexico...causing algal blooms which consume seawater oxygen when they die off. The oxygen depletion causes a massive dead zone every year. In 2017, it was the size of New Jersey.

Congratulations, leftist "environmentalists": You're killing the Gulf of Mexico.

You are an ass.

Ethonol in gasoline was done under George W Bush & Republican Congress. Wow what a bunch of leftists. huh?

It was done to reduce imports, not reduce pollution or greenhouse gas emissions.

Since you admit corn is so evil to grown, then you would be for eliminating beef & other animal production.

Crops an be grown without massive amounts of fertilizer & it can be used without massive runoffs. Here in PA, runoffs from agriculture has been greatly reduced. What percent of runoffs is due to ethanol corn?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

More CO two usually makes plants and insects bigger as witnessed by earth's past. I haven't seen either get bigger.

Probably so, but not good news. The reason is the greener areas are where co2 emissions are rising due to increase human activity which is usually more than offset by reduction in the size of forests and addition CO2 emission due to man.

When scientists talk about co2 levels of the atmosphere they are talking about levels measured in 2 places selected for their purity of the air, Cape Grim, on the Tasmania’s west coast, Mauna Loa in Hawaii. CO2 levels are also measured in 66 countries. Mauna Loa is quoted most often because they have been measuring CO2 levels there for over 50 years.

Since CO2 levels may go anywhere from 50 to over 1000ppm depending on air pollution, no two readings around the world are likely to be the same. So the readings we see from Mouna Loa are useful in determining a trend. The trend in rising levels has been confirmed at Cape Grim and other stations. Readings in remote old growth forest are likely to be less than a hundred. In cities with high pollution levels they can reach 1000 which is where most people start having some distress breathing.

You can buy a co2 meter at home depot to use to measure indoor air quality.

View attachment 261610



New research shows that during the 2015–2016 El Niño, for instance, droughts, heat, and fires in tropical areas caused plants and soil on three continents to contribute to the largest growth of carbon dioxide on record. Plants use CO2 to grow, and they suck it out of the atmosphere. But during this event, because of little rain and higher than normal temperatures in South America, Africa, and Asia, some plants didn’t absorb as much CO2; others died and decomposed more quickly, releasing the carbon they’d pulled from the air.

A NASA satellite that monitors CO2 is revealing the inner workings of our planet





.

You keep posting this but never make a point.

You are showing us how susceptible our ecosystem is to changes in climate. Was that your intention?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Make sure to install those side pipes to blast cyclists with your diesel soot. You don't want to look weak.

I don't suppose you know about diesels and DEF now.
Just another example of how stupid you are.

Obviously I do as I just mentioned them, dope.

No you didn't, you talked about diesels and blasting soot on cyclists.
If you knew what DEF is, and that pretty much all diesels use it, you would know there isn't any soot, dope.

Double down on stupid if you want to though.

you would know there isn't any soot, dope.

Rolling coal !........

Coal rollers put modified chips in their trucks. That's not a factory chip; it's custom programming. Factory chips meet EPA emissions standards for, among other things, particulates.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with my point in my original post on the subject.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL...
Tell us how living plants emit CO2, dope

didnt you graduate from the 2nd grade yet?

didnt you graduate from the 2nd grade yet?

^ This is a grown man. Uff.

You just told someone to kill himself. You need to shut the fuck up.

Because he stated people needed to die, dope.

You made it personal. Unacceptable. And more than likely against board rules.

WTF?
He suggested people should die.
I simply suggested he start with himself, dope.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

More reasons for the dumbass deniers to have yet another tizzy fit & make fools of them selves here on USBMB


Trump sending ‘500 migrants a month’ to Florida Democratic strongholds

This has nothing to do with AOC's comments about CO2 levels.