Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
It is we who have made carbon toxic. Yep. All 7.5 Billion carbon-based life forms have made carbon toxic. Even the "skeptics" have to bow down to the politically correct.
The entire lower end of the periodic table is no good.
Carbon is the backbone of all organic molecules, after all....
The clean little secret is that as atmospheric co2 increases so does the % of our earth thats covered in green.
"Carbon is the backbone of all organic molecules, after all...."We should replace it with Si.
Carbon ? Not like it's that awful Gluten. Gluten, BTW, is an unfashionable protein.
"Carbon is not the enemy."Things that shouldn't need saying.From the article:"'Durable carbon' is a raw material for reusable products such as paper, fiber and recyclable plastics, or is locked away in underground limestone.But that's a bit silly. The appeal of CO2-based polymers so far is precisely that they're not durable: That they break down readily in landfills instead of sticking around. When they break down, as they're designed to do, they release that awful 'fugitive carbon' [using the guy's terms here] from which they were made.As for limestone: Great CO2 sink. I hope no one's talking about sequestering CO2 as that, though. All that calcium oxide is going to have to come from somewhere, and it's going to cost energy....
Simply more battlespace prep by the left for the inevitable mass graves.Which will be a terrible and completely unforeseeable consequence mind you, but we shouldn't let uncomfortable facts dissuade us from our ultimate objectives!
Idiot story. Global warming, though caused by co2, will most likely be moderate and on balance a plus for the planet. Which is lucky because there is not much we could do about it in any case. This according to IPCC reports and mainstream research. See The Skeptical Environmentalist for details.
"We should replace it with Si."And P with As while we're at it.
Read up on this guy's theories. Dr. Peter Ward.He does not deny climate changes - he has a completely different theory. $10,000 challenge to anyone/ any scientist who can re-create the green-house gas = warming theory.
"Original Mike said..."Carbon is the backbone of all organic molecules, after all...."We should replace it with Si."SkyNet is working on it.
"We should replace it with Si"But silicon just can't catenate like carbon can. Oxygenated silicon is pretty good at catenation, but we need less silicone and more natural, carbon-based breasts.
The first week of engineering school they taught us about significant digits, and had us work and submit problems with the proper number of significant digits for various levels of precision of the inputs to the equation.Global warming advocates have a huge significant digit problem.Take the levels of magnitude of energy of the big bang, or even (if you want to stay locally) the levels of magnitude of energy of the sun, as a basis for the connected/unshielded levels of energy and heat on the earth, then tell me that us tinkering around with carbon will result in 2 degrees of change in temperature on our earth on an otherwise stable basis of prevailing and preexisting energy.That’s like trying to calculate in the effect of a fruit fly’s wings on the acceleration of a Saturn V rocket while blasting off.Even if we drained every bank account in every country of the world trying to bring about a carbon restriction lowering of the earth’s temperature, in 5 second one fine Tuesday the sun could burp and wipe out the entire effect of our entire effort.For all the climate scientists claims of precise measurements and exact dial settings, not one of them can guaranty that the overall universe or solar system was, is, or will remain stable enough to even matter. They have absolutely no proven reason why it is or should be so stable. They accept that all on pure, pre-determined, unproven and unprovable faith. But the skeptics are the one’s operating on fantasy, according to the faithful.
We are stardust, we are goldenWe are billion year old carbon
Even if we drained every bank account in every country of the world trying to bring about a carbon restriction lowering of the earth’s temperature, in 5 second one fine Tuesday the sun could burp and wipe out the entire effect of our entire effort.The plan of the alarmists is that our bank accounts will be drained into theirs. After that, they'll take their chances,
This total muddle of nonsense is meant to distract our attention from the coming transitioning of attention from the science of uncontrolled warming's needs for funding over to the science of uncontrolled cooling's needs for funding. It's tap dancing time at "So You Think You Can Dance."
"The plan of the alarmists is that our bank accounts will be drained into theirs."Whose bank accounts? Why? To what purpose?
"For all the climate scientists claims of precise measurements and exact dial settings, not one of them can guaranty that the overall universe or solar system was, is, or will remain stable enough to even matter. They have absolutely no proven reason why it is or should be so stable."Do they guarantee or even posit that the "overall universe or solar system was, is, or will remain stable..."?
Robert Cook said..."Whose bank accounts? Why? To what purpose?".Well, Cookie, you know what they say. They say if you don't know who's the chump in the game ...
To what purpose? Robert, I am occasionally motivated to a certain degree of respect for you but seriously, are you a child?
"McDonough does more than write and talk, of course."Of course!"He designs big projects that exemplify the philosophy."And cashes big checks, that also exemplify the philosophy!
CO2 is our salvation. I would guess it's about a 30% yield increase per each doubleing of CO2, and I expect the seed companies could double that given the chance.
When I was a kid, Scientific American was a science magazine, and a damned good one. I used to read it cover to cover. It is beyond pathetic the kind of mindless tripe they now publish.
it's the skydragon, just because we don't see doesn't mean it doesn't exist,
How many Americans know what the carbon cycle is? How many environmentalists realize that everything they eat was almost entirely airborne carbon dioxide before some life form converted it to food? How many environmentalists realize that plants strain mightily to scavenge carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to grow, and that the more carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains, the less water they require. I don't think knowledge helps the cause very much.
Cook can't understand what possible purpose there could be in draining other people's bank accounts.Unless they're not on his side. In which case, it's the only motive he *can* understand.This is your brain on Marxism.
It was scientific mystics who made carbon a profitable source of graft (e.g. redistributive change). Fortunately, a first-order cause of Anthropogenic Climate Change is People denying the Profits' (sic) Progressive Corruption and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Government Whoring.
Carbon Monoxide is rough; but Carbon Dioxide is good (for plants). 11th Grade biology reminiscing
Put another way. Its not 'dirty' and should not have been included (recently, under Obama) as part of the 'Clean' air act regulations.
"And now abideth faith, hope, money, these three; but the greatest of these is money." - George OrwellPlease keep this a law blog, and leave the science to the 97% of us who know what we're talking about. I would tell you to ask Venusians about runaway climate control gasses, but they're already gone.
Carbon is not the enemy. But carbon, in the form of hydrocarbon, is the life blood of modern society which is mostly capitalist society. Hence a number of people think that the best way to attack capitalism is to attack it's Achilles heel, energy.
Anyone who says "carbon" when they mean CO2 is perpetuating a con. CO2 is more oxygen by weight and number of atoms so it would be more correct to call it "oxygen". CO2 is a necessary component of our atmosphere as it is necessary for plant life, but current CO2 levels are near starvation level for plants. They'll thrive at higher levels and it won't bother us one bit.
What a dick. I was in Berlin last week for the first time. Again I am reminded that Hitler was right about the Bauhaus.
"Well, Cookie, you know what they say. They say if you don't know who's the chump in the game...."So...You don't know the answer, either."To what purpose? Robert, I am occasionally motivated to a certain degree of respect for you but seriously, are you a child?"And, apparently, neither do you.
"Cook can't understand what possible purpose there could be in draining other people's bank accounts."See the original statement that I questioned:"The plan of the alarmists is that our bank accounts will be drained into theirs."Who are the alarmists? Climate scientists? How are they scheming to drain our bank accounts into theirs? To what purpose? Are they planning to have their personal bank accounts filled up with our money? How would this happen? If not their personal bank accounts, then which bank accounts? Hand-waving and casting rhetorical insults is woefully insufficient to substitute as an answer to these questions.
So far there has been a huge transfer of wealth from tax payers to Solar flim flam artists and credit swapping whores like Al Gore. I'm surprised Cookie doesn't know where Al got so rich. Like Tom Steyer, raping the earth for coal and oil and then pretending to be a green messiah so he can rake in government largess. Cap and trade is geek speak for tax and spend.
Is this really that hard, Cook? Let's just take one example. Al Gore. Alarmist? Yes. Filthy rich off his alarmism? Yes. Easily reproducible through the "carbon credit" scheme. That is, if you're evil and lack anything resembling a conscience.
Alarmism is stupid anyway. All this over a worry of ONE degree (maybe) of warming over the next 100 years? TWO degrees if the worst case scenario happens? Absurd."Why is that absurd?" you may alarmingly ask.Look at the population of our country and where people are moving to and from. All the net movement is to warmer areas. You know why? Cold sucks. Infact cold weather sucks the life out of you quickly, while warm weather simply gets uncomfortable for a while, mostly. Check the stats. Cold kills people every winter. Few die from heat. A lot of places I've worked, like Sweden and northern England, could use a degree bump up the thermometer.Global warming is an unfounded fear.
@Cook - the draining of bank accounts is mostly figurative, not literal. We are talking tax revenues being siphoned off into the bank accounts of Dem cronies with Green Energy loan guarantees in Obama's Stimulus, Ethanol requirements, and things like Cap and Trade, which is one of the big places that made AlGore a centamillionire.
Nowhere in the article is any data given on the marginal cost of these miracle CO2 swallowing materials in relationship to their current substitutes.Kind of like those that (appear to) believe windmills cost nothing to build, erect and maintain and that their output can be directly compared to other sources based on peak KW hours.
So far there has been a huge transfer of wealth from tax payers to Solar flim flam artists and credit swapping whores like Al Gore."Really? How much wealth has been transferred to "solar flim flam artists"? Who are they? How have they sucked up this wealth?"Al Gore. Alarmist? Yes. Filthy rich off his alarmism? Yes."Is he really "rich off his alarmism"? How so? How much of his wealth derives from his solar flim-flammery?"We are talking tax revenues being siphoned off into the bank accounts of Dem cronies with Green Energy loan guarantees in Obama's Stimulus, Ethanol requirements, and things like Cap and Trade, which is one of the big places that made AlGore a centamillionire."How much in tax revenues are being siphoned off into "the bank accounts of Dem cronies"?Also, how are the climate scientist getting wealthy off their own contributions to this solar flim-flammery? They are the primary alarmists.If y'all are so concerned about wealth being drained out of our bank accounts to make others rich, I'd point you in the direction of the war profiteers (arms makers, weapons systems makers, etc.), and all providers of services ancillary to our wars, (including highly paid professional killers); and also those who get the contracts to outfit the intelligence agencies with the technology and apparatus to spy on each and every one of us every minute of every day.
Playing stupid isn;t a good look for you Cook, though I suppose it fits your avatar."To what purpose?" Don't clack about me answering you, I'm not, I'm trying to figure out what you are asking. To what purpose does one get money? Is that what you want to know?"If y'all are so concerned about wealth being drained out of our bank accounts to make others rich, I'd point you in the direction of the war profiteers"Ahhh...by Jove I think he's got it!So, you DO understand when it suits your purposes.Does anyone know what the Greeks called that kind of duplicity? You're not a hot chick, Bob, playing dumb ain't no good for you.
Bad Lieutenant, I don't doubt there are opportunists who will figure out ways to make some money from concerns about global climate change, but I have heard nothing here to support accusations that it is all a widespread fraud dreamed up to divest us of our money, particularly when I can't get a straight answer as to who these schemers are. Al Gore? Even if he has made money off global warming, he's one man. Who else? I gather there must be a vast cabal expecting to get rich and so have concocted this panic if this is a fraud that will "drain our bank accounts" and fill up "theirs," (whoever "they" are).
Let's see, there was Solyndra, and I think there was a company named A123. Both of those were essentially fraudulent, one I believe ended up sending a few hundred million dollars to China, one just ate the money and died. There will be others but you could also do some research, Cook, instead of just demanding to be spoon-fed. You really find it so unbelievable that people would be mulcting, exploiting, profiteering off of the enormous industry of climate change? How much money is involved in these climate pacts? Apparently trillions. And holy trillions, because in a "good cause."If you don't see the potential for abuse, you are not the wise cynic you make yourself out to be.
They're also numerous foreign cases, I believe Spain had a big rash of them, and also Germany. I can't remember specifics, again Google is your friend. But these are all individual actors. You are right to wonder what is at the root of it.But you are not right to say that, since you don't know the answer, there is no answer. Guy like you I would think would be interested in finding out.
Post a Comment