PeakOil is You
China won't cap or reduce CO2 emission until 2050
Re: China won't cap or reduce CO2 emission until 2050
by essex » Sun 16 Aug 2009, 01:08:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('essex', ' ')we exhale carbon dioxide. If you can regulate and declare a toxic pollutant what we exhale from our mouth,
You dont think that CO2 is toxic? Why then have CO2 scrubbers in enclosed enviroments such as submarines and spaceships.And who is regulating CO2 from breathing. You are making this up as you have failed miserably to come up with other arguments.
Following essex's logic, I find social and economic conservatism, Orwellian. However I am sure he has good reasons as to why we MUST follow his preferred conventions, all invariably related to personal reward but nevertheless, from his perspective, utterly natural and reasonable.
Many of us however look beyond personal wealth and are equally as valid in our preferred conventions despite not buying into his. We take the position that a closed but graduated climate paradigm does not for unlimited human development on this presently human friendly planet, make. There is no evidence sufficiently strong yet to dissuade me that no matter what we do as a species, the corridor of climate variation in human friendly mode is wide enough to accommodate my inputs.
Time is the ultimate arbiter as it always has been, however.
The net is a great way to make assumptions about others anonymously. You have no way of knowing that they are correct. If by trying to make mud stick you feel better/superior then that's your problem. There is one thing , however, which is obvious , and that is the compulsive poster eager to rack up posts to " fission" level. It must validate a certain personality type in some way. Really, where do you go from there?
The remark about CO2 in submarines is simply stupid. Perhaps you might like to try pure oxygen instead. Either way you're dead in no time. CO2 at 200 ppm and plants stop growing. Your average office/classroom/commercial greenhouse atmosphere is 1000ppm. The only food without CO2 in your local supermarket is water and salt. Since water vapour makes up 95% of the atmosphere's GHG there has to be a move soon to demonize it and at the very least tax it.
Warmism, like the fascism and communism that preceeded it, will have its brief day in the sun.
-
essex - Lignite
- Posts: 242
- Joined: Mon 12 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: New Zealand
Re: China won't cap or reduce CO2 emission until 2050
by americandream » Sun 16 Aug 2009, 01:35:15
The quintessential hallmark of the conservative right is a tendecy to cry foul whilst systematically abusing their detractors. Another is an inability to look beyond the tip of their shoes (I shall be generous and grant them a greater reach than their nose).
The crux of the climate debte is not how many parts of this or that we can survive with or without.......its essence, its very heart for the vast bulk of us who contemplate climate change with trepidation is just how far can we go as a species on the fast track road to an American style capitalism in reconfiguring the planet at every level: atmospheric, natural environment, water quality, suburbanisation, urbanisation, deforestation, mcmansioning, lost species and of course, our concerns with co2 are part of that bigger picture, which you evidently miss in nit picking the smaller picture.
I haven't any idea what vintage you happen to be but by and large, those of us on the right side of young families and the bell curve to the mortal coil are geniunely concerned that those baby boomers who purported to have ended history when they invented "infallible derivatives" haven't a fcukkin clue, have one foot invariably in the grave and arent to be trusted as a consequence.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('essex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('essex', ' ')we exhale carbon dioxide. If you can regulate and declare a toxic pollutant what we exhale from our mouth,
You dont think that CO2 is toxic? Why then have CO2 scrubbers in enclosed enviroments such as submarines and spaceships.The crux of the climate debte is not how many parts of this or that we can survive with or without.......its essence, its very heart for the vast bulk of us who contemplate climate change with trepidation is just how far can we go as a species on the fast track road to an American style capitalism in reconfiguring the planet at every level: atmospheric, natural environment, water quality, suburbanisation, urbanisation, deforestation, mcmansioning, lost species and of course, our concerns with co2 are part of that bigger picture, which you evidently miss in nit picking the smaller picture.
I haven't any idea what vintage you happen to be but by and large, those of us on the right side of young families and the bell curve to the mortal coil are geniunely concerned that those baby boomers who purported to have ended history when they invented "infallible derivatives" haven't a fcukkin clue, have one foot invariably in the grave and arent to be trusted as a consequence.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('essex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('essex', ' ')we exhale carbon dioxide. If you can regulate and declare a toxic pollutant what we exhale from our mouth,
And who is regulating CO2 from breathing. You are making this up as you have failed miserably to come up with other arguments.
Following essex's logic, I find social and economic conservatism, Orwellian. However I am sure he has good reasons as to why we MUST follow his preferred conventions, all invariably related to personal reward but nevertheless, from his perspective, utterly natural and reasonable.
Many of us however look beyond personal wealth and are equally as valid in our preferred conventions despite not buying into his. We take the position that a closed but graduated climate paradigm does not for unlimited human development on this presently human friendly planet, make. There is no evidence sufficiently strong yet to dissuade me that no matter what we do as a species, the corridor of climate variation in human friendly mode is wide enough to accommodate my inputs.
Time is the ultimate arbiter as it always has been, however.
The net is a great way to make assumptions about others anonymously. You have no way of knowing that they are correct. If by trying to make mud stick you feel better/superior then that's your problem. There is one thing , however, which is obvious , and that is the compulsive poster eager to rack up posts to " fission" level. It must validate a certain personality type in some way. Really, where do you go from there?
The remark about CO2 in submarines is simply stupid. Perhaps you might like to try pure oxygen instead. Either way you're dead in no time. CO2 at 200 ppm and plants stop growing. Your average office/classroom/commercial greenhouse atmosphere is 1000ppm. The only food without CO2 in your local supermarket is water and salt. Since water vapour makes up 95% of the atmosphere's GHG there has to be a move soon to demonize it and at the very least tax it.
