Conservatives repeat inane claim that CO2 can't be a pollutant because "we breathe" it
SUMMARY: Pointing to the natural occurrence of carbon dioxide, media conservatives have ridiculed the idea that it can be harmful to the environment. But scientists do not assert that it is inherently harmful; they point to the danger posed to the atmosphere by excessive discharges of CO2.
Pointing to the natural occurrence of carbon dioxide, which is exhaled by humans, conservatives in the media -- including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Jim Quinn -- have challenged, and even ridiculed, the idea that its presence can be harmful to the environment. For example, after claiming on the May 20 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show that carbon cap-and-trade proposals are based on "the phony science of global warming," Sean Hannity stated, "You know what? The Earth -- we breathe carbon dioxide. You know, if you -- there's nothing wrong with the automobile." Other examples include:
- On the May 20 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose, co-host Jim Quinn stated, "Carbon is not pollution. I repeat, carbon is not pollution. We are made of carbon. Carbon is essential. Carbon dioxide is essential. As a matter of fact, we probably have too little carbon dioxide in the air right now. We could use more."
- On the May 13 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing a memo reportedly issued by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy that argued against regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, Limbaugh stated, "This is again not a surprise to me because we exhale C02. If it were a poison, if it were something -- we would -- wouldn't be part of the way we stay alive."
- On the May 13 edition of his Fox News program, Beck stated, "Carbon dioxide is basically this" -- and exhaled. He further remarked: "Look how much pollution I just put out."
- On the April 28 edition of his Fox News show, during an interview with Anadarko Petroleum CEO James Hackett, Beck stated, "I'm going to harm the planet. I'm going to give some CO2 off," and then exhaled. He added, "Dangerous. That should have been bottled and kept away from the planet because" -- and he exhaled again -- "that's a dangerous gas." Seconds later, Beck exhaled into his cupped hands to demonstrate "sequestering" carbon dioxide, and then described cap-and-trade policies as being "only allowed to breathe, let's say, 50 times a day. If I breathe any more than 50 times a day, then I have to pay for all of the stuff that comes out of my mouth, right?"
- On the April 21 broadcast of his radio show, Beck asked, "[H]ow could carbon dioxide be a poison when it's naturally occurring and the trees use it to grow?" He added: "Stop. Just stop, will you? Stop with the lies."
But scientists are not saying that carbon dioxide is inherently harmful, as Media Matters for America has documented. Rather, they point to the danger posed to the atmosphere by excessive discharges of C02, as the Natural Resources Defense Council has noted:
[A] pollutant is a substance that causes harm when present in excessive amounts. CO2 has been in the atmosphere since life on earth began, and in the right amounts CO2 is important for making the earth hospitable for continued life. But when too much CO2 is put into the atmosphere, it becomes harmful. We have long recognized this fact for other pollutants. For example, phosphorus is a valuable fertilizer, but in excess, it can kill lakes and streams by clogging them with a blanket of algae.
Indeed, while C02 is a natural gas, the current levels in the atmosphere are the result of human activities. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, "Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700's, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution."
According the 2007 United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 "Synthesis Report," "Global GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004." It further explains, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about 80%, from 21 to 38 gigatonnes (Gt), and represented 77% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004."
From the May 20 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose:
QUINN: By the way, a note to Repower America, who keeps running these commercials about how cap and trade and green energy's going to be the solution to everything and the steelworkers are all going to be employed and all that stuff? Carbon is not pollution. I repeat, carbon is not pollution. We are made of carbon. Carbon is essential. Carbon dioxide is essential. As a matter of fact, we probably have too little carbon dioxide in the air right now. We could use more. Because the earth is cooling, and it's cooling rapidly.
From the April 28 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: James, cap and trade: Not a tax?
HACKETT: Oh, it's definitely a tax, Glenn. And I think anybody who tells you otherwise is treating you to fiction. The key is --
BECK: Explain it to the American people in a way they can see how this scam -- I mean, this plan works.
HACKETT: I think you've got to start, actually, back with what carbon does to the world. And I think that all of us are familiar with burning wood, you know, centuries ago. We've advanced as a society where we're much more efficient in the burning of carbon fuels. It constitutes about 3 percent of all the greenhouse gas emissions, so you're talking about a very small portion of all of the greenhouse gases. The rest is actually water vapor.
Of that 3 percent, another portion of that is man-made emissions. There's a lot of other CO2 emissions from other places. And it's a life-giving form, as many of us know, because plants use it. We breathe it about every three seconds. We exhale it.
BECK: Yeah, hang on just a second.
HACKETT: And to think that the EP--
BECK: Hang on. Let me just inter-- James, I'm sorry to interrupt. America, I'm going to harm the planet. I'm going to give some CO2 off. Ready?
[exhales]
Dangerous. That should have been bottled and kept away from the planet because [exhales] that's a dangerous gas. OK. So, anyway, you were saying?
HACKETT: Well, and I think all of us can agree that man-made emissions can't possibly be good, but it means at what cost do we change that, that model that has taken us over a century to build? And our view is, we were, you know, original -- we were original climate reporters and founding reporters in The Climate Registry. We've got the largest CO2 sequestration project in the world in Wyoming, that we're taking CO2 that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. We're a founding member of the American Carbon Registry. We care deeply about --
BECK: OK, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So, that's -- sequestering it, that would be --
[Beck exhales into his cupped hands]
HACKETT: Right. Holding your breath. That's right.
BECK [whispering]: Put it in my pocket.
HACKETT: And so I think why you care about it -- you care about it in an intelligent, prudent way, and you don't treat it as if it's an EPA-regulated toxic gas, which is what they're suggesting. It's not a toxic gas by definition. And to suggest that the science on it is completely determined is also, I think, a big mistake.
BECK: OK, so now we've taken this --
HACKETT: It only took --
BECK: And, now, hang on just very quick. We take this invisible gas that [exhales] -- OK? Now, I'm only allowed to breathe, let's say, 50 times a day. If I breathe any more than 50 times a day, then I have to pay for all of the stuff that comes out of my mouth, right?
If I only breathe 30 times a day, well, then, I can sell those extra 20 breaths to somebody else that wants to breathe 20 times more than 50, correct?
From the May 13 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: By the way, just so you know, because I know -- this show has won so many science awards. Sometimes, we get talking about highfalutin science things like this and people are like, "What are you talking about?" So, let me just break it down. Carbon dioxide is basically this:
[exhales]
Look how much pollution I just put out.
After approximately 30 minutes, we'll remove the bag and ask your lifeless corpse if breathing all that harmless gas was in any way problematic for you.
I'll bet there won't be much discussion after that.
By Jim Quinn's logic, I can swim in a pool of HCl (hydrochloric acid). What harm can there possibly be?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3csfLkMJT4
Watch me drink this glass of red wine with a plastic bag over my head. See..red wine and carbon dioxide....... klunk
Just because you may have plenty of oxygen, you have to have some way to remove the CO2 or you are gonna drop dead.
Right wing politicians and pundits obviously depend on the invincible ignorance of a certain percentage of the population. Karl Rove had a formula which stated Republicans should support education, "...up to a point. Too much education and they'll vote Democrat."
Neither H2O nor CO2 is toxic. Anything that interferes with breathing such as inhaling pure CO2 or H2O will certainly cause death. That does not make these substances toxic. Nitrogen is not considered toxic but it is dangerous. Chlorine is quite toxic, as exposure to this will cause lung damage. So it goes for ammonia gas.
Imperfect combustion causes production of CO, NO, and NO2 among others. The integration of computer controls into automobile engines has reduced these by-products by adjusting operating parameters according to air temperature, engine load, etc.
Heat engines have a theoretical maximum efficiency (Carnot efficiency). Most of the energy in the gasoline produces waste heat and is not converted to mechanical energy.
Electric vehicles deliver the best efficiency but we'll need to massively increase our electric generation infrastructure.
Both claims are wrong in so many ways it's hard to know where to even begin to explain the error. This is what willful ignorance breeds.
of global warming? Why do scientists always dismiss the other 97% of the GHG's (water) as a cause? If we implement cap and tax will global warming stop? When? If it doesn't stop should we stop using fossil fuels altogether? Could we just plant 100 square miles
of trees and consume what we produce?
CAP and TAX is regressive. The poor pay a proprotionally larger tax than the rich. Why are the Dems taxing the poor?
Also, what happens to all those carbon credits various carbon credit banks might hold when the Republicans get into office and simply repeal the law -- making all those carbon credits worthless? Is this a Ponzi scheme that dwarfs Madoff? It's a Ponzi scheme based on coercion at the point of a gun from our own government.
This global warming fraud is a form of religion. It is unconstitutional for the US Government to "respect[ing] an establishment of religion" and religion it is. The EPA report is filled with conclusions based on what the "Administrator" believes.
CHIGW (pronounced "chig-wah") is the Church of Human Induced Global Warming, with Pope Gore as the pontiff. CAP and TAX is the US Government respecting a religion and collecting money for its support. It's bad government. All should be writing their representatives telling them to vote against it.
No, it's science. But if it makes you feel more secure in your religion to call science religion, go ahead.Good luck with the Chigwah thing, pretty catchy.
On the other hand, I have looked at this cap and trade bill. Almost all studies show that it will hurt poorer families, taking a much larger percentage of their income than that of rich people. It is a total sham to claim that this bill is for easing CO2 emmisions. It won't. Its just goimg to make energy more expensive for consumers like all corporate taxes do. This will make it much harder for the poor to afford energy. I guess if the poor return themselves to the stone age they [i]will[i] eliminate their carbon footprint thereby proving the bill works. {this was sarcasm} Just to sum up. Man-made global warming? i'm unsure. Post links to articles from scientists you think make the best arguments and i'll read them. But I will not let libs claim that cap and trade is designed to reduce our CO2 emmisions.
And please, fellow right wingers, think about your arguments before before you float up a softball that they can knock out of the park. If you look stupid, especially in this forum, it makes it harder for all of us.
*(Sh*t-Flinging Howling Monkey Brigade)
Cap and Trade is not a government program, it is a mandate that would have the trades done in the open market. It works. The Republicans have used a similar approach before and supported it when it came to acid rain reduction. It worked. It is not a permanent solution but a bridge for industry to use on their way to becoming greener. It was never meant to be permanent.
So the carbon credit trades would not simply make carbon credits worthless. You seem like you don't actually know how the Cap and Trade works. I won't assume that to be the case but the tenor of you argument seems bitter.
Your first paragraph seems to weaken the case for cap and trade, a program voted on (hopefully not)passed, and enforced by the government. Where do you think the money goes when these credits first go on the market. You see, at the outset the government will hold these credits. Of course the tough part of a cap and trade program is that the costs of it get passed on to consumers.
I wasn't to impressed with egb's comments either, but yours is a little lacking as well. While I am aware that the clean air act of 1990 has been seen as a success in reducing acid rain, it still costs the consumers in this country around $1.5 billion dollars a year. This is the cost for a program that effects a very limited amount of the economy. Namely coal power production and the sulfer oxide and emmisions it produces. the acid rain program was also aided by favoable market prices for low sulfer coal in the early ninties.
Limiting green house gas emmisions however is going to be an entirely different animal. The scope of the program is vastly larger, the costs will follow suit. It will effect nearly Basically, after this government program provides washington with its initial windfall it will continue to dig into the economy indefinately. And every year the government will have its annual auction to sell new credits which i'm sure will bring in billions of dollars, there by effectively making it permanent. Ultimately, all of this cost will be paid for by energy consumers. Us. To the tune of about $1500 to $3000 per family per year. I don't know about your family, but that is a pretty good chunk of my yearly earnings. I would hate to see the strain on a less well off family.
Another thing about capping sulfer emissions in the 90's was that the needed technology was not very expensive or difficult to use at the time those programs were created. In other words, I think that the coal industry would have adopted measures to lower their emmisions on their own. I think the CO2 problem may also be solved in the same manner. If the technology needed for the program is cheap, the affected industries will probably go in that direction on their own. Green is hip now. The writing is on the wall. At some point renewable energy of some kind will be cheap and plentiful and clean. The industry that figures this out first will be in the drivers seat of energy production until some one catches up. that could be years even decades. That capialistic view brings me to my idea to hasten the green revolution. I am a strong supporter of nuclear fusion research. I think the government, in the spirit of spending mass amounts of cash, should offer up a $100 billion prize to the first person, group, university or what ever builds the first fusion power station, hooks it up to a major city, and is able to provide all the electrical needs for that city. My recent reading on the subject shows that researchers are very close to solving this problem and I know an adequetly massive incentive will hasten the process by attracting investors and piquing our natural desire to be the best and first at every thing.
The truth element in what they're saying is two-fold. There are serious scientific challenges to MMGW that have have not been answered and show that if there is an acute global warming it is part of a long-term natural process that has happened before and is probably not effected by the relatively tiny amounts of CO2 we add to the atmosphere. Also, there are corrective processes that are triggered by increased CO2 at surface level that are likely to counter the amounts humans are adding.
As to the 'threats to our constitution'? Puh-lease. Enlighten us? There WERE plenty of threats, but they've been voted out fo offcie. The only remaining 'threat' is that Presdient Obama has moved more slowly than we'd liek him to erasing some of the more egregious violations of human right perpetrated by the Bush administration.
The last two lines of you 1st paragraph are basically right, except that the 'too much wine' theory IS a perfectly good way to MOCK the CO2 'breathability' claim.
With such inaccurate tools, our government is proposing to tax everyone, [a proprotionately greater tax on the poor] based on faith that reducing the growth of CO2 emissions will change something. There is no exit plan, no plan to monitor the effectivness of the results (indeed there can be no plan because the relationship between CO2 emissions and weather is not understood) and no limits on growth of the tax. Its just a money raising scheme for growing government -- nothing else.
Cap and Tax is the biggest fraud in recent history. Legislators who vote for this bill should be removed from office because they are forcing a religion on the citizens of this country.
This may be a valid point, from many perspectives, but you'll have to do a lot better than your current level of reasoning to convince anyone who's actually up to speed on this issue.
As for your "inaccurate tools" analysis? Your hurricane/weather analogies are nonsense. There a big differece between saying "it will br 70 degress (F)" versus "80 degress (F) TOMORROW" ans saying that it will take ~100 years to raise the global average 1 dregree centigrade. Besides consider the basic facts here:
1) CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. This has been know since the late 1800's.
2) We pump millions of tons of it into the atmosphere. This is not even in question.
3) Some CO2 is abosrbed by the oceas, but as their pH goes up there ability to do this goes down. (Plus you kill off reefs and increase the amount of algea.) Trees also 'inhale' CO2 and 'exhale' Oxygen. (Not exactly, but you get the idea.)
4) Were already seeing measuable differences in the Oceans, and we cut down thousands of acres of forrest EVERY DAY.
So what do you THINK is going to happen? We keep putting out exponentially more greenhouse gasses, and we keep removing more and more of the best way to get them out of the atmopsphere! The temp can only go one way under those conditions my friends. (And give the loss of ice and tundra, do have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that the models are in fact wrong?) Besides:
The computer models you speak of are no longer even TRYING to PROOVE that mankind is warming the earth. They're trying to estimate how much time we have left before the REAL disaster happens.
(Or are you one of these people who thinks there's still a serious scientific debate about evolution as well?)
And it's an excellent analogy, regardless of what ewl says.
The last great ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. Since then the global temperature has been increasing in ups and downs with two outstanding deviations. The first was what's called the Medieval Warming period and the second the Little Ice Age. In the Medieval warming period temperatures were as high or higher than they are today without any known man-made cause. Answer that. The Little Ice Age is generaly calculated to have ended in the mid 19th Century at which point average temperatures climbed back to their average for the period between this and the Medieval Warming Period. Over the last two hundred to two hundred and fifty years average temperatures have been gradually climbing. The current increase in average temperatures over the last one hundred year is consistent with the hundred years before that. while this suggests validity in the theory that the mean atmospheric temperature is getting warmer it is doing so at a rate consistent with its pre-20th Century rates. Pro-MMGW advocates tried to refute this with what was called the "hockey-stick curve". This showed that a dramatic up-turn in temperature had occured in the post WWII period. The "hockey-stick curve" was shown to rely on measuring devices that had been located in rural and suburban locales in the 1940s that had now become suburban to urban areas with associated micro-climate coverage. In other words, the data was useless. Since the temperature of the earth's atmosphere was already increasing, all of the evidence of warming suggests only that a very natural warming trend is still continuing in the aftermath of the Little Ice Age.
I'd typed in a lot more of the evidence related to CO2 levels, mean temperatures and the actual statistics on scientific support for MMGW, but then I remembered who I was talking to so I erased it. MMGW is being used by your side as a justification for the expansion of government power and you're not about to surrender your most successful argument just because it happens to be wrong. You want to issue challenges, accept one instead. Go to the sites that cover this, just type in "global warming" and start clicking. Then you supply examples of anti-MMGW arguments that have been refuted. As the study has evolved there have surely been some.
Then here's another. Explain Glen Beck's take on the current threat to the Constitution. Since he's so dumb it ought to be easy for you to understand his simple thoughts. Ha! I've made this challenge before and none of you have been able to answer it. The truth is, I doubt if any of you are sophisticated enough to understand what he's talking about. That's probably part of what makes it so threatening to you.
That is a mature, logical, reasoned critique to you? That's the ramblings of fourth grade class clown, but to you he's "sophisticated".
So, get your own clue. and quit recycling Reagan, he's been dead for 5 years.
And, it's "denizens," not "denisons." "Denisons" are rooms in a house where deer live.
1. Broad brushing your audience with perjorative labels and insults
2. Not addressing the topic
3. Throwing in other unrelated topics, and then
4. Challenging others to disprove your opinions;
5. Making it obvious that you haven't read previous threads that have already debunked your talking points
6. Claiming victory in the "debate" because you haven't bothered to read most of the posts.
7. When cornered: disappearing, only to reappear with more of the same on another thread
What is his take?
P.S. The Constitution was attacked during the Bush administration. When liberals tried to defend the Constitution, conservatives like you responded "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."
The prosperity we enjoy has nothing to do with free enterprise and everything to do with our system of regulated capitalism. If it were up to free enterprise we'd all be living in slums and our kids would still be working in factories.
None of them would ever admit it but they owe their standard of living to organized labor.
You know if your job is dangerous or under paid or whatever get all your co-workers together, get some numbers on your employer and go to the press. They love that stuff. But don't put your trust in an organization that only cares about recruiting more members so they can collect more dues. Like liberals they give you all these benefits to get your vote while the cost of the benefits are born by some one else. No consideration is given to the company that generates the money in the first place. And when they go out of business and no one is working they never ever accept a lick of blame even though the numbers tell they are the reason. However I can't say it is all unions fault. Even if a shop is unionized management doesn't have to concede any thing. I think already we are seeing owners of businesses stand up to unions to keep their companies profitable. It will be a great day when the UAW is no more.
I know, I don't really have to worry because it is extremely doubtful I will be around them but; what about my grandkids and their kids?
Could you possibly just learn a little bit about AGW before spouting such nonsense? Anthropogenic global warming is very real.
link
What amazes me about the naysayers is how willing they are to dismiss hard science, which usually predicts events accurately in favor of economics (and at that, right wing ideological economics) which has such a dismal recored predicting anything.
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
You can also read this, which includes all the above signatories plus the following:
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Figure it out. There IS scientific agreement. You're not only wrong, you're RIDICULOUSLY wrong.
Next, since you're a "history geek" explain Beck's concerns about the growth of government.
Instead of showing that you're a classic authoritarian, show that you are capable of critical thinking.
But *none* of these arguments are peer reviewed. In other words, none of them are true science.
The government expanded under W. more than at any other time in history. Beck said nothing. His "fears" are ludicrous. Beck is a self-described "rodeo clown" who has openly said that he is NOT a reporter, he is only a commentator, as if that means he does not need to fact-check his claims. He dances around to get ratings, nothing else.
Stop projecting your own authoritarian complex, wherein you accept and defend Republican talking points ad nauseum without actually thinking for yourself. Your arguments about global climate change are a case in point; I provided you with science refuting your position and you were reduced to whining as if your claims make sense. They don't.
Arsenic is natural - does that mean it is good for us?
And humans excrete fecal matter - does that mean it is harmless? These idiots certainly spew out enough of it - they must love to wallow in it...
Pretty please??
After all, 60% of our bodies is made up of water.
Now that the first two are gone and Dr. Hawking doesn't appear much anymore, I'm thankful they've turned the teaching of science on theTeeVee over to the beautiful minds of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
God help us!
This is a pointless waste of time debating about how to categorize and refer to CO2, in the Federal and State regulation of emissions, when instead we can and should be specific, about exactly what source of emissions we're talking about, when we talk about CO2...
I'm under the impression that when we talk about CO2, we're not in fact talking about automobile engine exhaust, because while that emission does contain CO2, it is regulated already (and should be) for the other pollutants in it...
It seems to me that CO2 enters the discussion (and the atmosphere also) as a result of burning coal, in our mostly coal-fired electric power plants : I'm pretty sure coal burns otherwise clean, except for the CO2 it produces...
Now if that's the case, then why are wasting time arguing about how to classify and categorize CO2, when we should be discussing how to burn less coal while still generating electricity?
Isn't that at the core of this CO2 talk, coal-fired electric power plants, and how we might make the electricity we need, and still perhaps reduce the CO2 emissions from those plants, as much as possible?
It pizzes me off to hear inane and pointless bickering on Public Policy, and to see People's good efforts distracted and frustrated, by arguing about words, and about should we call this thing by that name, or by different a name... when we could be discussing the things themselves, and what to do about them, instead of foolishly arguing what to call those things...
In this particular matter, about how do we generate as much and even more electricity than we need, while reducing and even eliminating CO2 emissions from our otherwise coal-fired power plants, in this particular matter, it more than pizzes me off that we waste time arguing pointlessly...
It makes me go nuclear.
No patriotic and informed American can support the global warming/cap and trade scam, more fraudulent than any Nigerian scam. Cap and trade is a huge tax on the poor and the middle class designed to give the powers of a dictator to Obama and to further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, etc.)
Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” says famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.
More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/
Additionally, more than 30,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." http://www.petitionproject.org
We pray that honest leaders – both Democrat and Republican - are able to save us from Obama's criminal global warming/cap-and-trade scam.
1. Refute the argument that the history of our globe's climate shows that there is no event occurring now that is outside of the range of normal climatological phenomena.
Not only could none of you provide such a refutation, none of you had the fortitude to even address the issue. That's understandable since this is one of the obstinate and well documented pieces of evidence that shows that man-made-global-warming is a sham. It is but a part of a body of evidence so overwhelming, the grant-hungry politicized pseudo-scientists you worship at the feet of have been unable to refute it either. The growing number of climatologists and related experts that do address such issues make up the growing body of MMGW sceptics.
2. Explain Glen Beck's concerns regarding threats to the Constitutional protections of our freedom.
Beck addresses this subject publicly virtually every day. It's his main theme. It would be easy to look up and familiarize yourself with these perspectives. Then, when you were disagreeing with him, you would at least know what you were disagreeing with. Not a single one of you could do this. You had all of the motivation you needed to attack Beck and anyone who would defend him, but not enough to actually know what you are talking about. Perhaps you are right to stay here among those who agree with you. This is safe for you. And if you really went out and explored these other ways of viewing the world, you wouldn't be comfortable here any more.
My under standing is that the cycle charts that most people point to are 100,000 year cycles.
Now to put this in perspective...
So lets say 1 cycle (100,000 years) was 1 year (365 days)
1 day = 274 years
1 hour = 11 years
1 min = 69 days
1 sec = 1.15 days
Now imagine your at home, for the most part of the year, you didn't really do much, and you where pretty much all alone. You did a little bit here and there, and a couple of people moved in with you, eg. 9 days (2000 years) ago you had Christ visit for 3 hours (33 years) (said he'll be back.) but not much else happening. So things where all fine and dandy. Now Yesterday (200-300 years ago) you got smart I mean really smart. You figured that I can create things, steel ships, power plants, it was a real industrial revaluation. And at the same time, you start to notice its getting a little crowed. But this morning you've now noticed its getting hotter, and its getting really crowed. And only in the last 2 hours its starting to get really hot, and really really crowed, I'm talking 10 x 10 cell with 100 people in it, and don't know what's happening.
So you panic, now the last thing I did was create all this industrial gear, so that must be to blame. But you can't because its making all the great stuff, so you regulate it. Undo all those things I've done in the last hour. "Maybe i shouldn't of been spraying cfc's around", "I'll plant tree's it was cooler when I had more trees yesterday." But its still getting warmer... still crowed, Your foods going off, can't find enough water to drink... and this takes us to now.
Maybe it is just a cycle thing and it'll all return to normal, but this may take several hundred years to return there. You cant say "oh its natural, it'll return to normal" When no human civilisation has ever dealt with this level of rapid climate and had this high a population it its history.
So no-one know what is going to happen. Maybe it'll start to cool of it the next week, the next year or maybe new 1000 years.
But have to try, else like all things that don't adapt to change, they die.
2.) To quote Whoopy Goldberg, Glenn Beck is a "Lying sack of dog mess"
She should just change out of her wet clothes and try to relax. beck sees a threat to his livelihood not to the constitution.
Although it's part of our atmosphere, these dimwits are accidentally focusing on it as a waste product.
Then again, I may have trouble arguing this point with either of them. I could ask a sane person if they could imagine a higher-than-acceptable level of feces (another waste product) in their environment, but Rush & Jeff could probably convincingly argue that they can take in and put out a lot of sh*t.
freeze frame of Beck & home page shot of Hannity are great-- capture their idiocy so perfectly.
As for your Beck, YOU explain what his concerns are, and we'll refute it, as I said before, but you overlooked or conveniently ignored. Personally, he's not important enough for me to study what his opinions are just to say how they are wrong, because he is an irredeemably unsophisticated clown with a shallow thought process. If you want to post what he thinks, go ahead, but we're not going to do your work for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
and some more:
http://www.skepdic.com/climateskeptics.html
that last one has a TON of links. If you can't find the answers, it because you AREN'T LOOKING.
As for Mister Beck alleged "assault of the constitution"? I don't have to proove that it doesn't exsist. That nonsense. If you were the slightest but scientifically litrerate, you know this. The nul hypothesis is that a thing is assumed not to exsist, until evidence is presetned that it does. Said evidence then must withstand some scrutiny. The onus is on YOU and MISTER BECK to prove that this "assault of our freedoms" exists. As to saying "Beck talks about it every day." Yeah. Beck sppouts a lot of BS EVERY day, so would you be so kind as to provide a summary, somethign similar to whay I have done above? It would be nice if there WAS any actual EVIDENCE too, not just a bucnh of Beck's sensless ranting.
You show me your evidence and I'll refute it.
I suggest Hannity and Beck sit in a car with the engine running in the garage for about an hour or so.
Now he says that CO2 is not a pollutant. How about I offer him a $100 a minute, for charity, for the troop's families, to stand in a seal chanber of pure CO2. Let's see just how dangerous CO2 can be.
At the very least he'll then be unconcious and we can waterboard him.
[H]ow could sh1t be a poison when it's naturally occurring and the trees use it to grow?
Well?
http://rjw-progressive.blogspot.com/2009/05/just-quickie-on-carbon-dioxide.html
Danged socialist water treatment.... obviously a waste of money...