Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[bripat9643]

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

CO2 isn't harmful. In fact, it's beneficial to plants.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Bottom line: No one has demonstrated that CO2 emitted by human machines is causing a rise in temperature. Even if someone had proven it, no one has proven an increase in temperature would be harmful. All the signs indicate that such a change would be beneficial to life on Earth.

 

[Mustang]

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.

Bottom line: No one has demonstrated that CO2 emitted by human machines is causing a rise in temperature. Even if someone had proven it, no one has proven an increase in temperature would be harmful. All the signs indicate that such a change would be beneficial to life on Earth.

The sun doesn't care about who or what the source of the CO2 is. The sun (and the planet as a whole) will react the same to the CO2 regardless of the source.

Humans just so happen to be adding to the natural release of CO2 by speeding along the carbon cycle. We do that by digging up carbon which has been buried for millions of years (and would STILL be buried if not for humans) and burning it.

 

[Mustang]

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?

Water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mustang]

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.

1. While rising sea levels MAY cause measurable coastal flooding.
2. Spitting in the ocean does not cause measurable sea level increases.

Conclusion: spitting in the ocean does NOT cause coastal flooding.

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

Hot chemicals are no different than cold ones?
Clean things can be pollutants also.
Does contamination with man made waste pollute?
Is waste gas from fossil fuel combustion pollute?
Does CO2 dissolved in water harm sea life when it alters the PH factor in the seas?
Take a look at the chemistry of CO2 on Venus. How much CO2 can we stand and how hot can we take it?
CO2 may not be pollution under Webster's definition but the harm it causes from the burning of fossil fuels is undisputed.

 

[Mustang]

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.

Carbon dioxide is a human (animal) waste product. Therefore it is toxic to humans.

 

[S.J.]

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.

You implied it. Stop trying to dance your way out of it, fuckface.

 

[lukelk]

How the fuck are they calling it "Science"?

LOL

What a joke

What is a joke is when a toothless fucker like your self who think cration shouldn't e tough should be brought back behinds barn and shot.

 

[lukelk]

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.

You implied it. Stop trying to dance your way out of it, fuckface.

Well what you say is full of shit, must be nice to be a dumb fuck kkk nazi, cause those are the only fuckwads who acutally think the way you do, nazi,",,,

 

[francoHFW]

All the BS Pub propaganda of the last 25 years has been thoroughly discredited, dupes. Sorry about science, democracy, and real information. It COULDN'T last...

 

[pjnlsn]

you know damn good and well that the United States is the least polluting industrialized country on the planet

Jesus wept.....

I give up on you, S.J. This is simply too stupid to warrant a response.

Yeah, you know I'm right.

I don't get the sense that you are close at all....offhand, the richest country in an era after industrialization would probably have one of the larger industrial capacities, and I doubt we have the most laws against pollution, though probably not the least.

And then there's the oil our country consumes, which if you know anything is pretty darn high. And if a person knows anything, he'd also know that the majority of uses of oil or refined products are 'polluting,' as it were. Or that they release those gases that in general are referred to as pollution, smog, etc. Along with, offhand, coal. And I was under the impression that it was well known the ownership and use of vehicles, per person, is greatest in the US, or that we are near the top of that list.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Does anyone here on the left ever question the data?

 

[Obamanation]

Does anyone here on the left ever question the data?

Not as long as it means they get more tax and spend they don't!

 

[pjnlsn]

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?

I get the sense that you're reacting to something that isn't written in this thread. 'Pollution,' 'smog,' etc commonly refer to among other things, CO2. And that your react in some way to the usage of a particular word does not mean what was written isn't true, which is the important thing, I should think?

And, offhand, the pattern that accompanies those substances which are called pollutants is that they're toxic to people in some amount, and that the ones called pollutants are in general more toxic, toxic in lower quantities. When talking with the average person, I doubt that anything would come up where this would have to be explained, but if in the air a person was breathing there was an amount of CO2 equal to the largest amount of water vapor that can be in air one breathes, it would have a deliterious effect, or perhaps be toxic, and this is the pattern which in general accompanies those substances called pollutants. And iirc there is much less CO2 than there is water vapor in the air one breathes.

 

[pjnlsn]

Does anyone here on the left ever question the data?

If that's to me, I would think again it matters whether something is true or not, though certainly there are situations where things known to be false are commonly presented otherwise.

Is this perhaps about SJ and whether to call something by a certain name, or not...? Because that's not what I was saying was true. In fact, what he was saying was fairly directly a matter of semantics.

 

[S.J.]

Please point out where I said "pollutor".

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

You implied it. Stop trying to dance your way out of it, fuckface.

Well what you say is full of shit, must be nice to be a dumb fuck kkk nazi, cause those are the only fuckwads who acutally think the way you do, nazi,",,,

Shut up and eat your collard greens.

 

[Obamanation]

Watermelons for sale!!!

Fried free-range chickens too!!

 

[pjnlsn]

you know, it's somewhat annoying that people avoid my posts, in favor of insulting other people.

 

[Obamanation]

We will try to insult you more often...

sorry!!!