EPA admits CO2 is pollutant

[xsited1]

THE US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is paving the way to the federal regulation of CO2 after announcing that the gas is a pollutant that endangers public health.

More Here...

 

[xsited1]

STOP BREATHING PEOPLE! Jeez!

 

[driveby]

I've asked Yukon to do his part on several occasions........

 

[Old Rocks]

The EPA is correct.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The EPA is correct.

So why is it PART of the atmosphere NATURALLY, dumb ass?

 

[KittenKoder]

The EPA is correct.

So why is it PART of the atmosphere NATURALLY, dumb ass?

... and a necessary part as well ...

Without it there would be no trees for them to protect.

 

[Old Rocks]

The EPA is correct.

So why is it PART of the atmosphere NATURALLY, dumb ass?

... and a necessary part as well ...

Without it there would be no trees for them to protect.

Not only no trees, no land life, period. The seas would be frozen pole to pole. And the land would be a lifeless frozen desert, similiar to Mars. However, a rapid increase, such as we have created, is going to result in an adrupt climate change. One that is going to decimate the human population.

That is what the scientists are trying to tell you. You state that they do not know what they are talking about. Since no one is really taking the warning seriously, we will see if they are correct.

Problem is, there will be no undoing of the experiment in your lifetime, or that of anyone presently alive.

 

[Red Dawn]

The EPA is correct.

So why is it PART of the atmosphere NATURALLY, dumb ass?

God damnd, you're as dumb as a filing cabinet.

Its the same reason the nitrate or mercury is classified as a pollutant. Small amounts of nitrate occur naturally in drinking water, but human activities can increase nitrate in water beyond background levels and make the water dangerous for human health.

 

[KittenKoder]

So why is it PART of the atmosphere NATURALLY, dumb ass?

... and a necessary part as well ...

Without it there would be no trees for them to protect.

Not only no trees, no land life, period. The seas would be frozen pole to pole. And the land would be a lifeless frozen desert, similiar to Mars. However, a rapid increase, such as we have created, is going to result in an adrupt climate change. One that is going to decimate the human population.

That is what the scientists are trying to tell you. You state that they do not know what they are talking about. Since no one is really taking the warning seriously, we will see if they are correct.

Problem is, there will be no undoing of the experiment in your lifetime, or that of anyone presently alive.

No, the problem is too many are being so easily scared and they are forcing new regulations on EVERYBODY, driving up the costs of necessities making the poor completely broke for no good reason, and yet nothing has changed, the environment keeps getting "worse" according to the environments yet no one has actually seen any changes. 20 years ago they said that the CFC's that were already released would cause serious problems and that we hadn't seen their full effects ... well ... 20 years later nothing, nadda, zilch, no changes, the hole is still the same size and we aren't seeing acid rain everywhere. So many other things since then have been used to scare people ... well ... where are these "dire consequences" your peer pressure scientists kept ranting about before? Just one thing ... one bit of real proof that they haven't just been conning us all along ...

 

[Red Dawn]

20 years ago they said that the CFC's that were already released would cause serious problems and that we hadn't seen their full effects ... well ... 20 years later nothing, nadda, zilch, no changes,

That's because Ronald Reagan, in one of the wisest things he ever did, banded with the world community in 1987 and banned CFCs. Globally. It was actually pretty amazing. And not surprsingly, once CFCs were banned, the ozone started healing.

The ozone hole was one of the greatest environmental success stories ever. Scientists saw a looming problem of global scale, and politicians reacted rapidly. And it didn't hurt the economy one fucking bit.

 

[KittenKoder]

20 years ago they said that the CFC's that were already released would cause serious problems and that we hadn't seen their full effects ... well ... 20 years later nothing, nadda, zilch, no changes,

That's because Ronald Reagan, in one of the wisest things he ever did, banded with the world community in 1987 and banned CFCs. Globally. It was actually pretty amazing. And not surprsingly, once CFCs were banned, the ozone started healing.

The ozone hole was one of the greatest environmental success stories ever. Scientists saw a looming problem of global scale, and politicians reacted rapidly. And it didn't hurt the economy one fucking bit.

I was in chemistry class when I learned what they are and what they do. Also, the text books said it would take 20 to 50 years for it all to reach the ozone layer, where it would react with the O3 (ozone). Until that time we should see an increase in effect building up before the ozone was completely replaced through natural causes. So, why is the hole the same size it was 20 years ago (give or take because of it's fluid nature).

 

[dilloduck]

20 years ago they said that the CFC's that were already released would cause serious problems and that we hadn't seen their full effects ... well ... 20 years later nothing, nadda, zilch, no changes,

That's because Ronald Reagan, in one of the wisest things he ever did, banded with the world community in 1987 and banned CFCs. Globally. It was actually pretty amazing. And not surprsingly, once CFCs were banned, the ozone started healing.

The ozone hole was one of the greatest environmental success stories ever. Scientists saw a looming problem of global scale, and politicians reacted rapidly. And it didn't hurt the economy one fucking bit.

I was in chemistry class when I learned what they are and what they do. Also, the text books said it would take 20 to 50 years for it all to reach the ozone layer, where it would react with the O3 (ozone). Until that time we should see an increase in effect building up before the ozone was completely replaced through natural causes. So, why is the hole the same size it was 20 years ago (give or take because of it's fluid nature).

after all--a text book can't be wrong .

 

[KittenKoder]

That's because Ronald Reagan, in one of the wisest things he ever did, banded with the world community in 1987 and banned CFCs. Globally. It was actually pretty amazing. And not surprsingly, once CFCs were banned, the ozone started healing.

The ozone hole was one of the greatest environmental success stories ever. Scientists saw a looming problem of global scale, and politicians reacted rapidly. And it didn't hurt the economy one fucking bit.

I was in chemistry class when I learned what they are and what they do. Also, the text books said it would take 20 to 50 years for it all to reach the ozone layer, where it would react with the O3 (ozone). Until that time we should see an increase in effect building up before the ozone was completely replaced through natural causes. So, why is the hole the same size it was 20 years ago (give or take because of it's fluid nature).

after all--a text book can't be wrong .

That was kind of my point ... but I extended it since it was also the claim adhered to by the scientists at the time. So far almost all environmental science has been proven wrong, while using CFC's was pointless and the ban had no effect on the economy, it does not demonstrate that they used good science to get it. Many other products that are being replaced by the environmentalist endorsements have proven to have serious side effects on the environment, people, or economy. Low-flow plumbing ... fluorescent light bulbs ... recycling ... phosphate bans ...

 

[dilloduck]

I was in chemistry class when I learned what they are and what they do. Also, the text books said it would take 20 to 50 years for it all to reach the ozone layer, where it would react with the O3 (ozone). Until that time we should see an increase in effect building up before the ozone was completely replaced through natural causes. So, why is the hole the same size it was 20 years ago (give or take because of it's fluid nature).

after all--a text book can't be wrong .

That was kind of my point ... but I extended it since it was also the claim adhered to by the scientists at the time. So far almost all environmental science has been proven wrong, while using CFC's was pointless and the ban had no effect on the economy, it does not demonstrate that they used good science to get it. Many other products that are being replaced by the environmentalist endorsements have proven to have serious side effects on the environment, people, or economy. Low-flow plumbing ... fluorescent light bulbs ... recycling ... phosphate bans ...

My point too----trusting science has been proven to be deadly. The god of the atheists fails miserably in the long run.

 

[KittenKoder]

after all--a text book can't be wrong .

That was kind of my point ... but I extended it since it was also the claim adhered to by the scientists at the time. So far almost all environmental science has been proven wrong, while using CFC's was pointless and the ban had no effect on the economy, it does not demonstrate that they used good science to get it. Many other products that are being replaced by the environmentalist endorsements have proven to have serious side effects on the environment, people, or economy. Low-flow plumbing ... fluorescent light bulbs ... recycling ... phosphate bans ...

My point too----trusting science has been proven to be deadly. The god of the atheists fails miserably in the long run.

No, trusting science is not fatal, it's trusting some people's interpretation of some scientific data. Science is what gives us almost everything we have now, very few things that are not direct results of scientific research are left in use. Automobiles, computers, medicines, tools that were once only dreams of writers, telecommunication, refrigerators, televisions, radios, list goes on, all because of science.

 

[Red Dawn]

20 years ago they said that the CFC's that were already released would cause serious problems and that we hadn't seen their full effects ... well ... 20 years later nothing, nadda, zilch, no changes,

That's because Ronald Reagan, in one of the wisest things he ever did, banded with the world community in 1987 and banned CFCs. Globally. It was actually pretty amazing. And not surprsingly, once CFCs were banned, the ozone started healing.

The ozone hole was one of the greatest environmental success stories ever. Scientists saw a looming problem of global scale, and politicians reacted rapidly. And it didn't hurt the economy one fucking bit.

I was in chemistry class when I learned what they are and what they do. Also, the text books said it would take 20 to 50 years for it all to reach the ozone layer, where it would react with the O3 (ozone). Until that time we should see an increase in effect building up before the ozone was completely replaced through natural causes. So, why is the hole the same size it was 20 years ago (give or take because of it's fluid nature).

Honestly, I don't listen to high school chemistry teachers, message board posters, or arm chair wanna be experts in this topic.

I listen to trained PhDs who have spent a lifetime training and studying in this area. I'm not an expert, so the only thing I know about it is what the experts say: that its a proven fact that CFCs deplete the ozone layer, its a proven fact that thanks to Ronald Reagan, CFC concentrations in the atmosphere are decreasing, its a proven fact that the depletion of the ozone has stabilized since CFCs were banned, and the models suggest the ozone will fully recover in 50 years or so.

 

[KittenKoder]

That's because Ronald Reagan, in one of the wisest things he ever did, banded with the world community in 1987 and banned CFCs. Globally. It was actually pretty amazing. And not surprsingly, once CFCs were banned, the ozone started healing.

The ozone hole was one of the greatest environmental success stories ever. Scientists saw a looming problem of global scale, and politicians reacted rapidly. And it didn't hurt the economy one fucking bit.

I was in chemistry class when I learned what they are and what they do. Also, the text books said it would take 20 to 50 years for it all to reach the ozone layer, where it would react with the O3 (ozone). Until that time we should see an increase in effect building up before the ozone was completely replaced through natural causes. So, why is the hole the same size it was 20 years ago (give or take because of it's fluid nature).

Honestly, I don't listen to high school chemistry teachers, message board posters, or arm chair wanna be experts in this topic.

I listen to trained PhDs who have spent a lifetime training and studying in this area. I'm not an expert, so the only thing I know about it is what the experts say: that its a proven fact that CFCs deplete the ozone layer, its a proven fact that thanks to Ronald Reagan, CFC concentrations in the atmosphere are decreasing, its a proven fact that the depletion of the ozone has stabilized since CFCs were banned, and the models suggest the ozone will fully recover in 50 years or so.

Recover? If any more of the hole closes we'll lose all the ice in the polar regions and be flooded. Point is it hadn't changed and hasn't changed since the ban. Period. That's what science has discovered, not me. The newer studies couldn't use that any more so they found more things to make you "lesser educated" people scared so you would buy products or use services from the companies that pay them. Oil companies tried following that model to, but were discovered, the only thing is that people who believe the environmental scientists won't admit that their scientists are doing the same thing for other companies, they just got started earlier so have their claws into the fears of the naive deeper than the oil company supported ones did.

 

[dilloduck]

That was kind of my point ... but I extended it since it was also the claim adhered to by the scientists at the time. So far almost all environmental science has been proven wrong, while using CFC's was pointless and the ban had no effect on the economy, it does not demonstrate that they used good science to get it. Many other products that are being replaced by the environmentalist endorsements have proven to have serious side effects on the environment, people, or economy. Low-flow plumbing ... fluorescent light bulbs ... recycling ... phosphate bans ...

My point too----trusting science has been proven to be deadly. The god of the atheists fails miserably in the long run.

No, trusting science is not fatal, it's trusting some people's interpretation of some scientific data. Science is what gives us almost everything we have now, very few things that are not direct results of scientific research are left in use. Automobiles, computers, medicines, tools that were once only dreams of writers, telecommunication, refrigerators, televisions, radios, list goes on, all because of science.

Oh really ? How many things have been created by science only to find out later that these creations are killing us ? Start with lead based paint and go from there.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My point too----trusting science has been proven to be deadly. The god of the atheists fails miserably in the long run.

No, trusting science is not fatal, it's trusting some people's interpretation of some scientific data. Science is what gives us almost everything we have now, very few things that are not direct results of scientific research are left in use. Automobiles, computers, medicines, tools that were once only dreams of writers, telecommunication, refrigerators, televisions, radios, list goes on, all because of science.

Oh really ? How many things have been created by science only to find out later that these creations are killing us ? Start with lead based paint and go from there.

Lead based paint is perfectly safe if you do NOT EAT IT. Now lead based water pipes was another story.

Ohh and last I checked one is not supposed to EVER eat paint.

 

[dilloduck]

No, trusting science is not fatal, it's trusting some people's interpretation of some scientific data. Science is what gives us almost everything we have now, very few things that are not direct results of scientific research are left in use. Automobiles, computers, medicines, tools that were once only dreams of writers, telecommunication, refrigerators, televisions, radios, list goes on, all because of science.

Oh really ? How many things have been created by science only to find out later that these creations are killing us ? Start with lead based paint and go from there.

Lead based paint is perfectly safe if you do NOT EAT IT. Now lead based water pipes was another story.

Ohh and last I checked one is not supposed to EVER eat paint.

How about napalm ? Can you eat that ?

might wanna check this site out on lead based paint too BTW

http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/5054.html