December 7, 200916 yr In the interest of capitalism, what the heck is wrong with someone making money off of green efforts? Shoot, if not for capitalism,.. If someone invents a super scrubber that takes all the pollutants out of coal-based emmisions cheaply - thats capitalism. And I hope they become a bizzilionaire. And that is what 'clean coal' is about. "Cap and trade" is NOT capitalism. It is a new economic system based on Mark Twain's old addage - "buy land, they quit making it years ago." Here, they are just going to cap the volume emmissions of a harmless gas - CO2 and then sell and trade the rights to emit the gas. Nothing is invented, nothing is better, there is no market competition. There is no American style capitalism involved, its a con-game.
December 7, 200916 yr If the middle ground is to protect the environment and ourselves from toxins and pollutants in the air and water and ground - yes. But the middle ground does not include a continued war on CO2. CARBON-DIOXCIDE is not the problem. CO2 is a colorless, orderless gas. If you SEE pollution you are not seeing CO2. Yet the war that is ranging is about - CO2, not toxic, vial pollution. Look at the opinion page of today's Lexington Herald-Leader-Pravda. Title "Carbon Conflict" and they show black smoke out of what looks like factories. That is pure propoganda that incorrectly depicts the issue of CO2. So if the middle ground is keep fighting POLLUTION, but quit fighting CARBON DIOXIDE then that works. AWG based on CO2 is myth and a very dangerous one. Your science is flawed. Pollutants do not have to look/taste/smell bad. Radon is also colorless and odorless. However, I sure don't want to breath it in and hope that you don't either. Carbon dioxide DOES trap in heat. We need look no further than our nearest neighbor - Venus. The Venusian atmosphere is about 95% carbon dioxide. This makes it the hottest planet in the solar system, hotter even than Mercury. Global warming is NOT a myth. Neither is global cooling. One only need to look at global climate data from the past to see the evidence. Whether either is significantly man-made is still up for debate. Edited December 7, 200916 yr by True blue (and gold) addition
December 7, 200916 yr If someone invents a super scrubber that takes all the pollutants out of coal-based emmisions cheaply - thats capitalism. And I hope they become a bizzilionaire. And that is what 'clean coal' is about. "Cap and trade" is NOT capitalism. It is a new economic system based on Mark Twain's old addage - "buy land, they quit making it years ago." Here, they are just going to cap the volume emmissions of a harmless gas - CO2 and then sell and trade the rights to emit the gas. Nothing is invented, nothing is better, there is no market competition. There is no American style capitalism involved, its a con-game. Again, flawed science. Carbon dioxide is NOT harmless.
December 7, 200916 yr In the interest of capitalism, what the heck is wrong with someone making money off of green efforts? Shoot, if not for capitalism, it wouldn't cost so much to go to the doctor and for medicine. But no one who is upset about climate warming data manipulation is seemingly at all concerned with the costs of medical care and prescriptions. I mean, they don't like it, but apparently assume it's the cost of being sick...that these industries have the need to charge as much as they do. And further, what about all these medicines for stuff that really, no one needs. Frankly, I think that considering that the world still revolved when men had sexual dysfunction in the "old days", it's no world crisis now. :lol: Would you like the government telling you you have to buy a gun? If you think medical care is expensive now, just wait until the government gets it's grubby hands on it. Who says they don't want cheaper medical care or medicine? I haven't seen anyone say that on here. What they don't want in socialized medicine and I can't blame them.
December 7, 200916 yr Again, flawed science. Carbon dioxide is NOT harmless. http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_dioxide/health_cd.html "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is naturally present in the atmosphere at levels of approximately 0.035%. Short-term exposure to CO2 at levels below 2% (20,000 parts per million or ppm) has not been reported to cause harmful effects. " I don't think anyone is talking about increase CO2 levels 60 times the current level. (0.035%) Concentrations of CO (Carbon Monoxide) is deadly, as is Radon and other gases. But a 10 - 20 % increase in CO2 concentrations (making the concentration around 0.042% is not directly harmful.
December 7, 200916 yr Your science is flawed. Pollutants do not have to look/taste/smell bad. Radon is also colorless and odorless. However, I sure don't want to breath it in and hope that you don't either. Carbon dioxide DOES trap in heat. We need look no further than our nearest neighbor - Venus. The Venusian atmosphere is about 95% carbon dioxide. This makes it the hottest planet in the solar system, hotter even than Mercury. Global warming is NOT a myth. Neither is global cooling. One only need to look at global climate data from the past to see the evidence. Whether either is significantly man-made is still up for debate. I agree it is up to debate. And the level of CO2 and temprature track each other. But what is the cause and what is the effect? Is CO2 a lead or a lag? The Vostok ice samples are not clear. But it it clear that they show a a dominant cycle of temperature that happens around every 100,000 years and likely not man-made - unless we were around 400,000 years ago. http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2009/01/vostok-ice-core-interpretation.html 1. Four times in the period, (ie, roughly every 100,000 years) the temperature has quickly shot up to 2°C - 3°C above today's and then slowly slipped back to about 8°C below today's temperature. It looks as though the Earth's complex, non-linear climate system has two stable states and flops rhythmically from one to the other. 2. We are currently hovering near the top of a cycle and an ice-age seems to be due. However, comparing today's position with the 4 previous peaks suggests that the temperature should have reached 2°C or more some 10,000 years ago, but it hasn't. If anything, the world is now somewhat colder than we might expect. ... Over long periods in this data, it is temperature that comes first and and by several thousand years (except for a short period about 340,000 years ago). Al Gore, in his film, seems not to have noticed this detail. 7. In an area of science where experiments are hard to do, nature has given us 4 repetitions. The Vostock core clearly shows that when the temperature reaches 2°C a mechanism kicks in which sets the temperature falling again and initiates an ice-age. Since this mechanism has repeatedly worked well after 100,000 years of disuse, it seems to be robust.
December 7, 200916 yr http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_dioxide/health_cd.html "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is naturally present in the atmosphere at levels of approximately 0.035%. Short-term exposure to CO2 at levels below 2% (20,000 parts per million or ppm) has not been reported to cause harmful effects. " I don't think anyone is talking about increase CO2 levels 60 times the current level. (0.035%) Concentrations of CO (Carbon Monoxide) is deadly, as is Radon and other gases. But a 10 - 20 % increase in CO2 concentrations (making the concentration around 0.042% is not directly harmful. Not directly harmful? Hmmmmm.....why is the word directly needed in that sentence if it carbon dioxide is NOT harmful? Because...it is. Since we are discussing manipulation of facts in this thread, let's not manipulate any more of them. It is misleading to say that because a chemical is colorless and odorless that it is not harmful. Carbon dioxide is NOT directly harmful, as is radon and carbon monoxide. That's not the problem at all. Let's not confuse equate not directly harmful with NOT harmful. The problem with increased levels of carbon dioxide is its ability to trap in heat, thus acting as insulation. Venus likely had a more Earthlike atmosphere years ago. However, an increase in carbon dioxide led to a "runaway" greenhouse effect and, thus, extremely hot year round temperatures both night and day.
December 7, 200916 yr Saw some little blurb/claim today on MSNBC that the data manipulation was leaked by Russian spies while Russia is looking to negotiate some new climate control treaty.
December 8, 200916 yr Not directly harmful? Hmmmmm.....why is the word directly needed in that sentence if it carbon dioxide is NOT harmful? Because...it is. Since we are discussing manipulation of facts in this thread, let's not manipulate any more of them. It is misleading to say that because a chemical is colorless and odorless that it is not harmful. Carbon dioxide is NOT directly harmful, as is radon and carbon monoxide. That's not the problem at all. Let's not confuse equate not directly harmful with NOT harmful. The problem with increased levels of carbon dioxide is its ability to trap in heat, thus acting as insulation. Venus likely had a more Earthlike atmosphere years ago. However, an increase in carbon dioxide led to a "runaway" greenhouse effect and, thus, extremely hot year round temperatures both night and day. True, however just about every substance on earth can be harmful to humans. Just a matter of dosage. It is highly unlikely that Venus ever had an atmosphere like Earth. Maybe the same building blocks were there Oxygen, Nitogen, CO2, but an Earthlike atmosphere had very little chance. There are some studies that state that 4 billion years ago there may have been water on Venus. However the amount of solar energy hitting Venus due to the closer proximity of the sun is 2X what hits the Earth. That is about 200 quadrillion watts. That amount of energy make it unlikely that water would be able to exist in a liquid state for long periods of time. Couple that with a 3% axis tilt and a 243 earth day sidereal rotation makes for a hot planet. That slow sidereal rotation is possibly just as much to blame for the current state of Venus. Venus has little or no magnetosphere likely due to its slow rotation. If Venus had a magnetosphere it might have enabled the support bactierial/plant or possibly animal life because it would have protected the surface from large doses of radiation that would kill any plant/animal life that could have existed. There are some studies that have talked about using the upper atmosphere of Venus as a possible place for humans to colonize. Between 50 and 60km above the surface of Venus is a zone that could sustain human life. Suitable atmoshperic pressure of 1 bar unlike the 92 bar on the surface. Temperatures are between 50 and 100 degrees F. So maybe if the global warming alarmists are right we could end up living in a floating city above Venus. Maybe Lando Calrissian would join us... I am betting they are wrong and the Earth will continue to do a good job of cooling and warming with little regard for us pesky humans.
December 8, 200916 yr True, however just about every substance on earth can be harmful to humans. Just a matter of dosage. This continues to mislead. We are not talking about carbon dioxide being harmful to humans. That's a side effect. We are talking about the ability of carbon dioxide to provide an insulating effect in our atmosphere. The only debate is to whether there is a significant rise in carbon dioxide levels AND if it is largely man-made or naturally ocurring.
December 8, 200916 yr This continues to mislead. We are not talking about carbon dioxide being harmful to humans. That's a side effect. We are talking about the ability of carbon dioxide to provide an insulating effect in our atmosphere. The only debate is to whether there is a significant rise in carbon dioxide levels AND if it is largely man-made or naturally ocurring. Nothing misleading, just pointing out that nearly every substance on earth can be considered harmful it is usually a question of dosage. What I have put in bold is what is misleading. This is not the only debate. There are hundreds if not thousands of other variables in this equation. It can not be only attributed to CO2 and man.:walk:
December 8, 200916 yr Author Links? I don't see ANYONE on here saying anything negative about keeping the environment clean, they're just not willing to be forced to do things that aren't necessary in order to line the pockets of those that created and will benefit from this hoax. I'll second that. We have accomplished a lot to help the environment in the last 40 years, which is what we all want. But let us not take our money to make enviro-husters rich.
December 8, 200916 yr This thread started out discussing a likely illegal act that has exposed actual emails by the core of scientist that have been at the core of the AGW message. I will close my comments in this thread with pointers to two documents that I have posted in previous posts. These documents show that the questions and challenges that seem new with the release of these emails is not new. You do not need to read the hundreds of emails to see the the fake science. These reports show it was known there were serioius issues with ther research and with the conclusions. 2006 Wegman Report: http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf Summary of findings (easy reading) starts on pdf page 3. Detailed findings start on page 47. I commented on these findings in previous posts. 2009 NIPCC report: http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/ClimateChangeReconsidered.pdf This is an 868 page report. I posted key excerpts in a previous post. Senator Orin Hatch has good website that shows the AGW issues well: http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=IssuePositions.View&IssuePosition_id=5b967b59-072d-41f9-bbbc-b7de581967d8 We should all take care of the earth and ourselves. But this AGW war on CO2 has it roots in 'science' that is questionable at best and outright fraud at worst.
December 8, 200916 yr Carbon Dioxide is now being ruled as a pollutant by the EPA, ... especially now that the Carbon Tax (Cap and Trade) has not passed. Guess the plants which breathe CO2 and produce oxygen are being served notice. Their source of air (CO2), which they need to survive, ... WILL be cut off!!!
December 8, 200916 yr Carbon Dioxide is now being ruled as a pollutant by the EPA, ... especially now that the Carbon Tax (Cap and Trade) has not passed. Guess the plants which breathe CO2 and produce oxygen are being served notice. Their source of air (CO2), which they need to survive, ... WILL be cut off!!! Again, this is misleading. In short, too much carbon dioxide is harmful. How many of you remember the Apollo 13 incident (or have at least watched the movie)? What was the gas that nearly killed the astronauts? Carbon dioxide.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.