ReillyT
Senior Member
Now THAT is silly. Science TELLS us what happens when greenhouse gases are too few in the atmosphere. You may remember these are called "ice ages."Here you are, with the wrong term. Environmentalists and what I term environazis are two different things entirely. Your average run of the mill environmentalist wants balance, wants a green, clean planet. The environazis want to co-opt that movement, adopt its cause, but only so they can use it to control people and destroy industry. And since they are also eugenics freaks, don't mind at all that in so doing, might trigger a massive ice age that makes it impossible for half of the earth's human population to survive it.How silly is it to take what they are claiming is science and apply it in the other direction? Greatly reduced greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere would have a disastrous effect on the ecosystem. And greatly reduced greenhouse gases IS the stated goal of the environazi movement, sold to dupes with the emotional "green" hook.
Their goal clearly isn't a green planet.
And CO2, the convenient devil in this religious cult known as AGW... Were the environazis really worried about CO2, the first thing they would be calling for is banning it for use as special effects "smoke." Right? Making CO2 on purpose, to release it into the atmosphere for no other reason than a visual effect in movies, rock concerts, sporting events, pro wrestling shows, etc? They would be banning the manufacture of it for firefighting and water treatment applications, which account for millions of uncounted tons of the stuff. Let's ban that stuff first, then I might take some of this CO2 demonization seriously.
Otherwise it's just a convenient devil, a cover story for what the REAL mission of the environazis is, control over people's lives.
Once again, saying that there is too much of something does not imply that there isn't an amount that is too little.Read what I actually said again, for comprehension this time:Special effects smoke? Are you kidding me?
"Were the environazis really worried about CO2, the first thing they would be calling for is banning it for use as special effects "smoke." Right? Making CO2 on purpose, to release it into the atmosphere for no other reason than a visual effect in movies, rock concerts, sporting events, pro wrestling shows, etc? They would be banning the manufacture of it for firefighting and water treatment applications, which account for millions of uncounted tons of the stuff."
This if IF they were really worried about it's maybe harmful effects on the planet. They're not at all worried about that. For if they were, they would have started with the casual manufacture and use of it, easiest and cheapest thing to start with and actually get stopped.I knew at some point I would see this silliness. You in your ignorance believe that the use of CO2 for visual effects, water treatment, and firefighting is trivial and not worth worrying about. This is because you have no clue how CO2 is made for this, nor how much of it is made for this and disbursed into the atmosphere. I do have, and it is NOT trivial. It's also, mysteriously, not ever counted when statistics of how much anthropogenic CO2 is entering the atmosphere.De minimis (or alternative spelling "de minimus"). Look it up.
It's not counted because it's the "good" CO2.... Environazis believe CO2 is like cholesterol in that there's "good" and "bad" CO2. To them, good is naturally occurring and recreational CO2, and CO2 coming from other countries, and bad CO2 is limited to what is produced by American mankind's combustion of fossil fuels.
It is too hard to keep embedding replies, so I will number.
1. Once again, saying there is too much of something does not imply that there can't be too little. To spell this out: Environmentalists who want to limit industry-induced carbon emissions are not suggesting that there isn't some level of CO2 emissions that would be too low. You see, they want neither global warming nor an ice age. Why do I ascribe to them this belief? Because believing that they want an ice age is ascribing to them the most illogical of beliefs... which is nice to do when you want to demonize them rather than debate them.
2. Perhaps I didn't know what you meant by "Environazis" because you made the term up, ascribe to these people a belief system (i.e., straw man) and then posit that they control whatever change is being proposed that you don't like.
3. Two different categories: special effects smoke and carbon dioxide produced for firefighting (didn't know this even existed, but I will take your word for it). The first seems unnecessary. The second I assume has greater utility. I am not aware of anyone targeting the latter and if it is necessary to fight fires, I wouldn't imagine anyone would be throwing a fit about this.
With respect to special effects smoke... de minimus. Please show me that special effects smoke represents an appreciable amount of man-produced carbon dioxide (give me a reputable statistic). If it doesn't, that is why no one is talking about it.
4. Since I don't know of any standard definition of "Environazis," I guess they must think whatever you want them to think - by definition. However, most people concerned about the environment (and by most people, I mean pretty much everybody) recognizes that CO2 is CO2, but that it is easier to reduce human-produced CO2 than to stop volcanoes from exploding.
I still haven't figured out whether you are dishonest or just plain stupid, but I am rapidly leaning toward the latter option.