U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules CO2 a pollutant—

[trysail]

You are exhaling a pollutant.

Stop breathing.


“The IPCC is monolithic and complacent, and it is conceivable that they are exaggerating…”
Sir John Maddox, 1925-2009
( former editor of Nature )

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Take a deep, deep breath and hold it for...oh about a month. That's the next time you will be able exhale.

Oh and don't you dare fart...methane is a green house gas too.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So is water vapor and every goddamned other thing.

When I worked in government I used to see this sort of thing all the time. Like the 17 year old girl with a small scratch on her ankle. The girl wanted to move in with the guidance counselor, momma said NO, so the kid made a child abuse report on momma. She said momma ran her over with a Cadillac.

Well, there was only the small scratch on her ankle. A cat scratch sort of wound.

I thought momma was a talented driver if she could squeeze a de Ville between the girl's legs and only leave a small scratch. But the cops and state attorney and every damned swinging dick bought the accusation...except me and the judge. The judge looked at the 'wound' and threw the case out.

 

[3113]

You are exhaling a pollutant.

Stop breathing.

Oh. Bravo, Try. That as masterfully taken out of context. Oh, hey, Tell ya what, given your context, why don't we put you in a sealed capsule, like the one that went to the moon in Apollo 13...and, as with Apollo 13, nothing to scrub out that excess CO2, so it keeps rising and rising and rising....

I mean, you seem to imply that CO2 is natural and not harmful at all right? What does it matter if you breath it out...and breathe it in in greater and greater quantities? Can we do that to ya? Pretty please?

That's the missing context you somehow misplaced, along with where you got your information, which, funny, would have also given us the context. It's all about too much CO2. What we put into the atmosphere that isn't coming from just "breathing," and which is making the atmosphere less nice to breath or live in.

 

[Stella_Omega]

We eliminate CO2 on our outward breath because it will kill us in too high a concentration. Our urine becomes ammonia, our feces contain formaldehyde and acetone.

All waste materials are toxic to the organism that eliminates it. If these things weren't toxic, we wouldn't eliminate them.

Try, don't weaken your argument with really stupid declarations.

 

[Liar]

You are exhaling a pollutant.

Stop breathing.

If that's your conclusion then yes, maybe you should.

 

[shereads]

We eliminate CO2 on our outward breath because it will kill us in too high a concentration.

That may seem obvious, Stella, but remember: Republicans have no "duh" gene.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That may seem obvious, Stella, but remember: Republicans have no "duh" gene.

Oh... duh.

 

[jomar]

Rocks are behind this. It's just the first step. You'll see.

 

[cloudy]

I blame the fish people.

 

[shereads]

I blame the fish people.

This made me grin so wide, my face hurts. I don't know why.

 

[jomar]

This made me grin so wide, my face hurts. I don't know why.

Me too.

 

[Guest]

This made me grin so wide, my face hurts. I don't know why.

Maybe you need hormones.

I'll share.

 

[DesertPirate]

We eliminate CO2 on our outward breath because it will kill us in too high a concentration. Our urine becomes ammonia, our feces contain formaldehyde and acetone.

All waste materials are toxic to the organism that eliminates it. If these things weren't toxic, we wouldn't eliminate them.

Try, don't weaken your argument with really stupid declarations.

3% CO2 causes brain damage

Your friendly submarine atmosphere control watch

 

[Zeb_Carter]

CO2 is produced naturally by every living creature on the planet. It is also produced by natural phenomenon, such as fire, the plants at night and just being released from the ocean where it is held in suspension.

Mans industrialization produces only 3% of the CO2 on the planet. 3%. So if my math and duh factors are correct, 97% is produces by the planet itself. So if man stops producing 100% of the CO2 he produces that means that the planet will product 100% all on it's own.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, yeah-- if you have 100% of something, and you take away 50%, you now have a brand new 100%-- one that's smaller in quantity.

 

[TE999]

CO2 is produced naturally by every living creature on the planet. It is also produced by natural phenomenon, such as fire, the plants at night and just being released from the ocean where it is held in suspension.

Mans industrialization produces only 3% of the CO2 on the planet. 3%. So if my math and duh factors are correct, 97% is produces by the planet itself. So if man stops producing 100% of the CO2 he produces that means that the planet will product 100% all on it's own.

Does the EPA know of this?...Congress?...We need an investigation...we need a gigantic activated charcoal filter covering the Earth to stop these awful pollutants...an immediate insertion of mufflers in cow, horse and pig's assholes...and a slew of PSA's..."Exhale only when you have to America. Hi, Im Troy McClure..."

 

[shereads]

Does the EPA know of this?...Congress?...We need an investigation...we need a gigantic activated charcoal filter covering the Earth to stop these awful pollutants...an immediate insertion of mufflers in cow, horse and pig's assholes...and a slew of PSA's..."Exhale only when you have to America. Hi, Im Troy McClure..."

Or, we could regulate made-made pollutants.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Or, we could regulate made-made pollutants.

Okay, no more BBQ, no more cooked meals, no more transportation, no more electricity, no more heat or air conditioning. Can't even use candles, that produces co2, among other pollutants.

So it's off to work...oh wait...the place you work used to use computers and all those electronic stuff...no more work.

Okay, back to digging in the ground to grow things to eat...no wait that gives off pollutants too. In fact it takes pollutants to grow those things to eat.

My, my what is the human race to do?

Go all solar all the time...wait making those solar cells produce more pollutants than using coal or oil to product electricity.

Time to die then...

 

[trysail]

Okay, no more BBQ, no more cooked meals, no more transportation, no more electricity, no more heat or air conditioning. Can't even use candles, that produces co2, among other pollutants.

So it's off to work...oh wait...the place you work used to use computers and all those electronic stuff...no more work.

Okay, back to digging in the ground to grow things to eat...no wait that gives off pollutants too. In fact it takes pollutants to grow those things to eat.

My, my what is the human race to do?

Go all solar all the time...wait making those solar cells produce more pollutants than using coal or oil to product electricity.

Time to die then...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png​

 

[Jagged]

Don't the plans need the CO2 we put out so they can make the oxygen we need so badly....? how will this work?

 

[Stella_Omega]

The fact that our planet has made similar cyclic swings in the past does not mean that we should go ahead and force a cycle into existence.

And just because some of those cycles happened before humans were around does not mean we aren't capable of upsetting the equilibrium.

It's a real bad idea. The dinosaurs died by the billions. Humans will too. It might not have been the dinosaur's fault, but it will be our fault.

 

[shereads]

Okay, no more BBQ, no more cooked meals, no more transportation, no more electricity, no more heat or air conditioning. Can't even use candles, that produces co2, among other pollutants.

So it's off to work...oh wait...the place you work used to use computers and all those electronic stuff...no more work.

Okay, back to digging in the ground to grow things to eat...no wait that gives off pollutants too. In fact it takes pollutants to grow those things to eat.

My, my what is the human race to do?

Go all solar all the time...wait making those solar cells produce more pollutants than using coal or oil to product electricity.

Time to die then...

Or, as I said earlier, we could regulate man-made pollutants.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2387203.ece

DISGUSTING A/H FAT BODIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. IT SEZ SO RIGHT HERE!

 

[trysail]

New Yorkers and their talismanic Times really do inhabit a different planet. There are moments when I'm virtually certain we'd all be better off if they were ejected from the Union. At the very least, if they could somehow be quarantined, the rest of us would— god knows— be subject to less bad taste, less bad manners, less stupidity, fewer idiotic fads and more peace and quiet.

If both the District of Confusion ( a/k/a Cancer on the Potomac ) and the Rotten Apple could somehow be flushed into the sewage system, this really would be a much nicer country in which to live.

Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: April 20, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/science/earth/21tier.html?_r=1

When the first Earth Day took place in 1970, American environmentalists had good reason to feel guilty. The nation’s affluence and advanced technology seemed so obviously bad for the planet that they were featured in a famous equation developed by the ecologist Paul Ehrlich and the physicist John P. Holdren, who is now President Obama’s science adviser.

Their equation was I=PAT, which means that environmental impact is equal to population multiplied by affluence multiplied by technology. Protecting the planet seemed to require fewer people, less wealth and simpler technology — the same sort of social transformation and energy revolution that will be advocated at many Earth Day rallies on Wednesday.

But among researchers who analyze environmental data, a lot has changed since the 1970s. With the benefit of their hindsight and improved equations, I’ll make a couple of predictions:

1. There will be no green revolution in energy or anything else. No leader or law or treaty will radically change the energy sources for people and industries in the United States or other countries. No recession or depression will make a lasting change in consumers’ passions to use energy, make money and buy new technology— and that, believe it or not, is good news, because...