Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

[Mavorpen]

Exactly. So what this comes down to is, (despite the fact that CO is poisonous in large doses as others have pointed out):
62 pages of a thread have been wasted arguing with someone who thinks CO and CO₂ are the same thing.
I don't know whether I should or

the most plentiful and significant green house gas is water -- certainly not CO2.

is water a pollutant too ?

now get off the floor and start thinking objectively and rationally.

Water vapor is different from water you drink. Water vapor also leaves the atmosphere significantly more faster than C02. Lrn2science.

[Deus Est Machina]

I can't fucking believe there are still people who deny that we are contributing to the heating of the earth.
Please, get off your ideological soap box, and do the research yourself, not just from climateskeptics.com.

[AuSable River]

Oh, and one last thing.

only a liberal could believe that the substance that trees and flowers depend on to grow and flourish and that all animals exhale is a pollutant.

good night liberals and thanks for that one last

Go and live in the Maldives for a few years, and then tell me that atmospheric CO2, in the excessive quantities we're heading towards, is not a pollutant.

the most prevalent green house gas is dihydrogen oxide

not CO2.

nonetheless, the Left classifies one a pollutant and the more significant one it ignores.

such is the illogic of criminals who simply manufacture any excuse to regulate society for their self-serving goals.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Exactly. So what this comes down to is, (despite the fact that CO is poisonous in large doses as others have pointed out):
62 pages of a thread have been wasted arguing with someone who thinks CO and CO₂ are the same thing.
I don't know whether I should or

the most plentiful and significant green house gas is water -- certainly not CO2.

is water a pollutant too ?

In the wrong places, in the wrong form, and in the wrong quantity, yes.

CO2 has an important, essential role in biological processes too, just as much as water does. They can both be pollutants when they're found in excessive quantities outside of that role.

[Divair]

Go and live in the Maldives for a few years, and then tell me that atmospheric CO2, in the excessive quantities we're heading towards, is not a pollutant.

the most prevalent green house gas is dihydrogen oxide

not CO2.

nonetheless, the Left classifies one a pollutant and the more significant one it ignores.

such is the illogic of criminals who simply manufacture any excuse to regulate society for their self-serving goals.

For those who don't get it yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

[Mavorpen]

the most prevalent green house gas is dihydrogen oxide

not CO2.

nonetheless, the Left classifies one a pollutant and the more significant one it ignores.

such is the illogic of criminals who simply manufacture any excuse to regulate society for their self-serving goals.

Again, lrn2science.

[AuSable River]

I can't fucking believe there are still people who deny that we are contributing to the heating of the earth.
Please, get off your ideological soap box, and do the research yourself, not just from climateskeptics.com.

I cant believe that there are still people who classify something that plants cant live without and that humans breath and expel since time immemorial is a pollutant ??!!!

next thing the liberal will be classifying water as a pollutant since it has a far greater effect on global warming.

[AuSable River]

the most prevalent green house gas is dihydrogen oxide

not CO2.

nonetheless, the Left classifies one a pollutant and the more significant one it ignores.

such is the illogic of criminals who simply manufacture any excuse to regulate society for their self-serving goals.

Again, lrn2science.

amusingly and predictably, this hanger on mavoren provides a leftwing source that describes the feedback self-regulating mechanism of water in the atmosphere.

while totally clueless to the same feedback mechanism that CO2 provides ---- let me explain to those who missed their 3rd grade weather lecture:

1) CO2 increases -- plants grow.

2) plants proliferate --- CO2 is consumed

you stand corrected.

[AuSable River]

the most prevalent green house gas is dihydrogen oxide

not CO2.

nonetheless, the Left classifies one a pollutant and the more significant one it ignores.

such is the illogic of criminals who simply manufacture any excuse to regulate society for their self-serving goals.

For those who don't get it yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

tens of thousands of liberals signed the petition.

funny stuff.

[Mavorpen]

Again, lrn2science.

amusingly and predictably, this hanger on mavoren provides a leftwing source that describes the feedback self-regulating mechanism of water in the atmosphere.

while totally clueless to the same feedback mechanism that CO2 provides ---- let me explain to those who missed their 3rd grade weather lecture:

1) CO2 increases -- plants grow.

2) plants proliferate --- CO2 is consumed

you stand corrected.

Lolololololol

[AuSable River]

the most plentiful and significant green house gas is water -- certainly not CO2.

is water a pollutant too ?

In the wrong places, in the wrong form, and in the wrong quantity, yes.

CO2 has an important, essential role in biological processes too, just as much as water does. They can both be pollutants when they're found in excessive quantities outside of that role.

then sir,

everything on the periodic table and everything that has ever existed in the universe is a 'pollutant' by your definition.

hence the EPA can regulate everything and anything.

do you see the illogic in the liberal position ???

[Mavorpen]

then sir,

everything on the periodic table and everything that has ever existed in the universe is a 'pollutant' by your definition.

hence the EPA can regulate everything and anything.

do you see the illogic in the liberal position ???

No, since the EPA DOES regulate everything potentially lethal at certain doses.

[Deus Est Machina]

I can't fucking believe there are still people who deny that we are contributing to the heating of the earth.
Please, get off your ideological soap box, and do the research yourself, not just from climateskeptics.com.

I cant believe that there are still people who classify something that plants cant live without and that humans breath and expel since time immemorial is a pollutant ??!!!

next thing the liberal will be classifying water as a pollutant since it has a far greater effect on global warming.

Sure, we need it and plants need it. But as an anology, what happens when we eat 2 king sized pizzas a day? We get fat, and it is unhealthy. Everything in moderation! And our impact on the climate is unbalancing the entire ecosystem of the world.
Burning millions of barrels of oil and coal which trapped carbon in the ground, is being released back into the atmosphere. There is no denying that this will have an impact on the global climate. Fucks sake, if the world is burning, you and your ilk probably will make some bullshit excuse like "Its only the sun, its natural". Fuck you and people who think like you.

[Yuktova]

You know, OP, you never did correct that statement you made on Chernobyl.
Needless to say, I would say that was a total non-sequitor by you.

[Mavorpen]

You know, OP, you never did correct that statement you made on Chernobyl.
Needless to say, I would say that was a total non-sequitor by you.

What, did he say it was caused by big-government liberals?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I can't fucking believe there are still people who deny that we are contributing to the heating of the earth.
Please, get off your ideological soap box, and do the research yourself, not just from climateskeptics.com.

I cant believe that there are still people who classify something that plants cant live without and that humans breath and expel since time immemorial is a pollutant ??!!!

next thing the liberal will be classifying water as a pollutant since it has a far greater effect on global warming.

Because obviously if something's good in certain situations under certain conditions, it's good in every situation under any conditions.

The problem is that because of your total and violent hatred of reason and individual liberty, which you have so kindly exhibited in this thread for all, you're not willing to apply the critical thinking skills necessary to apply the necessary concept of context to this issue. In certain contexts, water and CO2 are good, even essential. In others, not so much.

How is this difficult to grasp?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

In the wrong places, in the wrong form, and in the wrong quantity, yes.

CO2 has an important, essential role in biological processes too, just as much as water does. They can both be pollutants when they're found in excessive quantities outside of that role.

then sir,

everything on the periodic table and everything that has ever existed in the universe is a 'pollutant' by your definition.

Indeed, in given situations it is.

hence the EPA can regulate everything and anything.

Indeed, it can.

do you see the illogic in the liberal position ???

What's illogical about that? Why do you hate individual liberty so much?

[Yuktova]

You know, OP, you never did correct that statement you made on Chernobyl.
Needless to say, I would say that was a total non-sequitor by you.

What, did he say it was caused by big-government liberals?

Hah, basically. He said it was planned by the communists

[Mavorpen]

What, did he say it was caused by big-government liberals?

Hah, basically. He said it was planned by the communists

I'm...actually not surprised. This is a sad day.

[AuSable River]

Amusingly, this graph shows that the Earth's climate has experienced a regular pattern ( I didnt know that cavemen had SUVs and coal fired plants since global warming can only occur by this mechanism -- at least according to liberal drones ?)

indeed, plants and animals have adapted under all extremes of climate and temperature --- which is always changing irrespective of what mankind does.

Moreover, the real debate is what to do about it ???

for example, the liberal wants to engage in the totally illogical gutting of energy source that provides 95% of the energy to transportation in the civilized industrial world ???!!?!?

nonetheless, this illogical step to reduce carbon fuel usage would have virtually no discernible effect on long term effects of global warming because china, india, russia, et al will more than make-up the difference.

the only thing that liberal policies will do is bankrupt America, lower living standards, and undermine our ability to make positive changes to forestall any negative effects of global warming (and liberals dont seem to understand that they are some significant positive effects) without having any discernable effect on the levels of CO2 !!!

you stand corrected

[Yuktova]

Alright, OP, what's your fucking solution. Got anything better? No? Are you a climatologist? No? Then get the fuck out.

We can either: a) make the automobile obsolete by creation of a holistic transportation system across cities and towns, or b) start making solar and other renewable resource cars easily available and abundant.

[Mavorpen]

(Image)

Amusingly, this graph shows that the Earth's climate has experienced a regular pattern ( I didnt know that cavemen had SUVs and coal fired plants since global warming can only occur by this mechanism -- at least according to liberal drones ?)

Nope.
Nope.
Aaaaaaaaand nope.

indeed, plants and animals have adapted under all extremes of climate and temperature --- which is always changing irrespective of what mankind does.

Nope.

Moreover, the real debate is what to do about it ???

for example, the liberal wants to engage in the totally illogical gutting of energy source that provides 95% of the energy to transportation in the civilized industrial world ???!!?!?

Yeah.

nonetheless, this illogical step to reduce carbon fuel usage would have virtually no discernible effect on long term effects of global warming because china, india, russia, et al will more than make-up the difference.

Let's not end slavery, after all, the other countries will continue it!

the only thing that liberal policies will do is bankrupt America, lower living standards, and undermine our ability to make positive changes to forestall any negative effects of global warming (and liberals dont seem to understand that they are some significant positive effects) without having any discernable effect on the levels of CO2 !!!

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5821
http://theenergycollective.com/don-madd ... reate-jobs
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... eets.html/

you stand corrected

Lolnope.

[Liriena]

Oh, OP, you are back already?

Tell me, if you are so confident of you being absolutely, 100% in every single belief you hold...why the hell do you come back? Maybe you are trolling? Are you trying to start a flame war with your intellectual dishonesty and blindness and horrible manners?

[Priory Academy USSR]

(Image)

Amusingly, this graph shows that the Earth's climate has experienced a regular pattern ( I didnt know that cavemen had SUVs and coal fired plants since global warming can only occur by this mechanism -- at least according to liberal drones ?)

Nope.
Nope.
Aaaaaaaaand nope.

indeed, plants and animals have adapted under all extremes of climate and temperature --- which is always changing irrespective of what mankind does.

Nope.

Moreover, the real debate is what to do about it ???

for example, the liberal wants to engage in the totally illogical gutting of energy source that provides 95% of the energy to transportation in the civilized industrial world ???!!?!?

Yeah.

nonetheless, this illogical step to reduce carbon fuel usage would have virtually no discernible effect on long term effects of global warming because china, india, russia, et al will more than make-up the difference.

Let's not end slavery, after all, the other countries will continue it!

the only thing that liberal policies will do is bankrupt America, lower living standards, and undermine our ability to make positive changes to forestall any negative effects of global warming (and liberals dont seem to understand that they are some significant positive effects) without having any discernable effect on the levels of CO2 !!!

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5821
http://theenergycollective.com/don-madd ... reate-jobs
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... eets.html/

you stand corrected

Lolnope.

Huzzah for evidence!

[AuSable River]

then sir,

everything on the periodic table and everything that has ever existed in the universe is a 'pollutant' by your definition.

Indeed, in given situations it is.

hence the EPA can regulate everything and anything.

Indeed, it can.

do you see the illogic in the liberal position ???

What's illogical about that? Why do you hate individual liberty so much?

I think your a bit mixed up.

surrendering your freedom to the EPA or any other government agency is the definition of lost freedom.

indeed, the govt has all the guns, gavels, and legislative power -- so you really have no say anyway.

now the nail is in the coffin when they will soon regulate water as a pollutant to be managed by government alone.

note that since the EPA was created -- this CO2 scare has spun out of control -- it is too late to correct.

Hence, the EPA was created to address this kind of eventuality and it has proven utterly incapable of doing anything about it either at home or abroad.

in sum, you have simply surrendered what little economic freedoms you have to a central authority in washington that cares little about you -- unless you happen to be a lobbyist