Obama declares CO2 to be a poison gas!

[HopeHoops]

Well, that according to my wingnut mother. She watches Fox and listens to Rush and apparently they've twisted today's announcement into meaning that Obama PERSONALLY declared that any C02 in the air is poisonous. WTF?

I never thought my mother was stupid, but her devotion to right-wing propaganda is challenging my beliefs on the matter.

[The Straight Story]

1. Smoke is bad, car emissions don't hurt anyone - else folks would not be driving

and hurting others.

[Spider Jerusalem]

74. Car emissions don't hurt anyone?

Really?

Are you aware that there's a correlation between air quality from auto emissions in urban areas and rates of lung cancer, emphysema, and childhood asthma?

I always found it extremely amusing to see people out jogging along Peachtree Street in Atlanta on summer days when a brown haze of smog was hanging over the city.



See that? That's all car emissions.

[Orrex]

2. Well, it doesn't support life

Of course, neither does the GOP.


Ergo...


The GOP is poison gas!

[JonQ]

5. C02 doesn't support life?

You may need to brush up on your biology there.

[Orrex]

8. Nope. That stuff you heard about plants is a Liberal conspiracy

To promote their "Green" agenda at the expense of innocent corporations.

[JonQ]

11. If so they really went to great lengths

drawing up thousands of biochemical pathways, all involving C02 in some way or another.

[Orrex]

14. Any fool could have falsified a *little bit* of data

It takes a serious conspiracy to fudge the whole darned thing.

[timeforpeace]

107. Try breathing it straight for a few days. You'll think it's poison too.

[lapfog_1]

3. It's not that the gas itself is poisonous. but the concentration of it.

And, as proof, ask her if she wouldn't mind stepping into a sealed container with 100% CO2.

When she refuses, ask her why?

Then you tell her, see, it's not the gas, it's the concentration.

[HopeHoops]

9. No use arguing. I just pointed out that the statement today in no way implied that.

She responded, "It doesn't? Well, okay, if you say so."

I moved on to another subject. She thinks Fox is a news source. Some people think Saturday morning cartoons are a news source. The cartoons are closer.

[donco6]

4. It's poisonous in the same way carbon monoxide is.

I'll let Rush breathe some for 20 or 30 minutes and see what happens.

[HopeHoops]

6. It might improve the stench of his flatulence n/t

[JonQ]

10. CO2 is very different from CO

Carbon monoxide binds hemoglobin preferentially to oxygen, so it basically suffocates you by preventing your blood from carrying oxygen. A very small amount can kill and the effects last for a long time (short of death, although that lasts for a while too).

CO2 requires much higher concentrations to cause harm and then it only takes a little fresh air to clear things up.

[HopeHoops]

16. Curiously, it started because she asked if my CO2 detector was working.

I replied that there's no need for a CO2 detector, but the CO detector is working just fine and reading 0.0 ppm (I checked while I was on the phone).

This of course was a lead-in to her line about Obama. I know she knows there is a profound difference. All she wanted to do was pull the line she heard on Fox or from Rush. What a crock of shit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. It's interesting how you pick and choose your scientific facts.

Maybe all those scientists are lying about those toxic effects of CO. Maybe you should lookn into that.

[harkadog]

25. What are you talking about ?

His statements are accurate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. JonQ is a global warming denier.

[JonQ]

30. Incorrect

I am a man-made global warming skeptic.

I don't "deny it" because it isn't a belief (or shouldn't be) rather a theory subject to question. And I have never denied that the earth changes temperature, merely our hand it causing that.

Comprehension fail on your part I'm afraid.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And the world is flat, and God created man in his image, and the holocaust didn't really happen.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. So you don't think anyone should be skeptical of scientific theories?

or just your pet theories? Is being skeptical of scientist that work for pharmaceutical companies okay? Is it not okay to be skeptical of research scientists? Fill us in on when it is appropriate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. I think everybody should be skeptical of everything.

Loony shit like global warming denialism particularly.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. So you support JonQ. Fantastic thanks for clearing it up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Not at all.

I think global warming deniers have shit for brains.

There's a difference between being skeptical and being a global warming denier. Global warming deniers are very gullible people.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. So you think they are similar to the anti-vaccine wackos! Thanks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. Ani-vaccine woos, holocaust deniers...

creationists, eugenicists...

In fact, they're often the same people.

[JonQ]

48. People should be skeptical

of things you are skeptical of, and have faith in things you have faith in. That's what you mean right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. People should be skeptical of everything.

That doesn't meant there are two sides to every issue.

Are you skeptical about the holocaust? Well, you probably are, but that doesn't matter. You're a global warming denier, so you've already hit an intellectual rock bottom.

[JonQ]

54. You don't understand false equivlalencies

or you do and are intentionally misleading. Which is it, ignorant or dishonest?

The holocaust happened, it is not predicted. Had you said in 1920 that in the 30s and 40s "there would" be a holocaust against the jews that would be a prediction, subject to debate. Had you said in 1950 that there "was" a holocaust against the jews that would have been established fact, not subject to debate.

For instance: in the past the global temperature changed. Historical event, not subject to debate. In the future it will change by X amount which is directly correlated to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Prediction, and a hypothesis, so subject to debate.

So you are trying to equate predictions of the future with historical events. Which either means you are ignorant of the difference, or don't care.

So which is it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. "The holocaust happened, it is not predicted."

According to historians who want grant money, sure. Some skeptics believe it's all, like global warming, been faked.

[JonQ]

57. You really suffer from a lack of comprehension

not my fault, but I will do my best to make up for your lack of an education.

Do you see any difference between an observed event and a predicted event that has not happened yet?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Anthropogenic global warming has already happened.

It's been happening for the last 150 years or so.

:shrug:

[JonQ]

65. No, not really

it has been stated that that is the case, but never proven. You keep going back to use the flawed data to prove MMGW and the fact that it proves MMGW as proof that it isn't flawed.

Terribly circular logic. Yes, they were able to manipulate data to show what they wanted it to show. That's fairly easy actually.

BTW, how's that experimental design going? I know you've got your hypothesis (people cause global warming and if you don't agree I'll hold my breathe until I turn blue) and conclusion (duh, people cause global warming, what else could it be? Don't like it then prove me wrong). What about those materials/methods?

[Viking12]

40. You confuse skepticism with cynicism.

Skepticism comes from an informed position. Cynicism is a knee-jerk reaction fueled by "jaded negativity, and a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of other people." JonQ obviously does not approach the topic from an informed position.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. So merely questioning how much humans have to do with climate change is cynicism?

[JonQ]

49. So in your mind

there is nothing that raises concerns about the current "science"?

What about the fact that until 1970 they used tree rings as proxy data for estimating temperatures, then threw it out when they realized it did not correlate to regional temperatures at all BUT continued to use the proxy temperatures they had estimate from that flawed source for data prior to that decade?

What about the fact that they routinely throw out data that doesn't fit with the model, and in fact the model used to construct the now infamous hockey stick graph gives you that trend even when random data is entered?

And that it requires we completely ignore the medieval warming period and little ice age?

Sorry but you are not informed if you really believe "the science is settled" (and willfully ignorant if you think silencing critics to elicit a faux consensus is how legitimate research is done).

[Viking12]

55. You're just making shit up.

What about the fact that until 1970 they used tree rings as proxy data for estimating temperatures, then threw it out when they realized it did not correlate to regional temperatures at all BUT continued to use the proxy temperatures they had estimate from that flawed source for data prior to that decade?

The divergence problem is confined to only a few of the tree-ring proxies, not all of them. There are many other proxies -- borehole, ice cores, ocean sediments. Again, your ignorance shines through.

What about the fact that they routinely throw out data that doesn't fit with the model, and in fact the model used to construct the now infamous hockey stick graph gives you that trend even when random data is entered?

What model? Do you mean the Principal Component Analysis (not a model, dumbass) used by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (1998) to distiguish a signal-to-noise ratio? What thrown out data? You latch onto a headline in some blog post and pretend you know something about the science. WTF are you talking about? There are dozens of mutli-proxy reconstructions using a variety of different statistical techniques that all arrive at the same place.

And that it requires we completely ignore the medieval warming period and little ice age?

..and you believe the MWP and Little Ice Age occurred for what reason? Because someone sketched in former on the back of a napkin after reading some journals from the 11th century?

[JonQ]

58. No, sadly I'm not making this up

it is unfortunate that the state of scientific understanding and willful ignorance is such that pointing these things out elicits rage and incomprehension, but there you go. The hysterics certainly know their audience and provide you with just the right info to get you to follow along.

"..and you believe the MWP and Little Ice Age occurred for what reason? Because someone sketched in former on the back of a napkin after reading some journals from the 11th century?"

Clearly they happened because of medieval coal plants and ye olde SUV dealerships.

[Viking12]

62. So you have no evidence that the MWP and LIA existed, yet you accept them to be true.

And you have the balls to declare others ignorant?

Why no substantive response to my post? Because you have no substance? You know nothing about the actual science. You repeat headlines from blogs and Hannity and pretend you're smart. Get called on your ignorance and scream like a baby, classic victim bully.

[JonQ]

66. The same scientists

who proved those changes later had to go back and eliminate them from the analysis. Either way they were wrong at least once. I'm curious, you trust their predictions for the future, but are ok with them altering their observations of the past to make those predictions work. How is that acceptable to you?

Also, there is plenty of human evidence that those years were colder; recorded snow fall, crop yields, first freeze etc. All this is easily recorded (and was) by people at the time. The exact temperatures are debatable, but the overall occurrence is not. Do you understand? Let me know if you are confused on any point so I can help.

"Why no substantive response to my post? Because you have no substance? You know nothing about the actual science. You repeat headlines from blogs and Hannity and pretend you're smart. Get called on your ignorance and scream like a baby, classic victim bully. "

Yeah, no. You're confused again. I don't watch hannity (although you seem to as you know everything he's ever said). Or beck, or limbaugh, oreilly, the rest. Not interested really. You unfortunately are the one basing your ideology on bumper sticker slogans. When the actual science is questioned and those involved expected to explain themselves you react emotionally and lash out on a personal level.

[Viking12]

73. You're making shit up. Which scientists? "They"?

What changes? Which peer-reviewed articles are you referring to? Who altered observations of the past? Where's your evidence? Be specific. Stop regurgitating RW talking points and show us the proof you claim to have. The more you write the clearer it becomes you have no idea what you're talking about. You can't even get your pronouns to agree, how could I expect you to understand the scientific literature.

[JonQ]

76. Sigh

this is what I expected. The more you challenge the orthodox views of the church the more they go in to attack mode.

I suppose it's fortunate this is coming out now, rather than 300 years ago or we'd likely be burning heretics.

Do you "deny" the medieval warming period? We'll start simple.

And don't confuse a lack of comprehension on your part with any failing on my part.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. I'm guessing you won't receive a clear answer to your question.

[Viking12]

85. The burden of proof is on you.

You're the one making claims about 'scientists' engaged in fraud, data manipulation, and changing results. Back it up. Name names. Show me your proof. You're the one making claims about the existence of a MWP. Back it up. Show me the evidence. You can't so you revert to the victim bully playing the persecution card. Is Sarah Palin your mama?

[JonQ]

91. You haven't been reading the news then

probably for the best, you see a great many heretics have been involved in challenging gaias earthly representatives. Some have even (gasp!) asked for their evidence (which was shredded) and stolen their private correspondence (which was quite damming). No doubt gaia will punish us for our lack of faith with even more global warming! (er, climate change I mean).

[Viking12]

95. So you have no evidence of your claims, only vague references to RW headlines.

[JonQ]

96. Why limit yourself to "RW"

why not call them what they are, global warming heretics. Traitors to the great faith that is global warming.

Surely we will all burn now for their effrontery, to challenge the prophets of doom, to ask to watch as they read the entrails and cast the bones is the greatest sin we can imagine.

{I've long since given up trying to get you to come around, now I'm just having some fun at your expense, in case you hadn't noticed. I've posted the data and sources numerous times, as have others. The fact is that it's all available with a 5 second google search. But unless I actually sit next to you and read it to you (and probably not even then) then there is little I can do if you prefer ignorance. Frankly what's the point of posting another link that you won't read?}

But anyone, let us now go in search of a fitting sacrifice to the global warming gods! Throw a few SUVs (and several trillion dollars) in to a volcano, that should appease them for now.

[Viking12]

98. Still waitng for you to provide evidence of your claims

If it so readily available certainly you could provide it. But it doesn't exist so you can't provide it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. Mann refused to allow access to the code he used to a House subcommittee.

I saw him do it on CSPAN. He flatly refused to provide anyone with access to the code to test his modeling. That doesn't produce confidence in his "peer reviewed"?? work. He is essentially saying you can review my conclusions but not how I came about those conclusions. It is preposterous to base government energy policy on research that isn't transparent. We sure as hell didn't like it when Cheney did it.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. I don't think Mann is a dipshit, I have no idea why you would call him that.

[JonQ]

106. Not that you'll read it

but I saw this, it was interesting.

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Someone needs to tell these scientists that they all agree and the science is settled!

And here's one referencing an article that was published in Nature (that unscientific rag) that shows in fact we experienced rapid cooling in the past with CO2 levels 3 times higher than we had in preindustrial ages, in other words the trend didn't work.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627

[JonQ]

47. If you say so . . .

[Johonny]

26. classic post :)

[JonQ]

29. False equivalence

demonstrating an effect that can be carried out in a lab on mice != making predictions about an entire worlds climate over centuries in to the future.

That cannot be tested in the lab and requires predictions, rather than observations.

But nice try, really, I'm sure you thought you had me pegged or something.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. CO is toxic, it's not a theory. I support you being skeptical though.

Make sure you tell your mom and dad before you run your own tests.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Well, yeah, according to the same scientists that believe in global warming.

But they're just saying it for that lucrative CO grant money.

I fully suggest anybody who's skeptical about global warming to sit in their running car in their closed garage for several hours to prove these lying scientists are lying. Also, they should take large doses of sleeping pills while they're doing it to prove those pharma company scientists wrong.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. JonQ didn't say he was skeptical about climate change. He is skeptical of the role humans play.

[JonQ]

50. Tell you what

I will design an experiment to test the effects of CO on living things that can be repeated many times under controlled conditions in a laboratory. Say by subjecting many thousands of mice to controlled levels of CO and then performing autopsies on them.

You design an experiment to test how CO2 affects the global temperature over centuries in a controlled and repeatable laboratory setting. Say by creating thousands of worlds, including many control, and adding increasing levels of CO2 while controlling for solar variation, regional samply bias, urban heating, and the like.

Have fun. ;-)

BTW, you're coming off as a raving idiot here, might want to get that under control.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. "you're coming off as a raving idiot here"

LOL. Says the global warming denier.

[JonQ]

59. Yeah, you are

it's sad to watch.

Don't feel bad, I get this same reaction from fundies when I point out inconsistencies in the bible. You're in good company.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Yeah, yeah, I'm a close minded rigid fundamentalist.

That's what all the woo woos say.

[JonQ]

63. Admitting it is the first step

of course a closed minded fundamentalist never thinks of themselves in that matter, they just react angrily whenever anyone challenges their beliefs, lashing out in a personal manner and attacking that individual. You should ask yourself, what harm does it do to you personally if others don't share in your faith?

Even when all the facts come out and the rest of the world sheepishly moves on (actually a small portion of the world, the overwhelming consensus was radically exaggerated) you will still be free to cling to your beliefs. You just won't have many friends.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. You misunderstand. I'm not angry.

I think you people are funny.

[JonQ]

67. Well that's one thing we have in common

tell you what, if in 20 years we aren't all burning to death in a venusian environment, perhaps then you'd be willing to admit the thing was a crock? Would you let evidence convince you that your beliefs are wrong?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. If I were claiming we'd all be dead in 20 years, sure.

If it's proven that anthropogenic global warming is real, will you admit you're wrong?

No, as evidenced by this thread.

JonQ, I'm sure this is going completely over your head.

But you've already lost.

[JonQ]

69. "If it's proven that anthropogenic global warming is real, will you admit you're wrong?"

Naturally.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. It's already been proven, kiddo.

Only people left that haven't figured that out are liars and fools.

[JonQ]

75. No it hasn't

I'm sure you can wrap your "overwhelming consensus" around yourself and feel all warm and fuzzy and conveniently ignore what went in to making that consensus. Censoring dissenting views, cutting funding to those who didn't tow the company line, blatantly manipulating data to get to a predetermined conclusion (rather than coming to a conclusion based on that data). These things concern me.

These scientists, in their zeal have done irreparable harm to the field and to science in general (at least in the eyes of the layperson). They tried playing politics and managed to make things worse both politically and scientifically.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. That's the same thing the holocaust deniers say.

"Oh, sure all the historians say it, but they've been brainwashed by the Jews. Sure, I'm sure some Jews died of various causes. But 6 million? By the Germans? C'mon. Clear Hollywood propaganda. I won't let them Hollywood librul Jews tell me what to think. Lousy money grubbers. They've completely rewritten history in their favor and I won't let them corrupt my pure strength of will."

[JonQ]

79. One refers to public opinion

the other to facts. False equivalence, again.

By the way, equating holocaust denial with legitimate MMGW skepticism was a deliberate propaganda move by the hysterics. You do realize you are following their talking points to a T?

Plus I've already explained to you the difference between the two. At this point you A) have demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding or B) do understand the difference but choose not to.

Neither one really speaks highly of your character.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. Both deal with facts.

And I'm not equating holocaust denial to anything whatsoever legitimate.

"Neither one really speaks highly of your character."

Says the global warming denier.

[JonQ]

81. One deals with historical fact

one with a prediction and convincing people to agree with you. There really isn't an easier way to explain this, I'm afraid at this point if you don't understand then you probably won't ever be.

"And I'm not equating holocaust denial to anything whatsoever legitimate."

So says the global warming hysteric.

[Viking12]

86. Which part of....

Which part of "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" is a prediction? Which part of the 20th century is in the future. You're a moron.

[JonQ]

88. You feel you must resort to personal attacks

to prove your point, you have a weak grasp on the concept.

MMGW deals with future predictions, unless you believe copenhagen is about changing the past? Snicker.

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

That's the theory anyway.

[Viking12]

89. Awwww, did I hurt the victim bully's poor little feelings.

Stop being a dumbass and I'll stop calling you one.

And actually that's an IPCC statement of fact about the past based upon a mountain of observational data, not a prediction of the future. Change the goalposts much? Again, you have no coherent reply/refutation.

[JonQ]

90. Even your fanatical friends

haven't completely forgotten to state that it's a theory.

You believe that a theory based on a weak correlation, based around falsified data = a fact.

I am sorry for you. And for the embarrassment you will feel when this whole thing implodes. It's funny how every week reveals new lies by the MMGW death cult. The evidence is really piling up against you, and as such your strident attacks and irrational hatred are understandable. Religions tend to do that to people.

What will you switch to when everyone bails out of this sinking boat?

[Viking12]

93. Again, no specifics. Nothing but naked assertions from RW blogs.

This is like the 5th time I've asked. Back up your claims denier. Show us some real evidence of falsified data. Show us how the mountain of data from dozens of independent working groups is all falsified.

[JonQ]

97. Frankly

I give up. I have presented my evidence, as others have. You won't read it. That's the problem.

An unflagging wall of ignorance is proof against any enlightenment. Don't worry, your faith is secure, no one will harm it as long as you don't want them to.

I can tell you exactly how this will go.

JonQ: here's the link you asked for, I hope you enjoy it.
Generic global warming hysteric: pshaw, denier! That's a RW hit piece put out by the oil companies to discredit the established fact of global warming and kill us all.
JonQ: Did you even read it?
GGWH: I don't have to, the science is settled, the time for big words and thinking is over, we need to act! Anyone who disagrees is a moronic denier, who hates the earth!
JonQ: frankly, I give up . . .

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. The syncophants strike again.

[JonQ]

94. And no, you didn't "hurt my feelings"

this kind of lashing out is to be expected. I know that you are using the emotional part of your brain, rather than logical. That you see me as the enemy for challenging your religion. You are not responding as a rational, thinking human, but rather a scared and angry animal. It seems that the part of our brains that deal with religious beliefs tend to shut out those that deal with logic.

So I know you can't help it and I will try to be patient with you, as you work through this. Who knows, you may come to your senses one day, apologize and we can be friends. Stranger things have happened.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. Why the change from global warming to global climate change then?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. That's rather simple.

Because every time there's a snow storm in December some dumbass says "Oh, the globe ain't warming, hur, hur, hur."

The semantic change from global warming to climate change is an attempt to reach out to mental rejects such as them.

[JonQ]

92. Oddly enough

everytime it is colder or warmer than usual on a particular day people chalk that up to climate change.

Switching from global warming to climate change was a brilliant move, before they could only use hot days. Now any day that doesn't exactly fit the historical norm is proof of radical climate change caused by SUVs.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. I'm guessing they did it for syncophants.

[NightWatcher]

7. delete

[dems_rightnow]

12. Pssttttt

I think you're thinking of carbon monoxide.......

[berni_mccoy]

20. LOL. Fastest self-delete evah.

[JonQ]

13. Anyone who thinks water is harmless

try breathing exclusively H20 for 5 minutes.

Point being there are plenty of things that are necessary for life, but if you fill your lungs with nothing but that one substance you will die.

[lunatica]

15. Tell her you throw a bucket of H2O on her CO2 theory

[baldguy]

17. "Declares" or "acknowledges"?

[HopeHoops]

18. Apparently "declares" is how they are spinning it.

Obviously it is acknowledging something that's been obvious for decades, but there's no way Fox is going to admit global warming exists. Hannity just claimed it was the warmest year in decades. They aren't big on the concept of "facts".

No, her take on it was that Obama just got up and declared that any CO2 in the air is poisonous. If I thought she dropped acid, I would have asked how her trip was going.

[doc03]

21. According to CNN all the dignitaries

private jets, limos, dinners etc. will produce 40500 tons of CO2. This amounts to the CO2 produced by 2000 Americans in an entire year. Maybe they could have just stayed home and had a teleconference?

[HopeHoops]

22. I think walking or swimming would be a viable alternative to a teleconference.

On the plus side, the local prostitutes are offering free sex to the delegates. I suppose the VD is free.

[doc03]

23. That's what I like prostitutes that are willing to

sacrifice for the betterment of mankind. You think they will get any thanks?

[HopeHoops]

24. Probably a few tips.

and the rest.

[yawnmaster]

72. maybe they are just part of a larger carbon fixing program.

everyone can do their small part.
If everyone just fixed a few grams of carbon think how many kilos would not be available for burning!

[Viking12]

39. Significant digits are important here.

The RW nuttery about how much carbon will be emitted by the conference attendees is meaningless in the big picture.

[varelse]

28. It IS a poison gas

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4695252_carbon-dioxide-poisoning-kill-human.html

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. Any suggestions?

[Viking12]

38. Dude, it's his mom, lighten up.

[Orsino]

43. Not to the vegetables in GOP leadership positions. n/t

[wiggs]

71. IIRC, the Bush EPA did this but was overruled by Bush. Lawsuit ensued and it

was finally ruled that the EPA could consider C02 as a pollutant.

[carlyhippy]

78. um, I could consider a poisonous gas H2S

Carly

[deaniac21]

82. We need to greatly reduce the number of humber of humans and

find a way to greatly decrease the size of the oceans!

[HopeHoops]

99. HOLY FUCKING SHIT ON A STICK people! This got WAY off track.

It wasn't meant to be a debate on global warming. The POINT is that the Fox/Rush spin got her to think ANY (as in > 0.0ppm) CO2 is poisonous to humans. That's just silly, and she's not stupid - just gullible.

Keep in mind that when the DOW hit 10,000 again for the first time in a long time, Fox claimed (Cavuto or however you spell it) that it was the "Bush recovery from the Obama recession". There are people who are actually incapable of recognizing the temporal disconnect in that statement.

I lump denying the impact of greenhouse gas right up there with the ideas that we'll never run out of places to dump trash, and there's no way we'll ever run out of fossil fuels. Put down the Cheetos, turn off the shit on the tube, and get your fat off of the couch and pay attention to what's happening in the world. And no, that doesn't mean making a sign with spelling mistakes and going to a teabagger event.

One more gripe. CO2 is NOT the same as CO. Deal with it.

[ItNerd4life]

104. So, can we sue Republicans for breathing?

They are emitting polution so we should be able to sue them.