New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca None. However I shouldn't have to explain why breathing is not pollution but coal plant emission are, so I won't. Surely doesn't take a genius to figure it out. I find semantic "gotcha" games the thread has begun to devolved into on par with shrill alarmism and magical thinking. All of these are pursuits which reap little of value other than perhaps a short-lived chuckle, but at the expense of whom?

Hold it a damn second you brought up that CO2 is by definition a polutant because it's put there by humans... that's not the difinition of polutant a polutant must first be harmful, and since the entire arugement is if human caused CO2 is harmful or not, it is very important to get the definitions right. Calling human caused CO2 a polutant is ASSuming facts not in evidence.

CO2 is used by plants to grow, part of what makes them live. What happens in nature when any living things have more of what they need to live? Nature makes more of them and in the case of plants they grow faster, stronger and better.... So just exactly where in the Hale is the Poluting?

Chewie you don't want to play semantic games because you threw a hanging curve ball that I hit out of the park, then blew you kisses as I rounded the bases. Then you piss and moun about so called games while making the comments of alarism and magical thinking?????

Calling CO2 polution and then using that as proof that it is polution is a curcular arugement. Show me the facts first, hale Chewie if you could do that then you wouldn't have to worry about being chuckled at, Hale you be doing the chuckling cause I would be knocking the otherside's hanging curve balls out of the park and blowing them kisses as I rounded the bases. Hale's bells Chewie at least when the Yankies got tired of watching the Sultan of Swat knock'em out of the park they did what they had to do to get him on their team. Show me the facts. The opinion in the article about what how much CO2 nature can aborb has no facts to it. Show me the experiment where a closed greenhouse full of plants recieved the equal percentage increase of human caused CO2 and the effects on the plants. If they were able to absorb the additional CO2. Compared to a closed Greenhouse that didn't have the additonal increase. What were the effects of the two causes.

Cerek I didn't see you playing any so called semantic games but thanks for taking the bullet

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek It isn't a matter of semantic "gotcha" games, Chewie. You're right that the gov't regulations and environmentalists are generally referring to pollutants emitted by coal-burning plants. However, John D. and Azred have both pointed out natural sources of CO2 emissions far exceed the output produced by man. Now, I admit I did do a little bit of the "gotcha" game because you're post stated pollutants are, by definition, "stuff put into the environment by humans". Since the current GCC debate centers almost entirely on CO2 emissions, I pointed out (along with the others) that there are SEVERAL naturally occurring sources of CO2 emissions that do NOT include human output at all and that the levels of those natural emissions are greater than the output produced by humans. And, as Azred mentioned, current coal-burning plants MEET federal emissions standards, so they are meeting the "green standards" imposed by the gov't.

The point, according to science has always been that we are over our limit with these emissions. In nature, there is a checks and balance system. The plants and trees compensate for the emissions. But when we got involved we exceeded our limit. I was just reading a paper on it a few days ago.

When a tree decays and releases its emissions, nature ensures there are likely going to be other trees around it to absorb. And the cycle begins again as that tree drops seeds and they become a forest. This is why deforestation is an issue even after the killing of wildlife.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior The point, according to science has always been that we are over our limit with these emissions. In nature, there is a checks and balance system. The plants and trees compensate for the emissions. But when we got involved we exceeded our limit. I was just reading a paper on it a few days ago. When a tree decays and releases its emissions, nature ensures there are likely going to be other trees around it to absorb. And the cycle begins again as that tree drops seeds and they become a forest. This is why deforestation is an issue even after the killing of wildlife.

Yeah nature has a checks and balance system and when something gets out of balance the check does what it has to to compensate for it. If there are to many preditors in a given area for the prey, Nature takes care of it by starving the preditors. If there are to many prey animals for the preditors Nature takes care of it by producing more preditors. Watch a nature show or something. It's not science that says we have limits it's the enivormentalist man is bad self hating crowd...

[Azred]

Why do these scientists always make it seem like human beings are unnatural? Are we somehow not part of nature?

For everyone's perusal, I offer The Climate Skeptic, your place for "one stop shopping" when you need to debunk something an alarmist is trying to tell you. Notice that I do not agree with everything here--he is against wind power; I favor it because its only costs are in building and maintaining the turbines (wind is free)--so it isn't a site I blindly follow. However, it does collect all the appropriate data and shows you how the alarmists are misrepresenting data to further their cause.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Azred Why do these scientists always make it seem like human beings are unnatural? Are we somehow not part of nature?

ROTFLMAO... wait Az don't you know we humans aren't natural we were created by a non exsistant God and didn't crawl out of the ooze like the rest of fury critters and green slime did.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Azred Why do these scientists always make it seem like human beings are unnatural? Are we somehow not part of nature?

Well, see this is an actual point still under debate - almost philosophical. Aren't they part of nature? If so, how much leeway does nature give something that is part of nature? Have we become something more than originally, where nature cannot provide or compensate for us anymore? Since we are not just hunting deer and drinking from rivers. If man unleashed a bomb that destroyed the entire planet couldn't we just say "well man is part of nature so that's k"? The planet would be gone so the point would be moot anyways.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by John D Harris Hold it a damn second you brought up that CO2 is by definition a polutant because it's put there by humans... that's not the difinition of polutant a polutant must first be harmful, and since the entire arugement is if human caused CO2 is harmful or not, it is very important to get the definitions right. Calling human caused CO2 a polutant is ASSuming facts not in evidence.

I know you like to pound on the strawmen and play the semantics game, but humans are the only true polluters. Technically one may say a volcano causes pollution, but it is not a polluter in the sense that it is not a rational actor. A volcano can no more intend to pollute than it can pollute in error. Humans can and have done both.

Excess CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere has been demonstrated to be harmful to the enviroment AKA the dictionary definition of pollution. If you'd like to call someone an ass about it take it up with science.

WHoo Hoo, I made my saving throw VS dictionary attack!

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by John D Harris ROTFLMAO... wait Az don't you know we humans aren't natural we were created by a non exsistant God and didn't crawl out of the ooze like the rest of fury critters and green slime did.

This is true. We cannot be natural because we create such unnatural things.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca I know you like to pound on the strawmen and play the semantics game, but humans are the only true polluters. Technically one may say a volcano causes pollution, but it is not a polluter in the sense that it is not a rational actor. A volcano can no more intend to pollute than it can pollute in error. Humans can and have done both. Excess CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere has been demonstrated to be harmful to the enviroment AKA the dictionary definition of pollution. If you'd like to call someone an ass about it take it up with science. WHoo Hoo, I made my saving throw VS dictionary attack!

LOl you successfully fought off a dictionary! It scurries away to some unseen corner.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by John D Harris Chewie you don't want to play semantic games because you threw a hanging curve ball that I hit out of the park, then blew you kisses as I rounded the bases.

I'm just so sick of this arm-breaking pat-yourself-on-the-back stuff. John D., let me clue you in here. The kid who runs around the classroom waiving "Woo hoo I win I win I win!!" is as often times the one with Down's as he is the one who is actually a winner. Every time you do this you look like a fool, more than you normally do.