Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[Gadawg73]

The tip-off to the global warming hoax is their proposed solutions, which are to make the U.S. pay. Pass laws that only apply to us, that just happen to reflect liberal ideology. I've heard some of the Hollywood climate wackos claim cow farts contributed to global warming and we could stop it by becoming vegetarians. Democratic politicians espouse those views to get those Hollywood big bucks. The earth may be getting slightly warmer, but if they really believed it was man's behavior causing it, they would be going after the other industrialized countries instead of the U.S. (which has the toughest environmental laws of all the industrialized countries), but they don't. They leave the worst offenders alone. That's where they lose their credibility, and that's where they give themselves away, IMO.

Actually, the US is the biggest emmitter of greenhouse gases. We are the worst offender. With 5% of the world's population, we are responsible for 24% of the Greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union and Japan are responsible for another 19%.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.

Fossil fuels emit C02 as a pollutant and atmospheric oxygen is disappearing at the same rate of combustible engine CO2 pollution is increasing.
Yes there are some positive effects of this as increased vegetation but the warming is happening and even the data on species extinction in the aquatic areas is 100 times larger than ever over the last 40 years.

 

[bripat9643]

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.

Fossil fuels emit C02 as a pollutant and atmospheric oxygen is disappearing at the same rate of combustible engine CO2 pollution is increasing.
Yes there are some positive effects of this as increased vegetation but the warming is happening and even the data on species extinction in the aquatic areas is 100 times larger than ever over the last 40 years.

I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants need it to live.

 

[RDD_1210]

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.

Didn't say it was.

It is a greenhouse gas, however. Which is the term I used.

Yes you did. You called the U.S. the biggest polluter based solely on it's output of greenhouse gases.

So this is what desperation looks like when all else has failed.

 

[Saigon]

I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants need it to live.

Water is not a pollutant either. What happens if you drink too much of it?

Try to think things through before posting them, BriPat.

 

[RDD_1210]

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.

Fossil fuels emit C02 as a pollutant and atmospheric oxygen is disappearing at the same rate of combustible engine CO2 pollution is increasing.
Yes there are some positive effects of this as increased vegetation but the warming is happening and even the data on species extinction in the aquatic areas is 100 times larger than ever over the last 40 years.

I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants need it to live.

You serious?

 

[Redfish]

Actually, the US is the biggest emmitter of greenhouse gases. We are the worst offender. With 5% of the world's population, we are responsible for 24% of the Greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union and Japan are responsible for another 19%.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.

Fossil fuels emit C02 as a pollutant and atmospheric oxygen is disappearing at the same rate of combustible engine CO2 pollution is increasing.
Yes there are some positive effects of this as increased vegetation but the warming is happening and even the data on species extinction in the aquatic areas is 100 times larger than ever over the last 40 years.

horseshit! CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere, the same % as in 50,000 BC.

O2 is not disappearing, are you a total fucking moron?

aren't you the one earlier that claimed that water vapor was a pollutant?

 

[Mustang]

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.

Fossil fuels emit C02 as a pollutant and atmospheric oxygen is disappearing at the same rate of combustible engine CO2 pollution is increasing.
Yes there are some positive effects of this as increased vegetation but the warming is happening and even the data on species extinction in the aquatic areas is 100 times larger than ever over the last 40 years.

I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants need it to live.

Just because plants need CO2 to live doesn't mean that CO2 is always good in any and all amounts. Put enough CO2 into the atmosphere, and our environment could end up bearing a striking resemblance to Venus eventually.

Put an animal (including a human being) in a room with enough of a concentration of CO2, and that animal will suffocate and possibly die from CO2 poisoning.

Carbon Dioxide Poisoning

 

[S.J.]

This is getting comical. One failure after another in making the case for global warming.

 

[Mustang]

This is getting comical. One failure after another in making the case for global warming.

There is no failure in 'making the case' for global warming since this isn't an argument that's debated in a courtroom with a jury deliberating in order to make a decision one way or the other.

This is a question of science evaluating the evidence and reaching conclusions based on that science.

There have been plenty of other scientific discoveries over the centuries that haven't met with widespread popular support at the time. Forget Darwin's theories for the time being. The Copernican Heliocentric solar system displaced the Ptolemaic system, but it certainly didn't meet with widespread support. In fact, there was widespread disbelief about it since the Church had religious reasons to dispute the theory. But the truth in such cases is not based on popular support or a lack of popular support.

The same was true when plate tectonics and continental drift was first postulated. But the idea of land (rock, actually) floating and moving as the crust of the planet moved in a dynamic system was first met with widespread disbelief if not downright mockery. It didn't change the truth of it, and the theory was finally given added weight as the evidence of sonar mapping of the ocean floor showed seafloor spreading.

 

[S.J.]

Fossil fuels emit C02 as a pollutant and atmospheric oxygen is disappearing at the same rate of combustible engine CO2 pollution is increasing.
Yes there are some positive effects of this as increased vegetation but the warming is happening and even the data on species extinction in the aquatic areas is 100 times larger than ever over the last 40 years.

I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants need it to live.

Just because plants need CO2 to live doesn't mean that CO2 is always good in any and all amounts. Put enough CO2 into the atmosphere, and our environment could end up bearing a striking resemblance to Venus eventually.

Put an animal (including a human being) in a room with enough of a concentration of CO2, and that animal will suffocate and possibly die from CO2 poisoning.

Carbon Dioxide Poisoning

Duh!

 

[S.J.]

This is getting comical. One failure after another in making the case for global warming.

There is no failure in 'making the case' for global warming since this isn't an argument that's debated in a courtroom with a jury deliberating in order to make a decision one way or the other.

This is a question of science evaluating the evidence and reaching conclusions based on that science.

There have been plenty of other scientific discoveries over the centuries that haven't met with widespread popular support at the time. Forget Darwin's theories for the time being. The Copernican Heliocentric solar system displaced the Ptolemaic system, but it certainly didn't meet with widespread support. In fact, there was widespread disbelief about it since the Church had religious reasons to dispute the theory. But the truth in such cases is not based on popular support or a lack of popular support.

The same was true when plate tectonics and continental drift was first postulated. But the idea of land (rock, actually) floating and moving as the crust of the planet moved in a dynamic system was first met with widespread disbelief if not downright mockery. It didn't change the truth of it, and the theory was finally given added weight as the evidence of sonar mapping of the ocean floor showed seafloor spreading.

Fine, discuss the possibilities, but don't go teaching it as absolute fact in our schools unless you can prove it, and present both sides of the argument without hiding evidence that doesn't support your argument.

 

[Mustang]

This is getting comical. One failure after another in making the case for global warming.

There is no failure in 'making the case' for global warming since this isn't an argument that's debated in a courtroom with a jury deliberating in order to make a decision one way or the other.

This is a question of science evaluating the evidence and reaching conclusions based on that science.

There have been plenty of other scientific discoveries over the centuries that haven't met with widespread popular support at the time. Forget Darwin's theories for the time being. The Copernican Heliocentric solar system displaced the Ptolemaic system, but it certainly didn't meet with widespread support. In fact, there was widespread disbelief about it since the Church had religious reasons to dispute the theory. But the truth in such cases is not based on popular support or a lack of popular support.

The same was true when plate tectonics and continental drift was first postulated. But the idea of land (rock, actually) floating and moving as the crust of the planet moved in a dynamic system was first met with widespread disbelief if not downright mockery. It didn't change the truth of it, and the theory was finally given added weight as the evidence of sonar mapping of the ocean floor showed seafloor spreading.

Fine, discuss the possibilities, but don't go teaching it as absolute fact in our schools unless you can prove it, and present both sides of the argument without hiding evidence that doesn't support your argument.

Like I tried to say already, scientific fact isn't based on popularity.

Fact 1. Increasing CO2 in an atmosphere causes warming because less heat is reflected back into space and more solar radiation (heat) is retained within the atmosphere. That's simple physics. That IS an absolute fact. It has nothing to do with anything other than that's the way greenhouse gases interact with solar radiation.

Fact 2. Humans have been digging up solid carbon (coal) and pumping up liquid carbon (oil) out of the ground at an increasing rate for a couple of hundred years to use as an energy source to build our civilization, create our consumer goods, operate our machinery, power our appliances, and transport ourselves from point A to point B faster than ever. By burning that carbon, we've released carbon gas into the atmosphere which IS acting as a greenhouse gas because that's what greenhouse gases do whether we like it or not or whether it's convenient for us or not.

That's just the way it is. And pretending that this isn't true doesn't do anyone any good with the possible exception of the people who have large financial investments in the fossil fuel business who want to continue to exploit their resources as if the physics of the interaction between greenhouse gases and solar radiation was nothing more than a plot in a science fiction movie.

 

[JoeB131]

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.

Didn't say it was.

It is a greenhouse gas, however. Which is the term I used.

Yes you did. You called the U.S. the biggest polluter based solely on it's output of greenhouse gases.

Please point out where I said "pollutor".

I said "Worst offender" and "biggest Emitter", both of which are true.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no failure in 'making the case' for global warming since this isn't an argument that's debated in a courtroom with a jury deliberating in order to make a decision one way or the other.

This is a question of science evaluating the evidence and reaching conclusions based on that science.

There have been plenty of other scientific discoveries over the centuries that haven't met with widespread popular support at the time. Forget Darwin's theories for the time being. The Copernican Heliocentric solar system displaced the Ptolemaic system, but it certainly didn't meet with widespread support. In fact, there was widespread disbelief about it since the Church had religious reasons to dispute the theory. But the truth in such cases is not based on popular support or a lack of popular support.

The same was true when plate tectonics and continental drift was first postulated. But the idea of land (rock, actually) floating and moving as the crust of the planet moved in a dynamic system was first met with widespread disbelief if not downright mockery. It didn't change the truth of it, and the theory was finally given added weight as the evidence of sonar mapping of the ocean floor showed seafloor spreading.

Fine, discuss the possibilities, but don't go teaching it as absolute fact in our schools unless you can prove it, and present both sides of the argument without hiding evidence that doesn't support your argument.

Like I tried to say already, scientific fact isn't based on popularity.

Fact 1. Increasing CO2 in an atmosphere causes warming because less heat is reflected back into space and more solar radiation (heat) is retained within the atmosphere. That's simple physics. That IS an absolute fact. It has nothing to do with anything other than that's the way greenhouse gases interact with solar radiation.

Fact 2. Humans have been digging up solid carbon (coal) and pumping up liquid carbon (oil) out of the ground at an increasing rate for a couple of hundred years to use as an energy source to build our civilization, create our consumer goods, operate our machinery, power our appliances, and transport ourselves from point A to point B faster than ever. By burning that carbon, we've released carbon gas into the atmosphere which IS acting as a greenhouse gas because that's what greenhouse gases do whether we like it or not or whether it's convenient for us or not.

That's just the way it is. And pretending that this isn't true doesn't do anyone any good with the possible exception of the people who have large financial investments in the fossil fuel business who want to continue to exploit their resources as if the physics of the interaction between greenhouse gases and solar radiation was nothing more than a plot in a science fiction movie.

I'll post a syllogism of the same form as yours so you can understand how absurd yours is:

1. Spitting in the ocean causes sea level to rise.
2. Rising sea levels cause coastal flooding.

Conclusion: spitting in the ocean causes coastal flooding.

 

[bripat9643]

Fossil fuels emit C02 as a pollutant and atmospheric oxygen is disappearing at the same rate of combustible engine CO2 pollution is increasing.
Yes there are some positive effects of this as increased vegetation but the warming is happening and even the data on species extinction in the aquatic areas is 100 times larger than ever over the last 40 years.

I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants need it to live.

Just because plants need CO2 to live doesn't mean that CO2 is always good in any and all amounts. Put enough CO2 into the atmosphere, and our environment could end up bearing a striking resemblance to Venus eventually.

Put an animal (including a human being) in a room with enough of a concentration of CO2, and that animal will suffocate and possibly die from CO2 poisoning.

Carbon Dioxide Poisoning

The amounts we are discussing are not toxic to humans by any stretch of the imagination. Calling CO2 "pollution" is a deliberate distortion.

 

[bripat9643]

I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants need it to live.

Water is not a pollutant either. What happens if you drink too much of it?

Try to think things through before posting them, BriPat.

Are you claiming that CO2 isn't a pollutant or that water is?

You really thought things through when you dreamed up that response, eh?

 

[Gadawg73]

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.

Fossil fuels emit C02 as a pollutant and atmospheric oxygen is disappearing at the same rate of combustible engine CO2 pollution is increasing.
Yes there are some positive effects of this as increased vegetation but the warming is happening and even the data on species extinction in the aquatic areas is 100 times larger than ever over the last 40 years.

I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants need it to live.

No, you are wrong.
The CO2 that comes out of your car's tail pipe IS a pollutant and other forms are not.
CO2 from auto emissions is most certain a pollutant.
There are many other forms of CO2 that are not pollutants.
Car emissions are terrible pollutants. Respectfully, if you do not know that simple undisputed fact you are in serious denial.

 

[Gadawg73]

Does CO2 have positive effects? Yes, of course but the massive increase in greenhouse gasses dwarfs any positive plant growth.
Bottom line is the rise in temperature from increased C02 negates any and all positive effects.

 

[Gadawg73]

Harmful waste is a pollutant whether it is dirty or not.

 

[bripat9643]

Fossil fuels emit C02 as a pollutant and atmospheric oxygen is disappearing at the same rate of combustible engine CO2 pollution is increasing.
Yes there are some positive effects of this as increased vegetation but the warming is happening and even the data on species extinction in the aquatic areas is 100 times larger than ever over the last 40 years.

I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants need it to live.

No, you are wrong.
The CO2 that comes out of your car's tail pipe IS a pollutant and other forms are not.
CO2 from auto emissions is most certain a pollutant.
There are many other forms of CO2 that are not pollutants.
Car emissions are terrible pollutants. Respectfully, if you do not know that simple undisputed fact you are in serious denial.

Sorry, but the CO2 that comes out of your tail pipe is chemically identical to the CO2 you exhale. Saying one kind is a "pollutant" and the other kind isn't is absurd. Water vapor also comes out of your tail pipe. Is that a pollutant?