LOOK OUT EPA say CO2 threat to public health and safety

[Farbin Kaiber]

Now that you're done making wild assumptions can we get back to a reasonable debate?

Before the ninja edit...

Of course not, this is r3v.

[LBJefferies]

We can sit here and argue all day about the validity of AGW but you cannot deny that the chemicals that human beings produce and pump into the air are hazardous.

Regardless of your stance on AGW, green technology is good.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Green technology is a good market to be in rite meow. Lotsa money getting thrown around...

[gwb72tii]

OMG
life is impossible without CO2
its a fucking trace element, AS IN TRACE

youth is wasted on the young
you guys don't get it do you

we now learn the science the IPCC conclusions were drawn from are skewed, and is false, as in the data has no integrity

do you get it, they lied to all of us, as in did not tell the truth

none of this is about pollution you dweebs, its about the gov't grabbing one more piece of your life and directing what you can and cannot do

[mrsleeve]

Where did I make a W.A.G?????? or assume any thing????? enlighten me please

I was pointing out the Lunacy of your argument with real facts and figures as well. You see while you say that immersing our selves in a 100% CO2 environment will kill us sure you are right, but that cant and wont happen short of the gas chamber.

You see CO2 is minuscule amount of total atmosphere, we need at minimum 19% O2 enviroment to just live, and about 21% is optimum (what we have evolved with).

a few thousands of a percent of CO2 is well with in the tolerance of equilibrium, and Mother nature can vary it much more than that with a single volcanic eruption.

Yeah co2 is kinda heavy and well we have this thing on earth called wind, or the atmosphere transferring heat from one place to another trying to even the surface air temperature out. That stirs things up and mixes that minuscule percentage of co2 up with the rest of the atmosphere.


Please use your brain and critical thinking ability, before posting. When you dont you look like an idiot

I didn't cite any figures relating to Co2 and green house gases, I simply cited a figure which was the percentage of source Co2 production (which is truthful) and that Co2 is in fact detrimental to the health of a human being (which is also truthful)

I never stated that Co2 is bad, in fact I stated it is integral to maintaining equilibrium in our environment (ecosystem) and in addition to that I believe that it should be regulated in order to preserve our ecosystem and living environment.

Now that you're done making wild assumptions can we get back to a reasonable, adult debate, derived of facts? or should we put words in people's mouths and get our panties in a bunch like children?

[genocide98]

Green technology is a good market to be in rite meow. Lotsa money getting thrown around...

Yes it is. Unfortunately it's something that we need to look into to preserve the place we live. Starting now is better than never... We can't keep producing and expect things to say the same. When you do something to upset the balance, you must also do something to preserve it. For every action there is a reaction, etc.

Before the ninja edit...

Of course not, this is r3v.

Yeah I don't think that I deserve to be attacked because the guy lacks reading comprehension or didn't even bother to read and just wants to parrot some stuff he probably copy/pasted from a blog.

I didn't do anything than produce a clear, respectful point. I don't deserve having words put in my mouth and then having names slung at me for it.

[mrsleeve]

Ding DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!! we have a winner. That why the "experts" were falsifying data and hiding the truth.

TO KEEP ALL THE MONEY, AKA GOVT GRANTS FLOWING IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Green technology is a good market to be in rite meow. Lotsa money getting thrown around...

Sure some things are bad if released look at union carbide accident in 84. I have no issues with working on cleaner energy and sustainable emissions. But for the same reason a dog dose not shit where it eats. But lets be reasonable here, lets have some real science on it and use common sense and not hamper our selves in the process.

We can sit here and argue all day about the validity of AGW but you cannot deny that the chemicals that human beings produce and pump into the air are hazardous.
Regardless of your stance on AGW, green technology is good.

[genocide98]

I was pointing out the Lunacy of your argument with real facts and figures as well. You see while you say that immersing our selves in a 100% CO2 environment will kill us sure you are right, but that cant and wont happen short of the gas chamber.

You didn't make any arguement at all. You insisted I said something I didn't (BTW, it's very clearly posted right on the first page) and then tried to prove a point about something I didn't say.

You see CO2 is minuscule amount of total atmosphere, we need at minimum 19% O2 enviroment to just live, and about 21% is optimum (what we have evolved with). a few thousands of a percent is well with in the tolerance of equilibrium, and Mother nature can vary it much more than that with a single volcanic eruption.

I didn't say anything about this... In addition, I'm speaking directly about a city/smog environment, which is not a general statement to the world.

Yeah co2 is kinda heavy and well we have this thing on earth called wind, or the atmosphere transferring heat from one place to another trying to even the surface air temperature out. That stirs things up and mixes that minuscule percentage of co2 up with the rest of the atmosphere.

Wind doesn't apply to inner cities.. you don't get strong winds when you have miles and miles of tall buildings paired with an ongoing (24/7/365) source of these noxious gasses.

Please use your brain and critical thinking ability, before posting. When you dont you look like an idiot

Ironic.

I'd just like to point out that someone asked a question and I proposed a valid answer and gave an example of how it effects society, only to have words put in my mouth, have someone argue a completely different point (lol) and then repeatedly call me names.

Ok dude, you win. I'm sure you're proving your point to everyone with your internet badass attitude and stunning wit. Good job at arguing with yourself about a point nobody but you brought up and then calling someone names about it.

LOL

You really need to learn how to place your anger properly. Stuff like this just makes you look like a fool.. and considering you're on the internet AND you look like a jackass.. well.. I'm pretty sure that says everything itself.

[e30guydownunder]

[mrsleeve]

so air dose not move at all in cities no thermal movements no wind ever???? Funny I have been in lots of cities and there always seems to be air moving :roll:

I try to inject some fact to point out the flaws into your arguments, that CO2 is a poisoning pollutant the likes of CO, While you did not come right out and say it, the writing is on the wall and the implication is there.

Ehhh you are playing the I didnt really say that card. Nice try

as far a warming, it snowed in huston this week end and in Reno today :roll:


This ball of dirt will continue to be here long after we disappear from the universe. To have the arrogance to think we can effect it in the long run is comical at best.

You ever look into the big yellow orb in the sky that drives our weather and gives us life and is the sole reason we are even here. You ought to look into it and what it dose, hears a hint ........................................it WARMS the earth

[stegosaurus]

If you understand the chemistry of photosynthesis (H20 -> O2) you'd actually realize that as [CO2] increase, photosynthesizing organisms are less likely to undergo photorespiration (uses ATP and O2 to make CO2), which is basically an un-doing of photosynthesis. Photosynthesizing organisms (plants, green algae, cyanobacteria) actually work better when there are high [CO2].

Experiments have proven this, and it's evident right in the chemistry of the reactions. Plants and algae and cyanobacteria have even evolved on numerous independent occasions to increase [CO2] on their own, by storing CO2 in the event that [CO2] might drop. So as [CO2] rise and fall (because they do fluctuate with seasons, following the northern hemisphere's growing season) photosynthesis is most effective at fixating CO2 and producing O2 as a byproduct of reactions with H20 when [CO2] are high. More CO2 essentially means more O2 and bigger, better, faster growing plants, meaning better photosynthesis etc... Besides, consider that CO2 is like 0.0380% or 0.0360% of the atmosphere? I can't remember.

You're right, CO2 isn't a big player in the game, in fact, its relatively unrelated because it's dealt with by the most marvelous ecological system on the planet. You're also right that the other byproducts are in fact hazardous to human health. The problem here is that when people think global warming they think CO2, because that's what was the hot topic for so long, and unless CO2 is attacked directly, it wont be attributed to an attack on the environmental affects of civilization.

I'm pissed that policy-makers are more apt to draw further on a flagship (CO2) that's become relatively insignificant since it first came around, than they are to target the actual source of the problem as it has changed. It may be easier to bait people towards performing a behavior that you want from them, but in the long run it comes to bite you in the ass. It's catching up now because people are so dependent on other people's direction that they can't form rational opinions of their own, or admit that they don't know enough about something to form an independent opinion in the first place.

Our government has become so swollen it can hardly function, the last thing we need is another office (Mr. Health-isurance-operator). Where are my libertarians?

Ok,

So go huff CO2 and tell me how you feel. :)

Co2, while not technically a pollutant after having a judgment reversed, is definitely harmful to the human species. It is still subject to the clean air act- despite not being classified as a 'pollutant' Why? Simple. Co2 is heavy. Heavy things sink. The more heavy gasses we have down below, the less air we have to breathe. Less air to breathe can and IS detrimental to your health.

Technically, if you read carefully I did not say Co2 was a pollutant, only that it was harmful. Other pollutants being carbon monoxide, which is, and nitrogen dioxide, which is also a pollutant.

TL;DR

In a nutshell Co2 is fine, however toxic or unacceptably high levels of Co2 have an extreme detriment to your health and or well being.

So can you answer my question now?

[dinanm3atl]

So I thought everyone heard that these same people were telling stories and making shit up the whole time. So now we are supposed to believe them?



Hope and Change! Change we can believe in!

[Farbin Kaiber]

There is a brainiac in this thread.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Wind doesn't apply to inner cities.. you don't get strong winds when you have miles and miles of tall buildings paired with an ongoing (24/7/365) source of these noxious gasses.

You obviously have never been to the city. You are an idiot. Look up Los Angeles, and Santa Ana winds.

[mrsleeve]

You obviously have never been to the city. You are an idiot. Look up Los Angeles, and Santa Ana winds.

quoted fer da Lolerskates