Think Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant?

[lakeview]

A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.

I really want them to try this.

Put your head in a plastic bag and seal it off.

See how long you can live in an atmosphere of Carbon dioxide.

Do the same thing with a bag full of pure Oxygen and see how long you live. You won't die as fast as you will breathing CO2 but you will die. See how this game is played?

 

[elektra]

orogenicman, how about SunPower from your list? Seems being politically connected guarantees success at taxpayers expense.

Republican lawmakers on two House committees are seeking details about the loans given to First Solar, SunPower Corp. and ProLogis. Of those three companies, troubling financial revelations have emerged about SunPower, which sponsored a solar project that received a $1.2 billion loan, more than twice the money approved for Solyndra,

The Energy Department says on its website that the $1.2 billion loan to help build the California Valley Solar Ranch in San Luis Obispo County, a project that will help create 15 permanent jobs, which adds up to the equivalent of $80 million in taxpayer money for each job.

But the Energy Department stands by the project.

“This project underwent many months of rigorous technical, financial and legal due diligence by career employees in the DOE loan program,” Energy spokesman Damien LaVera said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “It was approved for one reason only: because it meets all the requirements of the program – helping America win the clean energy race and create entire new industries for American workers.”

In April, the Energy Department gave the project sponsored by SunPower a conditional loan guarantee, even though the company was receiving financing in the capital markets. Shortly after the conditional guarantee, French energy giant Total bought a majority ownership in SunPower and extended a $1 billion credit line to the company.

But SunPower posted $150 million in losses during the first half of this year and its debt is nearly 80 percent of its market value. The company is also facing class action lawsuits for misstating its earnings.

SunPower sold the solar ranch that received the federal loan to NRG, an energy company based in New Jersey. But SunPower is still developing the project and stands to profit if it succeeds.

The company is also politically connected. Rep. George Miller's son is SunPower's top lobbyist. The elder Miller, a powerful California Democrat, toured the plant last October with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and reportedly said, "We've worked hard to make renewable energy a priority because it represents America's future economic growth. Today, businesses like SunPower are moving forward, hiring 200 people for good clean energy jobs in the Easy Bay."

It’s not clear what role, if any, either of them played in securing the loan. Miller’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

An Energy Department official denied crony capitalism was a factor in the loan guarantee.

 

[Abraham3]

How about showing us wind and solar concerns that failed to get government assistance because of their political positions? Going through the hundreds of corporations that have received funding or loan guarantees and charging that everyone chaired by a democrat is the recipient of administration favoritism is simply bullshit. All these companies had the promise of advancing the use of alternative energy and creating jobs. Whether or not someone here knew someone there is irrelevant unless you can find more definitive evidence, particularly since there is a significant bias towards green energy among liberals and democrats and against it among conservatives and republicans. Government assistance to the oil and coal industry would be found to benefit far more enemies of the current administration than friends. Versteht?

 

[elektra]

Green Energy is a government created industry, completely artificial.

 

[orogenicman]

Evergreen Solar Inc, first company I picked randomly from your list, received subsidies, filed for bankruptcy, and then moved to China.

orogenicman, you ignorantly dishonest, if I am to be nice.

You said only 2. I see 31 on the list. So to call me the dishonest one here is just you looking at yourself in the mirror.

So those who support AGW, Green Energy, just randomly search their beliefs on google, come up with a list of companies, and paste this information as if it validates their beliefs. The burden on is to prove them wrong, not just once, but thousands of times.

Millions of disciples, unable to reason, blindly following google results.

I produced a list. If you believe that list is in error, by all means correct it. At least I produced a list. You haven't said who these "only two" are. So I suppose we are to just take your word for it. Not going to happen. Next.

You produced a list? No you googled and cut/pasted a list with no thought put into. You can not even read, I stated the first company I searched at random was a bankrupt subsidized company, the opposite of what you posted. Now I am suppose to go through your entire cut/paste, research a post you put zero thought or effort into.

Nice job, even when your wrong your still right, bravo.

It doesn't matter. You said that there were only two solar manufacturers left in the U.S. (YOU'RE WORDS). I showed in no uncertain way that your claim was incorrect. Whether or not they are U.S.-originated corporations is irrelevant. They are registered businesses here, do business here, and have manufacturing facilities here. Be a man for once in your miserable life, and admit that you were mistaken.

 

[elektra]

Godwin's law. You lose.

Actually you lose, human behaviour does not change, it repeats itself over and over, its clear that Liberals hate Conservatives, Godwin's law is what the ignorant throw around when they have no rebuttal, no position, no facts nor ability to defend their beliefs and opinion.

You cite the IPCC as evidence, you lose, the IPCC and its work has all been a fraud, when the results from the data concluded no Global Warming caused by CO2, the IPCC began deleted the data.

The IPCC proved there was no Global Warming, threw away the data and results confirming no Global Warming, and lied to the entire World about it.

CO2, better at keeping stuff cold, its called Dry Ice, but in the world of Liberalism, white is black and black is white and Dry Ice actually warms things up, not keep them cold.

All that flap-yap, and not a single link to a real scientific site.

Dry ice, do you know have any idea of the amount of energy used to create dry ice? And the CO2 in the atmosphere is a gas, just in case you have not noticed.

That thing sitting in front of you has several search engines you can use to gain knowledge above that of a third grader. I suggest you use it.

Are you not the guy that thinks Automotive Assembly plants used horse drawn wagons to deliver the materials they needed, now that is a holy crock of google crap made up in your imagination, horses were never used to deliver parts to the automotive assembly plants, by the time the first assembly line was made in Highland Park, trucks were being produced over a decade, not to mention the fact that steam trains were literally used, tracks right up to the first factory with an assembly line.

How much energy does it take to make dry ice? More than a Wind Turbine or Solar Farm can provide. Did I get it right?

There is no link because the premise asserted is wrong, there is no debate with fraud and junk science.

 

[elektra]

And you obviously need a "bright bulb" right in your eyes to understand a simple post, I never stated we needed but infinite amount of solar panels.

Peak Solar, when we run out of our "finite" resources to place Solar Panels.

Peak Solar also occurs when we run out of Hydrocarbons which are used at increased rate to produce Solar Panels. Peak Solar occurs at the same time as Peak Oil, cannot produce nor maintain Solar Panels without Oil.

Silly ass. Did we ever run out of horses to bring the parts to the auto assembly plants? God, you people just get fucking dumber by the day.

Actually, nobody is dumber than the person who believes in the 1920's horses were being used to deliver the materials to the car factories, they used Steam Trains and Trucks.

We never used horses to deliver significant amounts of anything to Auto Manufacturing Plants let alone more modern Auto Assembly Plants.

Logic? is that what your using, what a CROCK.

Godwin's law. You lose.

Actually you lose, human behaviour does not change, it repeats itself over and over, its clear that Liberals hate Conservatives, Godwin's law is what the ignorant throw around when they have no rebuttal, no position, no facts nor ability to defend their beliefs and opinion.

You cite the IPCC as evidence, you lose, the IPCC and its work has all been a fraud, when the results from the data concluded no Global Warming caused by CO2, the IPCC began deleted the data.

The IPCC proved there was no Global Warming, threw away the data and results confirming no Global Warming, and lied to the entire World about it.

CO2, better at keeping stuff cold, its called Dry Ice, but in the world of Liberalism, white is black and black is white and Dry Ice actually warms things up, not keep them cold.

All that flap-yap, and not a single link to a real scientific site.

Dry ice, do you know have any idea of the amount of energy used to create dry ice? And the CO2 in the atmosphere is a gas, just in case you have not noticed.

That thing sitting in front of you has several search engines you can use to gain knowledge above that of a third grader. I suggest you use it.

Just so you know, thought I would try and catch your attention with a gross error of yours

 

[Abraham3]

You make dozens of extreme claims but present no evidence to support them whatsoever. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" but you seem to have none.

What do you EXPECT us to make of that? If you want to be treated seriously and with respect, try backing up your claims with some objective evidence or some well-structured logic. Just saying "the IPCC is a fraud" is both meaningless and worthless.

 

[flacaltenn]

You said only 2. I see 31 on the list. So to call me the dishonest one here is just you looking at yourself in the mirror.



I produced a list. If you believe that list is in error, by all means correct it. At least I produced a list. You haven't said who these "only two" are. So I suppose we are to just take your word for it. Not going to happen. Next.

You produced a list? No you googled and cut/pasted a list with no thought put into. You can not even read, I stated the first company I searched at random was a bankrupt subsidized company, the opposite of what you posted. Now I am suppose to go through your entire cut/paste, research a post you put zero thought or effort into.

Nice job, even when your wrong your still right, bravo.

It doesn't matter. You said that there were only two solar manufacturers left in the U.S. (YOU'RE WORDS). I showed in no uncertain way that your claim was incorrect. Whether or not they are U.S.-originated corporations is irrelevant. They are registered businesses here, do business here, and have manufacturing facilities here. Be a man for once in your miserable life, and admit that you were mistaken.

No you moron.. I said it HERE...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/325963-think-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-pollutant-20.html#post8242596

It's sad that you're not kidding here.. The only 2 major Solar manufacturers LEFT in the US are in deep kimchee financially and would fold TOMORROW without massive subsidies.. Every wind manufacturer and installer is HIGHLY subsidized. Every Electric car maker is also.. The reason GE pays no taxes is largely because they get so many Green Credits --- they can't spend them all in any one year..

Do you know ANY renewable related product that ISN'T?

Then you DID produce a bullshit list of companies making "solar products" and claimed that you had DEFEATED everyone.. And proceeded to harass our new bud Electra about something the poster never said..

About that CORRECT CLAIM i made.. I asked you to visit

List of photovoltaics companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and count the American flags you see there under MAJOR solar panel manufacturers. Apparently you never did.. So lets' count together eh??

Can you and Elmo find the 2 American flags in that chart? Are they both in deep financial trouble? Would they survive a WEEK without MASSIVE subsidies? Will you apologize for being an ass?


Just in case you want to quibble about the defination of MAJOR manufacturer, that link also has a table of "significant producers".. Can you count higher than 2?

After you count --- you can subtract EverGreen Solar which went belly up since and any entry without a name attached. (i have no idea what wiki was thinking there)

Don't know if you understand who was in your LIST.. But the topic was MAJOR AMERICAN SOLAR PANEL manufacturers.. And you lose...

 

[Abraham3]

Which of these definitions do you all believe carbon dioxide does NOT meet?

POLLUTANT:

something that pollutes.
2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

a substance that pollutes, esp a chemical or similar substance that is produced as a waste product of an industrial process --Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

n.
Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

pollutant (pə-l t'nt) Pronunciation Key
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants. --The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

POLLUTE:
pol·lute [puh-loot] Show IPA
verb (used with object), pol·lut·ed, pol·lut·ing.
1.
to make foul or unclean, especially with harmful chemical or waste products; dirty: to pollute the air with smoke.
2.
to make morally unclean; defile.
3.
to render ceremonially impure; desecrate: to pollute a house of worship.
4.
Informal. to render less effective or efficient: The use of inferior equipment has polluted the company's service.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The federal government invest big time within the energy sector.
Oil
Coal
Natural gas
Wind
solar

you name it.

I am for it too.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If you idiots don't realize the federal government has pushed just about every technological advancement the past 65 year. Well, you're not the brightest.

How the Government Built Fracking | EMagazine.com

 

[westwall]

Which of these definitions do you all believe carbon dioxide does NOT meet?

POLLUTANT:

something that pollutes.
2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

a substance that pollutes, esp a chemical or similar substance that is produced as a waste product of an industrial process --Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

n.
Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

pollutant (pə-l t'nt) Pronunciation Key
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants. --The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

POLLUTE:
pol·lute [puh-loot] Show IPA
verb (used with object), pol·lut·ed, pol·lut·ing.
1.
to make foul or unclean, especially with harmful chemical or waste products; dirty: to pollute the air with smoke.
2.
to make morally unclean; defile.
3.
to render ceremonially impure; desecrate: to pollute a house of worship.
4.
Informal. to render less effective or efficient: The use of inferior equipment has polluted the company's service.

None of those apply to CO2.

 

[flacaltenn]

Which of these definitions do you all believe carbon dioxide does NOT meet?

POLLUTANT:

something that pollutes.
2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

a substance that pollutes, esp a chemical or similar substance that is produced as a waste product of an industrial process --Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

n.
Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

pollutant (pə-l t'nt) Pronunciation Key
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants. --The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

POLLUTE:
pol·lute [puh-loot] Show IPA
verb (used with object), pol·lut·ed, pol·lut·ing.
1.
to make foul or unclean, especially with harmful chemical or waste products; dirty: to pollute the air with smoke.
2.
to make morally unclean; defile.
3.
to render ceremonially impure; desecrate: to pollute a house of worship.
4.
Informal. to render less effective or efficient: The use of inferior equipment has polluted the company's service.

Shame on you WestWall.. Back to Sensitivity Seminars for you.. Of course there's one definition offered that it meets..

3. .... to render ceremonially impure; desecrate: to pollute a house of worship.

That's why you're a member of the Church --- Right Reverend Abraham??

 

[flacaltenn]

If you idiots don't realize the federal government has pushed just about every technological advancement the past 65 year. Well, you're not the brightest.

How the Government Built Fracking | EMagazine.com

C'mon Matthew.. Get serious.. $100Mill in research grants.. And the GOVT gets credit for fracking? They've spent 3 times that amount on one friggin website..

And all that other crappola about exploration tax breaks?? That's because they were testing and inventorying FEDERAL LAND.. You don't expect the FEDS to know how operate heavy machinery and drill equipment --- do ya? Or we could just GUESS how much in resources Fed land holds..

 

[Abraham3]

Which of these definitions do you all believe carbon dioxide does NOT meet?

POLLUTANT:

something that pollutes.
2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

a substance that pollutes, esp a chemical or similar substance that is produced as a waste product of an industrial process --Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

n.
Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

pollutant (pə-l t'nt) Pronunciation Key
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants. --The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

POLLUTE:
pol·lute [puh-loot] Show IPA
verb (used with object), pol·lut·ed, pol·lut·ing.
1.
to make foul or unclean, especially with harmful chemical or waste products; dirty: to pollute the air with smoke.
2.
to make morally unclean; defile.
3.
to render ceremonially impure; desecrate: to pollute a house of worship.
4.
Informal. to render less effective or efficient: The use of inferior equipment has polluted the company's service.

None of those apply to CO2.

They almost all apply to the 130+ ppm of CO2 that humans have added to the atmosphere. CO2 has not made the atmosphere morally unclean or ceremonially unclean. That would be the output of the denier camp.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Carbon dioxide like Oxygen is good in sort percentages.

 

[westwall]

Which of these definitions do you all believe carbon dioxide does NOT meet?

POLLUTANT:

something that pollutes.
2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

a substance that pollutes, esp a chemical or similar substance that is produced as a waste product of an industrial process --Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

n.
Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

pollutant (pə-l t'nt) Pronunciation Key
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants. --The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

POLLUTE:
pol·lute [puh-loot] Show IPA
verb (used with object), pol·lut·ed, pol·lut·ing.
1.
to make foul or unclean, especially with harmful chemical or waste products; dirty: to pollute the air with smoke.
2.
to make morally unclean; defile.
3.
to render ceremonially impure; desecrate: to pollute a house of worship.
4.
Informal. to render less effective or efficient: The use of inferior equipment has polluted the company's service.

None of those apply to CO2.

They almost all apply to the 130+ ppm of CO2 that humans have added to the atmosphere. CO2 has not made the atmosphere morally unclean or ceremonially unclean. That would be the output of the denier camp.

No, they don't. That level has never been attributed to ANYTHING. Here's how ridiculous your statement is, at a atmospheric concentration of 200 ppm NOTHING grows. No plants, no algae, no nothing. We are almost double that amount and what has occurred? Plant life has bloomed.

No claim you fools has ever made has EVER come to pass. Not one. Further, all the historical and paleo-climatological evidence says you're full of crap.


"Laboratory Experiments & Results

Research regarding the effect of carbon dioxide levels on plant growth began in the early 1980s, when concerns over increased CO2 levels as a consequence of climate change first surfaced. As mentioned in the previous section, the present-day atmospheric CO2 value of 380 ppm is expected to rise to approximately 550 ppm in the year 2050. Laboratory experiments conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which were primarily conducted in open-top chambers, indeed affirmed the science behind the theoretical claim that global average crop yield would increase in response to rising CO2. Such experiments indicated that at 25 degrees Celsius, an atmospheric CO2 increase of 170 ppm from present levels would enhance photosynthetic productivity by 38%. (Ainsworth et al., 2008) However, it is important to note that these experiments were inadequate models to predict future yields. Although the chambers were partially open to the environment and designed to stimulate the natural environment as accurately as possible, they necessarily altered factors including temperature, vapor pressure, air flow, rainfall, and pest and/or disease vulnerability, all of which are necessary in considering plant productivity. Furthermore, the small practical size of these chambers exaggerated plant response to elevated CO2, as CO2 was restricted in its atmospheric diffusion. This optimistic outlook on carbon dioxide's effects on crop yield were accepted for approximately two decades. Due to the limitations of the experiments used to support it, however, the free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) model for testing these theories was developed in the 21st-century."


https://sites.google.com/site/climateandsocietyproject/Home/whats-being-done

 

[westwall]

Carbon dioxide like Oxygen is good in sort percentages.

In the entire history of this planet there has never been a time when CO2 was at a level that was too much. The O2 levels are still rising and remember mr. flat earther, there was no free O2 in our atmosphere until around 1.8 to 1.7 billion years ago. Since then the O2 concentrations have been rising ever higher. None of the flat earhters ever deal with that fact either.

They are simpletons playing with simple computer models that give simple responses. All for a climactic system that is so complex that none of them can even get past the 1+1 stage.

 

[Abraham3]

They are simpletons playing with simple computer models that give simple responses. All for a climactic system that is so complex that none of them can even get past the 1+1 stage.

You are so full of shit it is sadly comical.