OT: Texas to EPA: "That stinks"

SCOTUS ???

Reply to
greylock
Loading thread data ...

2 new ones this year!

--Wayne

Reply to
Wayne

Wrong, but almost right.

Some cherries are pushed way up in there.

Reply to
Oren

So it is your position that CO2 is a toxin. Strange.

Reply to
krw

Well, it is a DEADLY, EVIL gas and when it reaches 39 parts per hundred thousand, the world will ignite into a flaming ball of fire. Women and children to be most affected.

Reply to
Fiftycal

Even ugly people have sex. Sometimes more than beautiful people.

Reply to
Higgs Boson

Where did he say that?

There is, in fact, scientific information establishing that painting rooftops white would contribute enormously to our battle against green house gas. A very easy fix -- that most people will ignore, if they even know about it.

Reply to
Higgs Boson

snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Of course CO2, methane (and water vapor) ARE greenhouse gasses. But that doesn't quite do the scientific answers does it? It's not do they don't have an effect (they do) but rather HOW MUCH of an effect do they have? The fact that this is a political rather than a scientific question can be seen from the use of words like "deniers" and that the members of the IPCC are not climate scientists. It's interesting that water vapor BY FAR is the "greenhouse gas" with greatest effect, but how can you tax the ocean? Did you hear anybody suggesting that BP get taxed to death for dumping all that methane into the air? But CO2 as a combustion product is just made to order for taxation. And of course it would only take about four decent volcanoes to give us permanent winter and have us all WISHING "global warming" would come! It's happened before and when all the crops freeze in summer, it's not a pretty picture.

My view is that there are plenty of serious problems here right now that need attention without getting everyone scared over problems that "might" happen in the future.

Reply to
Benj

Best I can tell, he didn't. But his toady did.

formatting link

This issue comes up from time to time on a home repairs newsgroup. The answer as to why people don't paint their roofs white - or use light colored shingles - is simple.

Look around.

Do you see ANYBODY in your neighborhood with a light-colored roof?

A light-colored roof will look like shit in about a month as it is discolored by the atmospheric crud settling on it.

On the other hand, commercial flat roofs COULD be light colored. This will have a sometimes significant effect on the air conditioning bills of the business.

Reply to
HeyBub

That's only because they are either stoned or drunk.

Reply to
HeyBub

formatting link

All of the new flat roofs I'm seeing are being sprinkled with the white granules you see on shingles. I got tickled when I saw the roofers using a home lawn care fertilizer spreader to apply the granules.

TDD

Reply to
The Daring Dufas

That's why I don't drink or use mind altering illegal drugs.

TDD

Reply to
The Daring Dufas

Read it again. I didn't say that. HeyBub said that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is small. I just said small concentrations of things can have a big effect.

But of course CO2 is a toxin. Concentrations exceeding 4% are immediately dangerous to life and health, according to OSHA.

formatting link

-- Doug

Reply to
Douglas Johnson

Global warming is a fact, demonstrated by long-term climatic records from around the world.

The greenhouse effect from CO2 is not a brand-new idea someone sprung on us; I first read about it 60 years ago. And while fossil-fuel burning and deforestation may not account for ALL the rise in atmospheric CO2, they are causing a significant increase. That may not cause global warming, but it will certainly contribute to it.

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Methane is a more potent one, but less of it is under human control, and the economic consequences of reducing its sources (e.g., stop raising beef and dairy cattle) would be severe in their own way. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas as well, and even if we could end its evaporation, where would the rains then come from?

Reducing CO2 by switching to other energy sources and replacing lost forests will cost serious money. But the economic consequences of not doing so are probably greater, even if our efforts merely slow rather than eliminate warming.

Much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, which become more acid as a result, which will affect the balance of sea life.

Global warming melts glaciers and ice caps, raising sea levels--maybe not enough to inundate many places permanently but enough to ensure at least some storm-driven flooding in coastal areas (which includes most of the world's major cities), and the loss of some beachfront property.

And then there are the direct effects: shifts in agriculture due to different growing seasons, different rainfall patterns, etc. A tropical Topeka might be nice, but what would the climate be like in San Antonio if that happened?

Why all this opposition to the idea that we should do something about carbon emissions now? Some seems to be disbelief that little old mankind could alter the climate (we've been altering it for millennia, only not this fast). Some seems to be the sheer inconvenience and cost of changing our ways. Some seems to be mistrust of authority, especially government. (Do you expect business to lead in reversing climate change? Would you switch your business to higher-cost, lower- carbon energy sources if that would allow your competitors to undercut your prices or reap bigger profits? Would your stockholders stand for it?)

Yeah, there are some scientists who don't believe. There always are, always have been, and always will be--and that's good, because the whole point of science is informed skepticism. But more of them -- especially those who specialize in climate -- do.

Reply to
Ivan

And they can have no effect. You just tossed that out without any kind of linkage to levels of CO2.

Concentrations in air, You aren't even remotely suggesting that CO2 in ambient air is even approaching that level are you? Two very specious and completely irrelevant arguments in two posts. Not a record, but still impressive (lack of) acheivement.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

Douglas Johnson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Yes, CO2 can suffocate. We had to put big labels on the door to our walk-in coldroom after someone had died elsewhere. This scientist had taken a box of dry ice into a cold room to pack up the frozen samples he had to move to his new lab. He had not taken into account that CO2 displaces air (and oxygen) and causes one to feel very sleepy. It probably wasn't a painful death (for him), but it is still a warning for everyone. In a similar vein, CO2 asphyxiation is an approved method for euthanizing small animals.

Reply to
Han

Ivan wrote in news:601425e2-b8ab-4834-b063- snipped-for-privacy@p7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

I agree with everything Ivan said.

Reply to
Han

Trying to have an intelligent conversation involving easily-proved science and facts in a usenet newsgroup is a colossal waste of time. You must fight rhetoric with rhetoric.

Reply to
mkirsch1

The atmosphere is gaining less C02 than humans have been producing, and this has been true at least since 1959. Nature is actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

formatting link
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

OH MY GAWD! Are we all going to DIE? Let's see, 4% of 100,000 is

4,000. The DEADLY, EVIL CO2 is at 38 parts per hundred thousand and with MANS ASSAULT on GAIA, the DEADLY, EVIL CO2 is advancing 1 part per hundred thousand EVERY 10 YEARS! So, to add 3962 parts per hundred thousand to our atmosphere and make it "deadly", according to OSHA, it will take 39620 YEARS!

OH MY GAWD! QUICK somebody call ALGORE! Stop all fires and internal combustion engines! We must join Obammao and live in mud huts and eat grass and twigs or we'll all be EXTINCT!

Reply to
Fiftycal

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.