House successfully vote to help raise taxes against poor and middle class

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
Do you live with him? Are you aware of the solar panels being used in his home? Do you know what green products are used in his home? Do you know how much recycling is done by him and his family? As far as I know, they haven't developed a jet that will use green energy. Just like everyone else that attempts to do as much as they can personally, we are often handicapped in our efforts by the need to keep up with obligations.

You asked why he didn't live green, and the fact is, you don't know whether he is living green or not.
Click to expand...
http://www.alldeaf.com/general-chat/39384-al-gores-mansion-uses-20x-average-household.html

If Gore took his flights on commercial aircraft he would have a smaller carbon footprint than using a private jet.

He only recently had the solar panels added to his mansion after be criticized for his excessive use of electricity.

Gore asked us to make sacrifices in our life styles for the sake of the planet.

Do you honestly believe he's making sacrifices in his life style for the sake of the planet?
 
Reba said:
http://www.alldeaf.com/general-chat/39384-al-gores-mansion-uses-20x-average-household.html

If Gore took his flights on commercial aircraft he would have a smaller carbon footprint than using a private jet.

He only recently had the solar panels added to his mansion after be criticized for his excessive use of electricity.

Gore asked us to make sacrifices in our life styles for the sake of the planet.

Do you honestly believe he's making sacrifices in his life style for the sake of the planet?
Click to expand...

Typical of them to do that all in the name of "do as I say, not as I do." :roll:
 
jillio said:
Do you live with him? Are you aware of the solar panels being used in his home? Do you know what green products are used in his home? Do you know how much recycling is done by him and his family? As far as I know, they haven't developed a jet that will use green energy. Just like everyone else that attempts to do as much as they can personally, we are often handicapped in our efforts by the need to keep up with obligations.

You asked why he didn't live green, and the fact is, you don't know whether he is living green or not.
Click to expand...

A pretty safe bet that he's not "living green," a concept that have several connotations and meanings. So, using the words "living green" for Gore is an attempt on trying to fit in when he cannot. Native Eskimos and Indians pratice more "living green" than Gore would. So, it's simply a political ploy on Gore's part to claim he's "living green." He requires much more energy output and waste than the average man or family household. A bet anybody is sure to win. Gore is simply a walking hypocrisy. People need to learn to recognize that the next time.
 
Don't forget his 100 foot houseboat! Pajamas Media » Gore Hits the Waves with a Massive New Houseboat

I'm mostly agnostic on the question of global warming, but I'm leaning more and more to thinking it's junk science. The earth is such an incredibly complex system that it's very difficult to understand everything that's going on. Even if I were to approach the problem with a robot-like objectivity and delve into the research papers, the computer models, and all the data, I still couldn't come to a conclusion with certainty. Much of the debate is done by people who make up their mind and then flock to some website that supports their pre-conceived notions. It's confirmation bias at its worse.

The reason I'm leaning is because of the anti-science behavior of many in the AGW crowd- intimidating scientists who don't tow the party line, accusing any and all dissenters of being shills for big oil, comparing them to Holocaust deniers, practicing rank hypocrisy, and propagandizing. I simply can't trusts "scientists" who behave this way to change their mind given contradictory data. The burden of proof is on them and if they want to convince me that we're destroying the world with CO2 and the only solution is to throw ourselves into economic depression, they're going to have to do much better than that. Until then, my default position is no.

"We're going to have to cap the emission of greenhouse gases. That means that power plants are going to have to adjust how they generate power. They will pass on those costs to consumers. … A lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity, and that means we're going to have to change our light bulbs, we're going to have to shut the lights off in our houses."
Click to expand...
In other words, President Obama intends to make us all poorer. Over a problem that may or may not exist. For a solution that will show no benefit. During an economic crisis.

Yay.
 
netrox said:
Any substance is considered a pollutant if it is causing undesirable effects.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a direct effect on your health. If it causes changes on the environment, it's having an indirect effect on you.
Click to expand...
Drinking too much water can kill you. Inhaling it is not a good idea. Too much water can flood homes and kill people. Mixing moisture with warm and cool air can have an undesirable effect of producing tornados or hurricanes. :hmm:
 
You know guys, even more harmful than carbon dioxide is dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO). If the EPA is going to rule CO2 a pollutant, they definitely need to include DHMO. Here are some of the negative effects of this poison.
* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
Click to expand...
Read more about it here. Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division - dihydrogen monoxide info
 
What about hydrocarbons? I posted about that earlier. That's produced by unburned fuel spewing from the exhaust.
 
jillio said:
Chemistry 101.
Click to expand...

What a sad, sad response. Everybody knows, well many, that CO2 is a life-giving gas. It doesn't kill (unless you want to push it to well north of 50,000 ppm). It does not bioaccumulate in our bodies. It is necessary for plants to function and grow. You breathe it out every time you say the word, "pollutant." A contradiction in it's own right when you do that. saying it is a "pollutant" is a poor attempt at justification in order to satisfy the status quo (rather than actually learning and understanding it) greenie zealots. Doing so will produce nothing but problems for the rest of the population rather than to solve it.
 
kokonut said:
What a sad, sad response. Everybody knows, well many, that CO2 is a life-giving gas. It doesn't kill (unless you want to push it to well north of 50,000 ppm). It does not bioaccumulate in our bodies. It is necessary for plants to function and grow. You breathe it out every time you say the word, "pollutant." A contradiction in it's own right when you do that. saying it is a "pollutant" is a poor attempt at justification in order to satisfy the status quo (rather than actually learning and understanding it) greenie zealots. Doing so will produce nothing but problems for the rest of the population rather than to solve it.
Click to expand...

Are you on pollutans? I am getting worried about you.
 
darkdog said:
You know guys, even more harmful than carbon dioxide is dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO). If the EPA is going to rule CO2 a pollutant, they definitely need to include DHMO. Here are some of the negative effects of this poison.

Read more about it here. Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division - dihydrogen monoxide info
Click to expand...

sequoias said:
What about hydrocarbons? I posted about that earlier. That's produced by unburned fuel spewing from the exhaust.
Click to expand...

Er, the Earth itself releases way, way more CO2 than humans could. CO2 makes up more or less than .03 percent (.0003). Anthropogenic CO2 contributes about .0003 percent (.000003) of the total atmosphere each year. When one says 320 ppm and say it "leap frogged" to 380 ppm it might sound like alot. But it's not when you look at the change in ratio. Again, it's the same trillion dollars scenario when people do not understand the size component. In this case it's about how small 1 ppm is. PPM means "parts per MILLION." It's all about concentration. 380 ppm of CO2 means 380 molecules of carbon dioxide for every one million molecules of air mixture. Or .00038 which is .038 percent. A 1 percent concentration would be 10,000 ppm. Even the oxygen-isotope studies from deep sea cores showed in eons past when dinosaurs was around showed concentration level as high as 6,000 ppm. I'm sure plants were really enjoying that weather and dinosaurs lived for millions of years. Go figure, dinosaur-made CO2 that caused global warming! (note the sarcasm).

This whole CO2 fiasco is merely an attempt to play God thinking one can control the whole Earth's climate dynamics by control the amount of CO2 when we can't even stop a tornado, much less a hurricane.

Here's something humbling for ya'll:

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
Click to expand...

cmq2a4


Climate during the Carboniferous Period

Face it, folks. CO2 fluctuation has always been a natural part of Earth's dynamics. CO2 has never been known to be a climate changer.
 
That H2O (dihydrogen monoxide) stuff these days, I seriously don't know if people are joking or really falling for it.
 
Beowulf said:
Are you on pollutans? I am getting worried about you.
Click to expand...

I wonder - what's your background on this subject? Let's see - I have a degree in it. Al Gore has consulted with "scores of experts." And what about you?

Is your knowledge solely from Inconvenient Truth? Now that would make me get worried about you.
 
naisho said:
That H2O (dihydrogen monoxide) stuff these days, I seriously don't know if people are joking or really falling for it.
Click to expand...
It's supposed to be a joke to illustrate how people fall for this paranoid chicken little stuff when it comes to "evil" chemicals. I read a few years ago about how a town in California almost banned DHMO in industrial processes based on information in the website. Talk about serious egg on their faces when they realized they tried to ban water!
 
jillio said:
Why would you need to open your window if it was not a toxic pollutant at certain levels? That's my point. One cannot claim that CO2 is not toxic and is not a pollutant, because there are numerous instances in which it is.
Click to expand...

too much oxygen is toxic for you.
too much CO2 is toxic for you.
too much H2O is toxic for you.
too much ----- is toxic for you.

For health reason, it is recommended to open your window to recirculate the air. It's simply an option. It's not going to be toxic for you but it's going to have an adverse effect on you - a poor health.

CO2 itself is neither toxic nor pollutant for Earth. To classify it as one, then you'll have to add just about every elements to it including H2O. EPA classified it as a pollutant (for humans) because it is one of dozens of chemicals as emission from any combustive engines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top