Monetizing the Atmosphere

Watermark said:
Of course it's a big conspiracy AssHat, doncha know. *Pats lunatic on head*
Click to expand...


Dismiss it if you want to. The fact remains that gases we exhale are being classified as pollutants, and in the irrational anti-human, 'tax life' policies which are being espoused by the envirofascists this could conceivably lead to the creation of a license to breathe.
 
Watermark said:
You're the one being an idiot, Damo. To even quote idiotic shit like that really shows how you've been brainwashed by the oil companies and the religious right.
Click to expand...
No, it means I read a study you 'tardo. That another substance is a more efficience greenhouse gas negates nothing you say.

Seriously, you are a freakstorm when you emote all over like this.
 
Watermark said:
By this particular measure, water vapor can be thought of as providing 36% of the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide 12%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

However, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere isn't increasing, because the amount of water on Earth is always about the same. Maybe if the surface area of all the water on the Earth increased, I could see that happening. But there would have to be like an entire new ocean created.

Also, water vapour usually takes up far more of the atmosphere than CO2. Therefore, it could be argued that CO2 per unit has a greater effect - it's just that there's more water vapour. Regardless, CO2 is increasing, water vapour is not. And an increase of volume of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by, like, 1%, will over time have a much greater effect on temperature on Earth than 1%.

I really couldn't see any university publishing a "study" saying that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. It's well known knowledge.
Click to expand...
Look at that! It seems that scientists agree, that water vapor has a more efficient greenhouse effect than CO2.
 
uscitizen said:
Even if our cars burned water it would take longer than that to use up all our water. 20 years at least ;)
Click to expand...

So after the months or years it takes for my premonition about the demonization of water to come true we would still have water left after that period even if our cars burned water during that period. Is that your official statement?:clink:
Retirement agrees with you! what are you drinking at this hour?
 
I am drinking a MTN dew. And my retirement only lasted 2 days :)
I will keep on working till later this year to help train my replacement and make even more money :D
 
Damocles said:
Look at that! It seems that scientists agree, that water vapor has a more efficient greenhouse effect than CO2.
Click to expand...

The way I looked at things, CO2 seemed to be more effective per a unit. It would really be irrelevant, though. The proper measure would be effectiveness times volume.
 
Umm I don't think we would last long without water vapor in the atmosphere.
It is all about balance.
Which mankind has upset.
In the past it has been meteors and volcanoes, now it is man.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm I don't think we would last long without water vapor in the atmosphere.
It is all about balance.
Which mankind has upset.
In the past it has been meteors and volcanoes, now it is man.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. we've put nothing out of balance. That's just propaganda designed to get us to run ourselves off a cliff like lemmings.
 
Of course not mercury and such in our lakes and rivers is a natural occurance :rolleyes:
And PCB and many other pollutants do not even exist in nature.
 
uscitizen said:
Of course not mercury and such in our lakes and rivers is a natural occurance :rolleyes:
And PCB and many other pollutants do not even exist in nature.
Click to expand...


some regulations are good, but the extermist anti-human nature of the policies the envirowackos want are extreme and anti-human.
 
All extremists are wrong. That has always been my stance.

You are the one who tries to convert most all I say to an extremist viewpoint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top