No such thing as global warming? Not based on the Arctic circle wars

[Chapdog]

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia must stake its claim to a slice of the Arctic's vast resources, the secretary of Russia's Security Council said on Friday at an unprecedented session of the council held on a desolate Arctic island.
Russia, the world's second biggest oil exporter, is in a race with Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States for control of the oil, gas and precious metals that would become more accessible if global warming shrinks the Arctic ice cap.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKLC30090620080912

 

[Kamala Trump]

The issue is whether it is man-made or not, and if we should classify the gases we exhale, in a perfectly natural and organic way, as pollutants.

Taxed to breathe? You betcha. It's coming.


Reject the lies.

 

[Cancel3]

The issue is whether it is man-made or not, and if we should classify the gases we exhale, in a perfectly natural and organic way, as pollutants.

Taxed to breathe? You betcha. It's coming.


Reject the lies.

Carbondioxide cannot be considered a pollutant based solely on its existance.

But a high volume of it can be considered a pollutant based on its effects on the environment.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Carbondioxide cannot be considered a pollutant based solely on its existance.

But a high volume of it can be considered a pollutant based on its effects on the environment.

Your mind is moronically split in half.


The greenhouse gas effect is a lie.

Plus, plants depend on co2. Controlling it too much could have devastating consequnces.


But of course, truth doesn't matter to you envirofascist zealots.

 

[Cancel3]

Your mind is moronically split in half.


The greenhouse gas effect is a lie.

Plus, plants depend on co2. Controlling it too much could have devastating consequnces.


But of course, truth doesn't matter to you envirofascist zealots.

Yes, plants depend on CO2. Thats is a nice tidbit you remember from 9th grade biology.


That does not alter the fact that large volumes of CO2 should be considered pollutants. In large enough volumes, CO2 has detrimental effects on the environment.

Also, since we have been removing huge volumes of plants, and the volume of CO2 has been rising, the net result is an increase in CO2.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Yes, plants depend on CO2. Thats is a nice tidbit you remember from 9th grade biology.


That does not alter the fact that large volumes of CO2 should be considered pollutants. In large enough volumes, CO2 has detrimental effects on the environment.

No they don't. That's corrupt science talking.

Also, since we have been removing huge volumes of plants, and the volume of CO2 has been rising, the net result is an increase in CO2.

But the assertion that this causes global warming is spurious at best.

 

[Cancel3]

No they don't. That's corrupt science talking.


But the assertion that this causes global warming is spurious at best.

Corrupt science? Ok asshat, lets pretend that you are in a room alone. And its ventilated at the top, like many rooms are. If I put a towel under the door and emptied a few CO2 fire extinguishers into the room, what do you think would happen to you?



CO2 passes the visible lightthru, and absorbs the light that has longer wave lengths. These with longer wave lengths are the heat being radiated off the earth.

If there were no gases that absorbed the longer wave lengths, then there would be as much energy lost from the earth as there is energy gained from the sun. This means we would be freezing.

However, since some gases allow the short wave lengths to pass thru (sun light) and absorb the longer wave lengths (heat energy from the earth (Infrared and similar bands) the net is a gain of heat and therefore, a gain of energy.

If you increase the amount of CO2 gas in our atmosphere by a significant amount, you are trapping more heat. And trapping more heat means a rise in the temperatures.





Now, whether any atmospheric changes in the climate are manmade or part of a natural cycle has not been proven conclusively.

But CO2, in significant amounts, should be considered a pollutant.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Now, whether any atmospheric changes in the climate are manmade or part of a natural cycle has not been proven conclusively.

Right. I'm glad you agree. Let's not go around declaring non pollutants pollutants so that rich people can purchase all the rights to breathe.


Ice cream is a pollutant if you lock a person in a box and fill it with ice cream, thus blocking out access to oxygen.

Your little experiment is moronic, like you.

 

[Cancel3]

Right. I'm glad you agree. Let's not go around declaring non pollutants pollutants so that rich people can purchase all the rights to breathe.


Ice cream is a pollutant if you lock a person in a box and fill it with ice cream, thus blocking out access to oxygen.

Your little experiment is moronic, like you.

Except that a significant increase in CO2 is very possible and would have serious results.

Volcanic release of CO2 gas has been thought to be a cause of the jump in temperature in the distant past.

So CO2 is considered a pollutant based on the volume.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Except that a significant increase in CO2 is very possible and would have serious results.

Volcanic release of CO2 gas has been thought to be a cause of the jump in temperature in the distant past.

So CO2 is considered a pollutant based on the volume.

Wrongfully. So fascists can implement a carbon credit scheme.

My fist is toxic if I jam it down your throat and rip out your lungs. let's not sculpt boutique situations to justify moronic policy, ok, shnookums.

 

[tinfoil]

The issue is whether it is man-made or not, and if we should classify the gases we exhale, in a perfectly natural and organic way, as pollutants.

Taxed to breathe? You betcha. It's coming.


Reject the lies.

Look, the temperature rose while we were here, it must be our fault. Plus we have such perfectly designed computer models we have a 100% accuracy in predicting natural forcings, so therefore, our analysis of human forcing will be 100% correct.

/sarcasm

 

[Cancel3]

Wrongfully. So fascists can implement a carbon credit scheme.

My fist is toxic if I jam it down your throat and rip out your lungs. let's not sculpt boutique situations to justify moronic policy, ok, shnookums.

Nah, your fist would only be a minor annoyance.

But since you seem woefully under educated on the science we are discussing, let me see if I can help you.

How about we start with the definition of "pollutant".

From the American Heritage Science Dictionary:

"A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants."



You are operating under the misconception that pollution ONLY involves chemicals that are dangerous at any concentration.

While that may make you feel better, it isn't the scientific definition.

Any substance that contaminates the air, water, or soil. A significant increase in CO2 fits that definition.






But let me allow you a chance to define it.

It is a scientific FACT that CO2 allows the energy from the sun to pass thru. It is a scientific FACT that CO2 does not allow the heat from the earth to escape.

It is a scientific FACT that a significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would, therefore, cause a net gain in the temperature of the planet.

So what term would YOU use to classify the gas that causes an increase in the temperature?

What term would YOU use to classify a gas that, in sufficient quantities, changes the heat exchange rate for the planet?

 

[uscitizen]

Your mind is moronically split in half.


The greenhouse gas effect is a lie.

Plus, plants depend on co2. Controlling it too much could have devastating consequnces.


But of course, truth doesn't matter to you envirofascist zealots.

According to a NOVA show I watched more co2 does not necessarially equate to increased plant growth.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Nah, your fist would only be a minor annoyance.

But since you seem woefully under educated on the science we are discussing, let me see if I can help you.

How about we start with the definition of "pollutant".

From the American Heritage Science Dictionary:

"A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants."



You are operating under the misconception that pollution ONLY involves chemicals that are dangerous at any concentration.

While that may make you feel better, it isn't the scientific definition.

Any substance that contaminates the air, water, or soil. A significant increase in CO2 fits that definition.






But let me allow you a chance to define it.

It is a scientific FACT that CO2 allows the energy from the sun to pass thru. It is a scientific FACT that CO2 does not allow the heat from the earth to escape.

It is a scientific FACT that a significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would, therefore, cause a net gain in the temperature of the planet.

So what term would YOU use to classify the gas that causes an increase in the temperature?

What term would YOU use to classify a gas that, in sufficient quantities, changes the heat exchange rate for the planet?

Blah blah blah. You already admitted there no proof of the greenhouse effect. It's foolish to declare something a pollutant sans proven harm, especially when it is such a key organic gas.

Get bent, envirwacko fascist-o-crat.

 

[Cancel3]

Blah blah blah. You already admitted there no proof of the greenhouse effect. It's foolish to declare something a pollutant sans proven harm, especially when it is such a key organic gas.

Get bent, envirwacko fascist-o-crat.

There is ample proof of the greenhouse effect. There is simply not compelling proof that man has caused it. If you are going to say what I said, at least get it right.


Oh I see. Then you are admitting that you have no answer for my questions?

Thats what I expected.

 

[Kamala Trump]

There is ample proof of the greenhouse effect. There is simply not compelling proof that man has caused it. If you are going to say what I said, at least get it right.

No. there is global warming, caused by debateable things. It has not been proven that warming is to due to the greenhouse effect.

Oh I see. Then you are admitting that you have no answer for my questions?

Thats what I expected.

Your questions are retarded. You're just trying to help the fascists redefine pollution they can tax people to breath. Congratulations on your moral and intellectual lapse.

 

[Cancel3]

No. there is global warming, caused by debateable things. It has not been proven that warming is to due to the greenhouse effect.


Your questions are retarded. You're just trying to help the fascists redefine pollution they can tax people to breath. Congratulations your moral and intellectual lapse.

You are an outright lunatic. And your reading skills need serious help.

Look back and see what I said when I agreed with defining CO2 as a pollutant. It centers around the VOLUME of CO2. Do you think that people are going to start exhaling that much CO2?

No one is going to tax you to breath. Your paranoia and ignorance of science is appalling.

Let me know when you have more to offer.


And I didn't say that the greenhouse effect was what was causing a rise in temperatures. It just makes it easier for you to ignore the scientific facts and accuse me based on what other people have said.

 

[Kamala Trump]

You are an outright lunatic. And your reading skills need serious help.

Look back and see what I said when I agreed with defining CO2 as a pollutant. It centers around the VOLUME of CO2. Do you think that people are going to start exhaling that much CO2?

No one is going to tax you to breath. Your paranoia and ignorance of science is appalling.

Let me know when you have more to offer.


And I didn't say that the greenhouse effect was what was causing a rise in temperatures. It just makes it easier for you to ignore the scientific facts and accuse me based on what other people have said.

I believe it is the intention to tax people to breathe, hence the focus on paying attention to our carbon footprint. Classifying essential life gases as pollutants is nihilism writ large.

To accept co2 as a pollutant, you must accept that the greenhouse effect is causing global warming. It is not. And even then Im not sure classifying co2 as a pollutant is the correct remedy. Increasing green biomass to scrub the atmosphere would be the correct solution.

Good day to you, ntiwit.

 

[Cancel3]

I believe it is the intention to tax people to breathe, hence the focus on paying attention to our carbon footprint. Classifying essential life gases as pollutants is nihilism writ large.

To accept co2 as a pollutant, you must accept that the greenhouse effect is causing global warming. It is not. And even then Im not sure classifying co2 as a pollutant is the correct remedy. Increasing green biomass to scrub the atmosphere would be the correct solution.

Good day to you, ntiwit.

Absolutely wrong.

In order to accept CO2 (in sifficient quantities) as a pollutant, you only have to accept that the greenhouse effect exists. Since the greenhouse effect has been proven to exist, CO2 in sufficient quantities IS a pollutant.

Whether you want to call it a pollutant or not really has no bearing. A significant increase in the volume of CO2 has the same effect as a pollutant, it fits the definiton of a pollutant, and is scientifically termed a pollutant.



Let me see if I can explain it in even simpler terms that even you can understand.

If I have 1 cc of arsenic, and I disperse it into the atlantic ocean, it will have no effect whatsoever. Does that mean arsenic is not a pollutant?

Most compounds that are classified as pollutants have acceptable levels within an environment that are classified as safe. Does that mean that volumes well below that level are NOT pollutants?

 

[Cancel3]

I believe it is the intention to tax people to breathe, hence the focus on paying attention to our carbon footprint. Classifying essential life gases as pollutants is nihilism writ large.

To accept co2 as a pollutant, you must accept that the greenhouse effect is causing global warming. It is not. And even then Im not sure classifying co2 as a pollutant is the correct remedy. Increasing green biomass to scrub the atmosphere would be the correct solution.

Good day to you, ntiwit.

The fact that you believe it has to do with taxation does not change the effects of significant increases in CO2.

It only addresses your motive for wanting to deny the facts.