Bfgrn
New member
Name the industries, energy plants and refineries that emit ONLY carbon dioxide.
spectral stumper
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
Name the industries, energy plants and refineries that emit ONLY carbon dioxide.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Carbon Dioxide is Public Enemy #1 to the AGW Warmer Crowd! Stop trying to change the discussion, you dishonest hack. CO2 is what Al Gore and the Warmers want to have the EPA regulate, and corporations extorted on the basis of their "carbon footprint!!" You want to complain about mercury, or lead, or any number of other toxins... fine... but don't try to hide behind that when you're going after CO2 emissions. One is NOT the other! Carbon dioxide is ESSENTIAL to ALL plant life, and we couldn't exist on this planet without it!
Bfgrn
New member
Yea, I do want to talk about 'mercury, or lead, or any number of other toxins' because NO industry emits ONLY carbon dioxide. So your 'it's good for plants' is dishonest, because a large carbon footprint IS ALWAYS a LARGE polluter. 'Mercury, or lead, or any number of other toxins' kill, physically and mentally impair humans, wildlife and fish...it kills God's creatures and turns that carnage into mammon. That is beyond dishonest, it is a CRIME. But you already proved you are a lair, and that means you are also a thief. So an accessory to murder is no surprise. You are a morally bankrupt creature that has no ethics or honesty.
Environmental issues are always human rights issues. And they are the best measure of how a democracy is functioning. The success of a democracy is how it distributes the goods of the land. Whether it maintains the public commons, the public trust assets, in the hands of all the people or if it allows those things to be concentrated and stolen from the people by large aggregations of wealth and power. That is really all environmental issues are all about. It’s a struggle for democracy to maintain the ownership of the public trust in the hands of the people vs. letting it to accrued or corporate power.
RFK Jr.
I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Harry S. Truman
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Stop changing the debate to a discussion of toxic pollutants! What the fuck is the matter with you? MORON! No one is talking about restricting corporations from toxic emissions here, they have not one damn thing to do with "global warming" or the debate on the table. This is a DIVERSION! Because you are a dishonest little scumbag who can't honestly discuss the ISSUE! You want to start a thread to rail on industrial toxic pollution, go for it... I'll probably chime in to agree that we need to limit pollution... but this discussion is about global warming, and carbon dioxide, which is NOT A TOXIN! Do you comprehend that, retard?
Bfgrn
New member
No, Dixie, it is not changing the debate, it is talking about reality. You just want to ignore the REAL world we live in and raise our children in so you can have an 'ideological' argument, and be able to walk away from the moral questions and obligations as a citizen. That way you justify your lack of ethics, honesty and humanity through disassociation. ALL industries with a large carbon footprint are LARGE emitters of TOXINS. That is the REAL world. If you KNOW it and you ignore it, you are an accessory to murder.
“Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality”
President John F. Kennedy
No, it's changing the debate.
deriving a figure for CO2 forcing depends greatly on accurate derivation of signals from proxy data. We don't have actual measurements for the past CO2 concentrtion, we have to use statistics to determine it based on assumptions we have made around the system.
When a part of the system like the effect of the solar activity is found to be poorly understood, it should cause the whole system to be re-examined. I'm hoping this will be done. If this new knowledge helps find the truth, i'm all for it. Let the chips fall where they may.
on the article:
On the surface, this seems to imply that the effect of the sun has been overstated in times of high activity and understated in times of low activity. It may end up confirming that some other effect must be present. Only time will tell. It certainly is interesting.
deriving a figure for CO2 forcing depends greatly on accurate derivation of signals from proxy data. We don't have actual measurements for the past CO2 concentrtion, we have to use statistics to determine it based on assumptions we have made around the system.
When a part of the system like the effect of the solar activity is found to be poorly understood, it should cause the whole system to be re-examined. I'm hoping this will be done. If this new knowledge helps find the truth, i'm all for it. Let the chips fall where they may.
on the article:
On the surface, this seems to imply that the effect of the sun has been overstated in times of high activity and understated in times of low activity. It may end up confirming that some other effect must be present. Only time will tell. It certainly is interesting.