General Music Chat

Dave,
I'm not going to counter-post against your list-

The bottom line is that statistics can be made up, bought, and really.. when anyone ever starts a sentence with something anything like "nobody is paying me to say this...." It's guaranteed to be a paid-for statement to follow.

So knowing that 100% of the PRO and CON arguments we are getting from anyone in an official scientific or political capacity is pure garbage, what do you have to go on?

I'd say common sense.

I'm pretty sure we could (we, as society) create a mini greenhouse with the basic variables and see what happens when we put 7bil ppm of raw pollution and sewage into that environment. Although, I have an idea that if you continue to double the population and pollution variables, that eventually, all the sunshine and happy thoughts in the world wont make it any less of a toxic, unsustainable, waste dump that no longer supports life.

Kramerguy, do not confuse pollution and CO2. I'm all for stopping the pollution, as I keep on saying, but CO2, not so much.

Again, volcanoes alone produce 130 million tons of CO2, every year. Add that to all natural and anthropic CO2, you still get less than 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, what's the big deal with CO2?

Let's stop the REAL pollutants and not one of the essential gas to life forms!!!

Ive heard that the sun glaring off ones ass can cuase extreme atmospheric heat changes, but thats just what mainstream scientist say.

LMAO!

Let's stop the REAL pollutants and not one of the essential gas to life forms!!!

The Earth is warming. That is fact. Is it being accelerated by activities of humans? Maybe. Maybe not. Most scientists seems to agree that man's activities ARE having a contributing effect to this. But scientists have been wrong before.

I'm glad we seem to agree that we should be good stewards of the ONLY planet we have to live on.

But...

Stopping the gas essential to life? LOL

Were our ancestors not living just fine BEFORE combustion engines and factory waste?

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but you seemed to be saying that limiting co2 emissions was threatening the species.

I really don't know whether our pollution is increasing global warming. What I DO KNOW is that our pollutants have put a hole (thinning actually) in the ozone layer, and that we increase incidences of radiation poisoning and certain cancers as a result.

But I DO NOT support the trading of pollution permits.

I should look more into this, but what does it accomplish other than redistributing money to unindustrialized countries? In other words, does fining countries or having countries pay poorer countries for their unused allotment of pollution permits actually stop pollution? I suppose the theory is that countries will enact stricter standards on pollution to avoid having to buy pollution points from other countries. But if it is cheaper to purchase from poorer countries, then that is what they will do.

Also, will this simply encourage businesses to relocate to other places where they may have a higher allotment of credits? If so, good for the workers of the poor nation, bad for the workers of the country losing jobs.

But I am unclear if this is based on individual businesses or nations or some combination. If someone knows, please post, and save me the trouble of looking it up. LOL

Kramerguy, do not confuse pollution and CO2. I'm all for stopping the pollution, as I keep on saying, but CO2, not so much.

Again, volcanoes alone produce 130 million tons of CO2, every year. Add that to all natural and anthropic CO2, you still get less than 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, what's the big deal with CO2?

By itself, nothing. But our environment is complex. You have to factor in everything, including deforestation, etc.

Our environment is a careful balancing act between all things. We're a part of that environment, and we contribute to the balancing act in positive and negative ways.

Let's stop the REAL pollutants and not one of the essential gas to life forms!!!

The Earth is warming. That is fact. Is it being accelerated by activities of humans? Maybe. Maybe not. Most scientists seems to agree that man's activities ARE having a contributing effect to this. But scientists have been wrong before.

I'm glad we seem to agree that we should be good stewards of the ONLY planet we have to live on.

But...

Stopping the gas essential to life? LOL

Were our ancestors not living just fine BEFORE combustion engines and factory waste?

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but you seemed to be saying that limiting co2 emissions was threatening the species.

no, no, no, no , no (shakes head)!

Again, be careful when saying "Most Scientists". This is a myth that "Most Scientists" agree with something, when it comes to global warming and climate change. They are actually pretty divided, it's more like 60-40 ratio...at most!!!!

About the CO2, I was saying, stop the real pollutants, and not the CO2 (CO2 not being a pollutant). Meaning, focus on the REAL ISSUE: POLLUTION, and not a gas that's essential to life.

You got my post backward

Kramerguy, do not confuse pollution and CO2. I'm all for stopping the pollution, as I keep on saying, but CO2, not so much.

Again, volcanoes alone produce 130 million tons of CO2, every year. Add that to all natural and anthropic CO2, you still get less than 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, what's the big deal with CO2?

By itself, nothing. But our environment is complex. You have to factor in everything, including deforestation, etc.

Our environment is a careful balancing act between all things. We're a part of that environment, and we contribute to the balancing act in positive and negative ways.

True, to a certain extend. It doesn't matter how much CO2 humans throw in the air, it will never come even close to what it was thousands and thousands of years ago. Yet, the planet survived. As much as we want to think that our planet is fragile, it's actually pretty darn tough...tougher than any species on earth. The earth is 4 Billion years old and it will live and it will keep on rotating around the sun, until the sun blows it away, when it will turn into a Red Giant...5 billion years from now.

The problem isn't really the earth, the problem is us; humans and our survival. The planet getting hotter or colder, is only inconvenient to humans...and some animals. The planet WILL survive and will keep on rotating...we, humans, might not!

So, balancing act you say, you bet, but only for OUR survival! The earth has already proved that it can take whatever you throw at it...otherwise, none of us would be here today!

CO2 is not essential to animal life, only plant life. Animals use oxygen and release carbon dioxide; plants use carbon dioxide and release oxygen.

CO2 is most certainly a pollutant when levels increase beyond plant life's ability to use the gas in respiration. The two main causes of this excess amount are burning of fossil fuels and rapid deforestation. And current volcanic activity only produces 1% of the amount of CO2 that manmade activities produce. Don't let your political views blind you to the facts: 2005 was the warmest year on record, and glaciers are melting as we speak.

CO2 is not essential to animal life, only plant life. Animals use oxygen and release carbon dioxide; plants use carbon dioxide and release oxygen.

CO2 is most certainly a pollutant when levels increase beyond plant life's ability to use the gas in respiration. The two main causes of this excess amount are burning of fossil fuels and rapid deforestation. And current volcanic activity only produces 1% of the amount of CO2 that manmade activities produce. Don't let your political views blind you to the facts: 2005 was the warmest year on record, and glaciers are melting as we speak.

"CO2 is a pollutant when increases beyond plant life's ability to use the gas in respiration"

Bwhahaha, this is the most ridiculous comment I've ever read. Plants WILL NEVER die from an overdose of CO2....unless the air is filled with at least 85% of CO2, but then, we humans won't be here either...lol Plants can die from an overdose of light exposure or water, but CO2, this is just PLANT FOOD, man....c'mon....this is grade 10 science!!!

Hey, I don't believe the propaganda, I just believe my 6 years of hard studies in this topic. Having less than 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere is a FACT that ALL scientists agree on....at least, every single textbooks in Chemistry, Physics, Climatology, Geomorphology, etc., claim so!

The year 2007 and 2008 were the coldest years and since 1998, the planet hasn't got warmer....check it out!!!!!!!!

Sorry to burst your bubble there, pal!

CO2 is not essential to animal life, only plant life. Animals use oxygen and release carbon dioxide; plants use carbon dioxide and release oxygen.

Tell that to any competent Pulmonologist, or Internal Medicine Physician who is trying to balance the PH of your blood and he will laugh himself and you to death.

C02 is absolutely manditory for homeostasis!

To argue climate change and its cause is one thing, but lets try to stick with a modicum of scientific fact.

Look at your own lab balance on your chemisty profile.
It one of the FIRST things a good nurse will check.
No co2 your DEAD. Too much Co2 your dead.

Not sure what you read but it must not have been my comments. No one said anything about plants dying from excess CO2. What I did say was that plants use CO2, but they can only use so much; anything in excess of what they need for respiration will be ignored and thus build up in the atmosphere. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 1%. CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour. This stuff is not plant food lol.

Not sure what you read but it must not have been my comments. No one said anything about plants dying from excess CO2...

How about this:

CO2 is most certainly a pollutant when levels increase beyond plant life's ability to use the gas in respiration.

Also,

Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour. This stuff is not plant food lol.

Yes, it is! 7% or 10% of CO2 is plant food. Like I said, it would take at least 85% of CO2 in the air, for a plant to start dying.

And, 7% or 10% of CO2 might be possible in a smog environment, like a very big city in a very hot summer day. But, this level is certainly not in the atmosphere.

So, I'm still failing to understand your points

I cannot say for plants. It is an interesting question.
I do know that they can tolerate a much higher % of co2 in the air than we can. And oxygen as well. Too high % of either will be fatal to animal life. ( the balance between metabolic alkilosis / acidosis is relativly narrow) Amazing creations we are!!
An interesting side note: Some scientist believe that the earth's atmosphere held a higher % of co2 and o2 in prehistory.
This is apparenty borne out through the study of intrained gases in the arctic ice cores.
Apparently this is why both plant and animal life were much larger in the age supposedly pre human.

haha, sorry Sans, after a second thought, I found my post to be too mean, so I changed it! But, thanks for the answer

Yea, lets keep it civil, not civil war.