• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama administration formally declares danger of carbon emissions

hazlnut said:
:2rofll::2funny:


Thank you for showing us all that you don't know what you're talking about. No. That's an understatement. You don't have any understanding of the issue being discussed in this thread. It's an alien language to you. Which begs the question: Why did you post?

It's amazing how little far-right partisans actually know about climate change causes and science...You all are absolutely clueless.





Question: Is the author of the article writing about (A) specifics, giving an in depth explanation of the different types of emissions and how they combine in the atmosphere to form a blanket that traps heat, warming the ground and water??

OR...

(B) Is the author trying to convey to laymen the general issue using a term (CO2) that many people are familiar with and not going into the complicated science?

(Hint: it was short article on policy and not really on science...)

Lastly, professor, since you brought up Photosynthesis -- what goes in: C02, what comes out: O2. What happens to the particles that can't be used in the process? Can a green plant photosynthesize more C02 than it needs? Can a green plant photosynthesize all carbon emissions?

You should contact your third grade teacher immediately and see that she is fired -- she really did you a disservice.
:spank::hammer:

Dismissed, young man.
Click to expand...

Learn-2-Algae.
 
phattonez said:
086_Tree_Hugging_Environmentalists.sized.jpg


People like this convincing otherwise normal people by alarmism and no statistical data are the reason why we don't talk about nuclear power.
Click to expand...

Don't be a smart ass.

We know why tree-huggers and the far-left doesn't talk about nuclear power.

My point is why doesn't big industry and big government talk about it?

The same reason they didn't build a decent mass transit system in Los Angeles--it would have been too efficient and cost effective.

or

Why didn't they extend the L.A. Metro Trains all the way to LAX. Because the Taxi Cab union and other interests lobbied to have it stop before reaching the airport.

Nuclear power would put too many people out of business. Where does the bulk of anti-nuclear propaganda come from--the tree huggers? No. Coal miners. Train lines that ship coal. Trucking lines that ship coal. Power producers who uses fossil fuels. Imagine if all those plants became obsolete. Instead of 10 energy companies and their subsidiaries, suppliers, and middlemen, we only need 3.
 
hazlnut said:
Don't be a smart ass.

We know why tree-huggers and the far-left doesn't talk about nuclear power.

My point is why doesn't big industry and big government talk about it?
Click to expand...

There is no popular support for it.

The same reason they didn't build a decent mass transit system in Los Angeles--it would have been too efficient and cost effective.[/quote]

Because we spent so much on a freeway system and decided to spread out our development. It was the fault of city planning, not some shadowy-organization.

Why didn't they extend the L.A. Metro Trains all the way to LAX. Because the Taxi Cab union and other interests lobbied to have it stop before reaching the airport.
Click to expand...

Because the Green Line was planned during the Cold War and El Segundo was a major job center because of aerospace engineering. Unfortunately, while it was being planned/built, the Soviet Union collapsed. Who knew?

Nuclear power would put too many people out of business. Where does the bulk of anti-nuclear propaganda come from--the tree huggers? No. Coal miners. Train lines that ship coal. Trucking lines that ship coal. Power producers who uses fossil fuels. Imagine if all those plants became obsolete. Instead of 10 energy companies and their subsidiaries, suppliers, and middlemen, we only need 3.
Click to expand...

When people think of nuclear, they think of bombs. That's why we don't have nuclear power plants anymore: a negative connotation.
 
Hey Hazlnut, you seen this?
I figured it's right up your alley.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQSt2hDqfEQ"]YouTube- re_acciona copenhagen[/ame]
 
hazlnut said:
:2rofll::2funny:


Thank you for showing us all that you don't know what you're talking about. No. That's an understatement. You don't have any understanding of the issue being discussed in this thread. It's an alien language to you. Which begs the question: Why did you post?

It's amazing how little far-right partisans actually know about climate change causes and science...You all are absolutely clueless.
Click to expand...

I was responding to the article which, again, mentions carbon dioxide. As I already showed you. As you should have seen had you actually read the article that YOU posted.

Not my fault that you can't keep up with what YOU post.

hazlnut said:
Lastly, professor, since you brought up Photosynthesis -- what goes in: C02, what comes out: O2. What happens to the particles that can't be used in the process? Can a green plant photosynthesize more C02 than it needs? Can a green plant photosynthesize all carbon emissions?

You should contact your third grade teacher immediately and see that she is fired -- she really did you a disservice.
:spank::hammer:

Dismissed, young man.
Click to expand...

This is tiresome. Learn your biology kid.

Sciencedaily.com: Plants Absorb More Carbon Dioxide Under Polluted Hazy Skies
 
phattonez said:
When people think of nuclear, they think of bombs. That's why we don't have nuclear power plants anymore: a negative connotation.
Click to expand...

Don't forget 3-Mile Island. Too many are too afraid that it will happen again.
 
Ethereal said:
Who gives a crap who came up with the idea? It sucks.
Click to expand...

Sulfur cap and trade markets have been extremely successful in reducing sulfur emissions and their related effect (affect?) upon acid rain. The problem with carbon cap and trade is that we don't really know just how much will cause serious problems. We knew for sulfur just how many tons would increase acid rain.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Don't forget 3-Mile Island. Too many are too afraid that it will happen again.
Click to expand...

Don't know what they have to be afraid of, since we don't use that technology anymore.
 
obvious Child said:
Sulfur cap and trade markets have been extremely successful in reducing sulfur emissions and their related effect (affect?) upon acid rain. The problem with carbon cap and trade is that we don't really know just how much will cause serious problems. We knew for sulfur just how many tons would increase acid rain.
Click to expand...

Understood, but I'm talking specifically about carbon C & T.
 
Ethereal said:
Understood, but I'm talking specifically about carbon C & T.
Click to expand...

Cap and trade is not inherently a bad idea and it has been used successfully to combat certain emissions in the past. And we know that Co2 traps heat and have correlated many of the hottest periods on Earth to staggeringly high Co2 concentrations. The problem with cap and trade is that we don't have a firm grasp on just how much Co2 over natural amounts will cause significant impacts. We have estimates, but nothing on par with information that the Sulfur markets use. That and governments have repetitively shown themselves to lack the necessary backbones to stick to reductions. The British Government is an excellent example of why cap and trade won't work: they cave to every demand from industry for either more credits or cheaper ones. What's the point in a cap and trade when you refuse to systemically reduce credits?
 
obvious Child said:
Cap and trade is not inherently a bad idea and it has been used successfully to combat certain emissions in the past. And we know that Co2 traps heat and have correlated many of the hottest periods on Earth to staggeringly high Co2 concentrations.
Click to expand...

I'm not willing to impose comprehensive and worldwide economic regulations based upon mere correlation.

The problem with cap and trade is that we don't have a firm grasp on just how much Co2 over natural amounts will cause significant impacts. We have estimates, but nothing on par with information that the Sulfur markets use. That and governments have repetitively shown themselves to lack the necessary backbones to stick to reductions. The British Government is an excellent example of why cap and trade won't work: they cave to every demand from industry for either more credits or cheaper ones. What's the point in a cap and trade when you refuse to systemically reduce credits?
Click to expand...

That, and China and India will never cooperate.
 
obvious Child said:
Sulfur cap and trade markets have been extremely successful in reducing sulfur emissions and their related effect (affect?) upon acid rain. The problem with carbon cap and trade is that we don't really know just how much will cause serious problems. We knew for sulfur just how many tons would increase acid rain.
Click to expand...

I tried to explain that to far-right sheep who post here without a lick of knowledge about science, gas, danger, etc.

They don't care. Unless Beck or Hannity say it's okay, it's not okay.

The far-right is now so-oooo conservative, they refuse to think for themselves. It's safer to let other people think for them.
 
hazlnut said:
I tried to explain that to far-right sheep who post here without a lick of knowledge about science, gas, danger, etc.

They don't care. Unless Beck or Hannity say it's okay, it's not okay.

The far-right is now so-oooo conservative, they refuse to think for themselves. It's safer to let other people think for them.
Click to expand...

Except your main goal is to regulate CO2 emissions, which, in case you were unaware, is different than sulfur.
 
hazlnut said:
I tried to explain that to far-right sheep who post here without a lick of knowledge about science, gas, danger, etc.

They don't care. Unless Beck or Hannity say it's okay, it's not okay.

The far-right is now so-oooo conservative, they refuse to think for themselves. It's safer to let other people think for them.
Click to expand...

So how about nuclear? Safe and clean as they get. That's what I thought. Transparent as hell.

Save the desperate "conservative" rants. You've lost on every point since the Obama got elected, you're about to lose the House and Senate, and you've gotten back to the same BS of the eight years prior. EVERYBODY sees it.

Obama = Tiger Woods = Global Warming = Government Healthcare

The gig is up.
 
hazlnut said:
I tried to explain that to far-right sheep who post here without a lick of knowledge about science, gas, danger, etc.

They don't care. Unless Beck or Hannity say it's okay, it's not okay.

The far-right is now so-oooo conservative, they refuse to think for themselves. It's safer to let other people think for them.
Click to expand...

Have you had a post in this thread that was actual debate and not just elitism and avoiding the argument?
 
obvious Child said:
Sulfur cap and trade markets have been extremely successful in reducing sulfur emissions and their related effect (affect?) upon acid rain. The problem with carbon cap and trade is that we don't really know just how much will cause serious problems. We knew for sulfur just how many tons would increase acid rain.
Click to expand...

Good analogy.

We don't know how much CO2 is too much, but we do know that increasing it is going to make some changes in global climate.

Some of those changes may be positive, but overall they will pose some challenges in the future.

Without CO2, life on Earth would not be possible. For one thing, the world would be so cold that higher forms of life would have a hard time surviving. More importantly, green plants need it to produce food. Without CO2, there would be no plants, and therefore, no animals. The temperature wouldn't matter, as no one would be here to experience it.

But there is such a thing as too much CO2. Water is necessary for life, too, but too much of it can cause some problems for us humans. Just ask the people in New Orleans if there isn't such a thing as too much water.

There is such a thing as too much CO2, also, and we're already at that point.

Reducing it is going to take an unprecedented amount of not only national, but global cooperation, so it is pretty much an academic question how much global climate change is due to human activities and whether we can mitigate it.

We probably can, but we won't. We will have to learn to live with it.
 
Newsflash: Totalitarian Democrats in Washington have decided that a naturally occuring gas is now toxic to humans. Nevermind that CO2 is needed for humans to live, we are gonna expell it from the atmosphere by way of taxation and mother nature is gonna give the totalitarians a huge hug for making her healthy again.:doh

So CO2 is now a toxic gas. Do these morons understand what level of CO2 is required to be toxic on a global scale? This isnt a case of someone sitting in their garage with the door down and their car running.

The totalitarians are out of their vulcan minds.:rofl
 
Dittohead not! said:
There is such a thing as too much CO2, also, and we're already at that point.
Click to expand...

What hope diamond piece of crap epiphany did you get to make this asinine conclusion?
 
TheHat said:
What hope diamond piece of crap epiphany did you get to make this asinine conclusion?
Click to expand...

Read the rest of the post before embarrassing yourself by making such a reply.

No one is saying that CO2 is a poisonous gas.
 
so while the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is proven to be a hoax, while the globe is cooling while CO2 is rising, while the national economy is faltering, the Messiah is going to rush out and declare his very own personal hot air a national health hazard.

Nice.
 
Joseph and Adolf gleefully spinning in their graves, this socialization of America they tried with war......the American people are doing themselves...and by their own hand!
 
hazlnut said:
Without getting too personal (and this is a serious question) how so?

I mean, the company that you work for makes decisions regarding employment. Some energy companies have diversified, some have not. Power will sill flow through the same lines and need to be maintained.

New forms of energy production require new labor to install and maintain.

I had a long discussion over Thanksgiving with a very knowledgeable engineer about nuclear production. The French have figured it out, why can't we? You know the real reason we don't talk about nuclear power-- it would put many big fossil fuel and coal companies out of business.
Click to expand...

NO, the real reason no one discusses nuclear power is that the lunatic fringe majority of Democrats have their heads rammed up their nether sphincter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom