Why we should listen to the 97%

How can anyone in this day and age not understand, to the degree demonstrated here, the causes and consequences of AGW?

It's mind boggling.

You mean why isn't everyone a gullible drone like you with all the massive propaganda being pumped into them on a daily basis?

Was that insult necessary? He didn't insult you. I can see using an insult for retaliation, but that was uncalled for.:eusa_boohoo:

He insults me every time he uses the term "denier." He accuses everyone who disputes his abracadabra of being brainwashed and taking orders from Rush Limbaugh. He/she is a pompous ass.
 
Last edited:
How can anyone in this day and age not understand, to the degree demonstrated here, the causes and consequences of AGW?

It's mind boggling.

You mean why isn't everyone a gullible drone like you with all the massive propaganda being pumped into them on a daily basis?

Was that insult necessary? He didn't insult you. I can see using an insult for retaliation, but that was uncalled for.:eusa_boohoo:

You arent' around when the troll DOES insult everyone of us..
It has personally compared me to monkeys and Jim Jones and impugned my honor... :lol:
It is annoying and repetitive and misinformed.

And it hears voices in its head regularly..

Don't think you're gonna be an effective mediator in this troll episode unless you're licensed to treat head cases..
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many people here know of someone with asthma. I know of many.

As do I. My sister almost died from it. I have a rare form of it that is triggered randomly and only occasionally by vigorous physical activity. Most asthma is caused by cold air, stress, respiratory infection, and allergic reaction to air pollutants, most commonly dust and pollen. I have never seen a single case of somebody having an allergy to oxygen or carbon or CO2, however.

If fossil fuel generated air pollution was a serious issue with asthma, you would have seen a sharp reduction in cases of asthma as we have steadily cleaned up the air quality for the last 50 years or so. Instead there is a higher degree of asthma and other allergy sufferers so I rather think the cause is in grossly processed foods we eat and other products we use.

Pollen makes asthma unbearable. Not long ago they had a Peat moss fire in NC that smouldered for a year. The smoke blew all the way to Virginia. Where there is fire there is smoke. Smoke is not good for the air.

There are more electrical users due to the increase in population, thereby needing more fossil fuel generation.

Nobody really knows about asthma yet.

Pollution causes cancer. Hydrocarbons are deadly. They are linked to causing cancer.

Hydrocarbon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well I don't know how many different concepts, points, and messages can be interspersed into one short post, but you must have hit a near record with this one. :)

Didn't take long to shift from asthma to cancer to chemical compounds did it? (I still say this phenomenon is related to the water you guys drink.)

Yes hydrocarbons can be deadly as is Vitamin A and D in very large doses as can be alcohol (which is a hydrocarbon by the way) as can be probably 90% of the substances on Earth be carcinogens in certain forms and/or concentrations. Many MANY things that are essential to our lives and health can be poisonous in excessive doses or otherwise misued.

Scientific R & D projects are currently working on processes that could convert CO2 directly into hydrocarbons to use for fuel and thereby bypass the very lengthy process for plants and animals to be naturally processed into fuels.

Some pretty exhaustive studies have been done in various occupational fields and remarkably, though the work itself can be dangerous, those working in the oil fields and refineries tend to be healthier in every category than the general population including cancer rate, respiratory diseases, and other anticipated occupational hazards. Here is one of those studies:
oem.bmj.com › Volume 57, Issue 6. This would suggest that we should really be concerned about a whole lot of other things ahead of the hydrocarbons we are exposed to.

And though it is a fact that neither human or plant life can live in a very high CO2 atmosphere, we need the CO2 that is present and the .04% CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is not going to be a hazard to anybody or anything. Nor will doubling or tripling that tiny percentage be a hazard to anybody or any thing.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many people here know of someone with asthma. I know of many.

As do I. My sister almost died from it. I have a rare form of it that is triggered randomly and only occasionally by vigorous physical activity. Most asthma is caused by cold air, stress, respiratory infection, and allergic reaction to air pollutants, most commonly dust and pollen. I have never seen a single case of somebody having an allergy to oxygen or carbon or CO2, however.

If fossil fuel generated air pollution was a serious issue with asthma, you would have seen a sharp reduction in cases of asthma as we have steadily cleaned up the air quality for the last 50 years or so. Instead there is a higher degree of asthma and other allergy sufferers so I rather think the cause is in grossly processed foods we eat and other products we use.

''if fossil fuel generated air pollution was a serious issue with asthma, you would have seen a sharp reduction in cases of asthma as we have steadily cleaned up the air quality for the last 50 years or so. ''

We have cleaned the air in many ways but CO2 levels have continously increased for 150 years.

CO2 is not, of course, directly a pollutant. It is though a GHG and the main chemical ingredient for photosynthesis. We also have no idea what concentration we will reach before it stabilizes at it's permanent level. Knowing that would require knowing what mankind will choose to do about the transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy.

I haven't heard any one even guessing what various ultimate levels will do to pollen levels. It's an interesting question though.
 
You mean why isn't everyone a gullible drone like you with all the massive propaganda being pumped into them on a daily basis?

Was that insult necessary? He didn't insult you. I can see using an insult for retaliation, but that was uncalled for.:eusa_boohoo:

He insults me every time he uses the term "denier." He accuses everyone who disputes his abracadabra of being brainwashed and taking orders from Rush Limbaugh. He/she is a pompous ass.

One would think that you're not proud of denying science.
 
You mean why isn't everyone a gullible drone like you with all the massive propaganda being pumped into them on a daily basis?

Was that insult necessary? He didn't insult you. I can see using an insult for retaliation, but that was uncalled for.:eusa_boohoo:

You arent' around when the troll DOES insult everyone of us..
It has personally compared me to monkeys and Jim Jones and impugned my honor... :lol:
It is annoying and repetitive and misinformed.

And it hears voices in its head regularly..

Don't think you're gonna be an effective mediator in this troll episode unless you're licensed to treat head cases..

People who threaten to bring the US down by weakening our government, and lowering our intelligence by discrediting science and reducing funding for education are going to get from sensible citizens exactly the disrespect that they've earned.
 
Was that insult necessary? He didn't insult you. I can see using an insult for retaliation, but that was uncalled for.:eusa_boohoo:

You arent' around when the troll DOES insult everyone of us..
It has personally compared me to monkeys and Jim Jones and impugned my honor... :lol:
It is annoying and repetitive and misinformed.

And it hears voices in its head regularly..

Don't think you're gonna be an effective mediator in this troll episode unless you're licensed to treat head cases..

People who threaten to bring the US down by weakening our government, and lowering our intelligence by discrediting science and reducing funding for education are going to get from sensible citizens exactly the disrespect that they've earned.

What a bunch of simian poo-flinging ..

What is the "weakening our govt" crap? How STRONG a govt do you want? Maybe Pol Pot category? I'd even accept HONEST, EFFICIENT, and COMPETENT in their CONSTITUTIONALLY prescribed duties..

Is that a threat to you ???

You seem to think of yourself protected by vast smarms of Borgs who think like you do..
Don't look now --- but it's just you and that old CRT monitor in the basement (or maybe the day nurse at the assisted living).
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many people here know of someone with asthma. I know of many.

As do I. My sister almost died from it. I have a rare form of it that is triggered randomly and only occasionally by vigorous physical activity. Most asthma is caused by cold air, stress, respiratory infection, and allergic reaction to air pollutants, most commonly dust and pollen. I have never seen a single case of somebody having an allergy to oxygen or carbon or CO2, however.

If fossil fuel generated air pollution was a serious issue with asthma, you would have seen a sharp reduction in cases of asthma as we have steadily cleaned up the air quality for the last 50 years or so. Instead there is a higher degree of asthma and other allergy sufferers so I rather think the cause is in grossly processed foods we eat and other products we use.

When I was in Beijing, where they use a lot of coal and the air hangs heavy with ugly brown pollution, my asthma kicked up really bad in response to the bad air there. Asthma may still be on the increase, but from personal experience, I believe there is still less of it than there would be if our air was like Beijing's.
 
Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.

Deniers do not have an alternative causation that can explain the climate's behavior for the last 150 years.

Reducing GHG emissions and moving away from fossil fuels have significant benefits aside from minimizing dramatic climate warming.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.
 
Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.

Deniers do not have an alternative causation that can explain the climate's behavior for the last 150 years.

Reducing GHG emissions and moving away from fossil fuels have significant benefits aside from minimizing dramatic climate warming.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

We should and we are. Conservatives may want to risk the future to save money today but they are a definite minority. Responsible people will prevail. Science will prevail.
 
Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.

Deniers do not have an alternative causation that can explain the climate's behavior for the last 150 years.

Reducing GHG emissions and moving away from fossil fuels have significant benefits aside from minimizing dramatic climate warming.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

More nukes, yes.
More windmills, no.
More solar, only if you use your own money.
 
Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.

Deniers do not have an alternative causation that can explain the climate's behavior for the last 150 years.

Reducing GHG emissions and moving away from fossil fuels have significant benefits aside from minimizing dramatic climate warming.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

We should and we are. Conservatives may want to risk the future to save money today but they are a definite minority. Responsible people will prevail. Science will prevail.

Conservatives may want to risk the future to save money today but they are a definite minority.



olz0a.jpg
 
As do I. My sister almost died from it. I have a rare form of it that is triggered randomly and only occasionally by vigorous physical activity. Most asthma is caused by cold air, stress, respiratory infection, and allergic reaction to air pollutants, most commonly dust and pollen. I have never seen a single case of somebody having an allergy to oxygen or carbon or CO2, however.

If fossil fuel generated air pollution was a serious issue with asthma, you would have seen a sharp reduction in cases of asthma as we have steadily cleaned up the air quality for the last 50 years or so. Instead there is a higher degree of asthma and other allergy sufferers so I rather think the cause is in grossly processed foods we eat and other products we use.

Pollen makes asthma unbearable. Not long ago they had a Peat moss fire in NC that smouldered for a year. The smoke blew all the way to Virginia. Where there is fire there is smoke. Smoke is not good for the air.

There are more electrical users due to the increase in population, thereby needing more fossil fuel generation.

Nobody really knows about asthma yet.

Pollution causes cancer. Hydrocarbons are deadly. They are linked to causing cancer.

Hydrocarbon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well I don't know how many different concepts, points, and messages can be interspersed into one short post, but you must have hit a near record with this one. :)

Didn't take long to shift from asthma to cancer to chemical compounds did it? (I still say this phenomenon is related to the water you guys drink.)

Yes hydrocarbons can be deadly as is Vitamin A and D in very large doses as can be alcohol (which is a hydrocarbon by the way) as can be probably 90% of the substances on Earth be carcinogens in certain forms and/or concentrations. Many MANY things that are essential to our lives and health can be poisonous in excessive doses or otherwise misued.

Scientific R & D projects are currently working on processes that could convert CO2 directly into hydrocarbons to use for fuel and thereby bypass the very lengthy process for plants and animals to be naturally processed into fuels.

Some pretty exhaustive studies have been done in various occupational fields and remarkably, though the work itself can be dangerous, those working in the oil fields and refineries tend to be healthier in every category than the general population including cancer rate, respiratory diseases, and other anticipated occupational hazards. Here is one of those studies:
oem.bmj.com › Volume 57, Issue 6. This would suggest that we should really be concerned about a whole lot of other things ahead of the hydrocarbons we are exposed to.

And though it is a fact that neither human or plant life can live in a very high CO2 atmosphere, we need the CO2 that is present and the .04% CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is not going to be a hazard to anybody or anything. Nor will doubling or tripling that tiny percentage be a hazard to anybody or any thing.

I'll stick to water. You can have the hydrocarbons.

Hydrocarbons: The Deadly Poison Found in Everyone’s Home › Connecticut Poison Control Center

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1010734-overview

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2601242/
 
Last edited:
Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.

Deniers do not have an alternative causation that can explain the climate's behavior for the last 150 years.

Reducing GHG emissions and moving away from fossil fuels have significant benefits aside from minimizing dramatic climate warming.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.

We should and we are. Conservatives may want to risk the future to save money today but they are a definite minority. Responsible people will prevail. Science will prevail.

Conservatives may want to risk the future to save money today but they are a definite minority.



olz0a.jpg

Do you know of other groups in favor of risking the earth's future?
 
Last edited:
We should and we are. Conservatives may want to risk the future to save money today but they are a definite minority. Responsible people will prevail. Science will prevail.

Conservatives may want to risk the future to save money today but they are a definite minority.



olz0a.jpg

Do you know of other groups in favor of risking the earth's future?

The vote on Kyoto was 95-0, looks like the entire US Senate.

Cap & Trade hasn't been introduced, so Obama must be in on it too.
 
Conservatives may want to risk the future to save money today but they are a definite minority.



olz0a.jpg

Do you know of other groups in favor of risking the earth's future?

The vote on Kyoto was 95-0, looks like the entire US Senate.

Cap & Trade hasn't been introduced, so Obama must be in on it too.

I don't know how the details if Kyoto reflect the simple threat of our additions to GHGs.

You are reflecting on a time when conservatives had misled Congress. That's been cleared up. Cap and trade will pass before 2016.
 

Forum List

Back
Top