***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

Ninja, are you willing to do a lil experiment?

All you have to do is sit in an enclosed room with a running car for 30mins. Don't worry about the CO2, the room will be filled with plants to suck all that **** up.

You down to shut us loud mouth leftist up, or nah?

If nah, why so?

 

[ninjahood]

 
Should give ninja a balloon full of CO2 to breathe and see if he still thinks that **** is so good.

 

• POLITICS

[h1]How Carbon Dioxide Became a 'Pollutant'[/h1]

By  
KEITH JOHNSON
Updated April 18, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET

The Environmental Protection Agency's decision to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health is the latest twist in a debate that has raged for decades among politicians, scientists and industry: whether a natural component of the earth's atmosphere should be considered a pollutant.

The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.

Carbon-dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere have fluctuated wildly for millennia; at one point billions of years ago, it was the dominant gas in the atmosphere.

[h4]RELATED READING[/h4]

• U.S. in Historic Shift on CO2

However, the EPA ruled that today's higher concentrations are the "unambiguous result of human emissions." Concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases "are well above the natural range of atmospheric concentrations compared to the last 650,000 years," the agency said.

Over the years, many pro-business groups have discouraged regulation of carbon-dioxide emissions by arguing that CO2 is an essential ingredient of life. In its decision, the EPA stressed that it considers CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases to be pollutants because of their role in propagating climate change, not because of any direct health effects.

In 1998, the Clinton administration EPA studied the question and determined that the Clean Air Act was "potentially applicable" to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. But despite continued pressure from environmental groups, the administration never moved to regulate the gases.

According to the bulk of scientific research, such as that assembled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide, the more heat is trapped. That leads to rising temperatures. The EPA endorsed the IPCC research and specifically said that "natural variations" in climate, such as solar activity, couldn't explain rising temperatures.

The EPA lumped carbon dioxide with five other gases -- methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- into a single class for regulatory purposes. That's because they share similar properties: All are long-lived and well-mixed in the atmosphere; all trap heat that otherwise would leave the earth and go into outer space; and all are "directly emitted as greenhouse gases" rather than forming later in the atmosphere.

Alternatively, tropospheric ozone wasn't included in the class, even though it creates smog and contributes to global warming. But that gas isn't emitted directly; rather, it is created in the atmosphere when sunlight reacts with greenhouse gases emitted by human activity such as engine combustion and industrial processes.

Similarly, the EPA declined to consider regulating water vapor or soot, also known as "black carbon," both of which are big contributors to the greenhouse effect but which don't share common properties with the six greenhouse gases.

The EPA did acknowledge some positive impacts from higher CO2 concentrations.

One is faster-growing trees in tropical forests, which helps offset deforestation. Another is marshes that can more quickly grow above rising sea levels, providing an insurance policy of sorts for some low-lying areas against the potential ravages of rising sea levels resulting from warmer global temperatures.

The EPA also acknowledged some positive aspects of rising temperatures, but concluded that on balance, the negative impacts of climate change outweigh the positive.

 

[ninjahood]

Ninja, are you willing to do a lil experiment?

All you have to do is sit in an enclosed room with a running car for 30mins. Don't worry about the CO2, the room will be filled with plants to suck all that **** up.

 

carbon MONOXIDE =/= carbon DIOXIDE.....

 

[RIP sleazyy]

Global warming is a misnomer.

Also it's funny that ninja is posting that piece by a guy that knows climate change is real

 

[sundoobie]

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16325.abstract

Delaying stringent action on CO2 results in lock-in of carbon-emitting infrastructure (52) and higher cumulative CO2 emissions that imply a higher committed warming. Because of this, and the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere, near-term initiation of CO2 mitigation is required to control midcentury to long-term climate change.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worst-climate-pollution-is-carbon-dioxide/

The study reaffirms strongly that, as far as climate change goes, the gas that truly matters is carbon dioxide. Unlike its shorter-lived cousins, CO2 sticks around in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, wreaking climate havoc.
"It has become very clear that if you want to stabilize warming at any level, you have to start talking about phasing out CO2," said Joeri Rogelj, a research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and lead author of the study. "Reducing other climate pollution can help in different ways and for different things, but in climate stabilization terms, it's noise on the fact that you have to phase out CO2."

But then again... Trump's base doesn't believe in Science so all you can do is @ their ignorance.

 

[everysingletime]

Ninja, are you willing to do a lil experiment?


All you have to do is sit in an enclosed room with a running car for 30mins. Don't worry about the CO2, the room will be filled with plants to suck all that **** up.


 

carbon MONOXIDE =/= carbon DIOXIDE.....

For once. The ninja is right. Must be a full moon.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Ninja, are you willing to do a lil experiment?


All you have to do is sit in an enclosed room with a running car for 30mins. Don't worry about the CO2, the room will be filled with plants to suck all that **** up.


 

carbon MONOXIDE =/= carbon DIOXIDE.....

I am aware.

Buthumm, you were arguing that car don't pollute.

Last page.....

 

they don't have to be at da mercy of Tom Steyer and da other enviromental wackos anymore...thank god.

American cities and it's citizens gonna be looking like China by 2020.

carbon dioxide =/= smog

nice try though.

The other pollutants of cars help cause smog

 

[ninjahood]

Global warming is a misnomer.

Also it's funny that ninja is posting that piece by a guy that knows climate change is real

climate change is "real" because da climate always changes.....

all this is esoteric minutia that isn't gonna bring da democratic party back from its current exile of that political landscape thou 

 

[ninjahood]

 

 

Ninja, are you willing to do a lil experiment?


All you have to do is sit in an enclosed room with a running car for 30mins. Don't worry about the CO2, the room will be filled with plants to suck all that **** up.


 

carbon MONOXIDE =/= carbon DIOXIDE.....

I am aware.

Buthumm, you were arguing that car don't pollute.

Last page.....

 

 

they don't have to be at da mercy of Tom Steyer and da other enviromental wackos anymore...thank god.

American cities and it's citizens gonna be looking like China by 2020.

carbon dioxide =/= smog

nice try though.

The other pollutants of cars help cause smog

which no one here is talking about, so you can put away your strawman.

 

[deleted]

But then again... Trump's base doesn't believe in Science so all you can do is @ their ignorance.

Pretty much

That anti-science **** is like a cancer...I hate it

 

[RustyShackleford]

The issue is that the action of humans is warming the globe, causing climate pattersn to change

Humans are causing global warming, global warming is causing climate change.

Once again, you struggle because you don't know the fundamentals

 

[Belgium]

The cat just said carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, the **** you want his opinion on global warming for?

Just curious. I'm guessing he probably agrees with Trump's claim. If so, let's hear his explanation as to why 97% of top scientists are wrong about climate change and him and Trump are right
I for one would love to hear the ridiculous nonsense he'll come up with to deny climate change

 

[rolaholic]

The cat just said carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, the **** you want his opinion on global warming for?

Just curious. I'm guessing he probably agrees with Trump's claim. If so, let's hear his explanation as to why 97% of top scientists are wrong about climate change and him and Trump are right

They're all in on da grand global liberal/chinese conspiracy

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

 

Ninja, are you willing to do a lil experiment?



All you have to do is sit in an enclosed room with a running car for 30mins. Don't worry about the CO2, the room will be filled with plants to suck all that **** up.



 

carbon MONOXIDE =/= carbon DIOXIDE.....

I am aware.


Buthumm, you were arguing that car don't pollute.


Last page.....

 

 

they don't have to be at da mercy of Tom Steyer and da other enviromental wackos anymore...thank god.

American cities and it's citizens gonna be looking like China by 2020.

carbon dioxide =/= smog


nice try though.

The other pollutants of cars help cause smog

which no one here is talking about, so you can put away your strawman.

So then you agree there should be emissions standards on cars because of the other pollutants they put in the air?

Btw, there is not strawman, you tried to dismiss dude with the carbon dioxide deflection, I'm just calling you out

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[Based Jesus]

 

 

The cat just said carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, the **** you want his opinion on global warming for?

Just curious. I'm guessing he probably agrees with Trump's claim. If so, let's hear his explanation as to why 97% of top scientists are wrong about climate change and him and Trump are right

They're all in on da grand global liberal/chinese conspiracy

Da ginese paid off da scientists with all da money they're making from tricking da liberal US politicians

 

[ninjahood]

 

The cat just said carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, the **** you want his opinion on global warming for?

Just curious. I'm guessing he probably agrees with Trump's claim. If so, let's hear his explanation as to why 97% of top scientists are wrong about climate change and him and Trump are right

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

 

The cat just said carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, the **** you want his opinion on global warming for?

Just curious. I'm guessing he probably agrees with Trump's claim. If so, let's hear his explanation as to why 97% of top scientists are wrong about climate change and him and Trump are right

They're all in on da grand global liberal/chinese conspiracy

Da ginese paid off da scientists with all da money they're making from tricking da liberal US politicians

And I got da NPR link to prove it

 

[rolaholic]

Dude is one of the GOAT finessers man

 

[ninjahood]

 

 

 

 

Ninja, are you willing to do a lil experiment?



All you have to do is sit in an enclosed room with a running car for 30mins. Don't worry about the CO2, the room will be filled with plants to suck all that **** up.



 

carbon MONOXIDE =/= carbon DIOXIDE.....

I am aware.


Buthumm, you were arguing that car don't pollute.


Last page.....

 

 

they don't have to be at da mercy of Tom Steyer and da other enviromental wackos anymore...thank god.

American cities and it's citizens gonna be looking like China by 2020.

carbon dioxide =/= smog


nice try though.

The other pollutants of cars help cause smog

which no one here is talking about, so you can put away your strawman.

So then you agree there should be emissions standards on cars because of the other pollutants they put in the air?

Btw, there is not strawman, you tried to dismiss dude with the carbon dioxide deflection, I'm just calling you out

da carbon dioxide is da ACTUAL discussion, asians wearing masks because of smog is da delfection  

 

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

The cat just said carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, the **** you want his opinion on global warming for?

Just curious. I'm guessing he probably agrees with Trump's claim. If so, let's hear his explanation as to why 97% of top scientists are wrong about climate change and him and Trump are right

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

 

[deleted]

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

National Review?

Might want to try again

 

[RustyShackleford]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

 

 

 

Ninja, are you willing to do a lil experiment?




All you have to do is sit in an enclosed room with a running car for 30mins. Don't worry about the CO2, the room will be filled with plants to suck all that **** up.




 

carbon MONOXIDE =/= carbon DIOXIDE.....

I am aware.



Buthumm, you were arguing that car don't pollute.



Last page.....

 

 

they don't have to be at da mercy of Tom Steyer and da other enviromental wackos anymore...thank god.

American cities and it's citizens gonna be looking like China by 2020.

carbon dioxide =/= smog



nice try though.

The other pollutants of cars help cause smog

which no one here is talking about, so you can put away your strawman.

So then you agree there should be emissions standards on cars because of the other pollutants they put in the air?


Btw, there is not strawman, you tried to dismiss dude with the carbon dioxide deflection, I'm just calling you out

da carbon dioxide is da ACTUAL discussion, asians wearing masks because of smog is da delfection   

Ok famb, but since you admit cars pollute, shouldn't that mean there should be emissions standards?

 

[EddieDoyers]

Yeah climate change is a liberal hoax /s

Then why are some conservatives trying to spend money on trying to prevent our climate from changing even more for the worse

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/3...son-republicans-elections-climate-change.html

This is a real human issue going on that even some republicans have acknowledged

 

[RIP sleazyy]

Global warming is a misnomer.


Also it's funny that ninja is posting that piece by a guy that knows climate change is real

climate change is "real" because da climate always changes.....

I agree with the initial statement BUT the argument that is made in the scientific community is there is a need for figuring out how much humans are altering the course of climate change, seasonal shifts, weather patterns, and extreme weather events.

Anyone with half a brain knows the climate changes, but the problem is we don't know how much we effect it as humans because we don't have a big enough sample size of time in relation to the advances we've made in technology and ability to pollute the atmosphere.

There are interests groups (big surprise they involve oil and nonrenewable energy sources) who are dedicated to stifling the scientific community and outright lying to the public about the need for further research into the dangers of rapid climate change. I agree with your previous points about da liberals being hyperbolic in terms of climate change, but the fact of the matter is its still real and it will still have lasting effects on society, as well as the economy. I can almost promise we can have da hemi AND mostly clean healthy air if proper research is done by the people who need to do it.

At this time I'm going to acknowledge that you said it is real, and I want everyone here to realize that that is the best we're gonna get out of this conversation

Anyone who read this whole post or at least this part and is a climate change skeptic, please look into "coral bleaching". Look into rapidly changing tides and water levels, notably in Virginia. There is tangible evidence of the dangers of man influenced climate change.