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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beowulf said:
LOL. So you have more credibility than Al Gore? Oh puhhhh-leeeeze. Hear that, boys and girls? Jiro has a degree in Global Warming. Yeah, gotcha.
Click to expand...

actually - I said I have a better scientific understanding than Al Gore on this subject. My statements about CO2 and global warming are also backed by the international scientific community. :cool2:

Again - the international scientific community has not made any conclusion but Al Gore concluded that CO2 is the culprit. hmmmmm so are you telling me that Al Gore is right and more qualified than the international scientific community just because he has this little little Pulitzer Prize on his jacket? :lol:

Mind you - Pulitzer Prize is not a scientific award. Nobel Prize is. Don't forget that. :cool2:
 
Jiro said:
actually - I said I have a better scientific understanding than Al Gore on this subject. My statements about CO2 and global warming are also backed by the international scientific community. :cool2:

Again - the international scientific community has not made any conclusion but Al Gore concluded that CO2 is the culprit. hmmmmm so are you telling me that Al Gore is right and more qualified than the international scientific community just because he has this little little Pulitzer Prize on his jacket? :lol:

Mind you - Pulitzer Prize is not a scientific award. Nobel Prize is. Don't forget that. :cool2:
Click to expand...

Are you listening to yourself? You say in one breath that your expert statements about CO2 is backed by the international scientific community and in the next breath moan about a lack of consensus among it.
The same could be said of Al Gore about the international scientific community agreeing with him.
And yes, I know about the Pulitzer Prize. Guess you missed the obvious word play I did with that. Oh well. I will let you don the mantle of superior scientific knowledge today. Have fun. No hard feelings, Jiro, okay?
 
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.
 
Beowulf said:
Are you listening to yourself? You say in one breath that your expert statements about CO2 is backed by the international scientific community and in the next breath moan about a lack of consensus among it.
The same could be said of Al Gore about the international scientific community agreeing with him.
And yes, I know about the Pulitzer Prize. Guess you missed the obvious word play I did with that. Oh well. I will let you don the mantle of superior scientific knowledge today. Have fun. No hard feelings, Jiro, okay?
Click to expand...

Please do find me any scientific community member (preferably with weighty background) that agrees with Al Gore's finding. Perhaps it doesn't to pick up a textbook or watch the show that is actually narrated by the qualified scientists. Again- my statements are backed with the consensual findings by the scientific community.

Btw you got confused there. I said the scientific community (including NASA) did not conclude CO2 as the culprit whereas Al Gore did. I've already explained why. It's not because of the lack of consensus and disagreement. It's the lack of scientific evidence and data to prove so. Al Gore seems to magically proved that it's CO2 but cannot even scientifically proved it. All he did is show some yucky factories with spewing smokes and poor polar bear standing on piece of ice.

Take it easy. Don't fret over it.
 
Beowulf said:
Al Gore IS an expert on global warning, don't kid yourself. And stop brown-nosing your "professor," lol. jk
Click to expand...
If he's such an expert, why doesn't he live "green?" His personal carbon footprint is probably larger than all us ADers combined.
 
Jiro said:
your stove. your breathing. anything in your household that produces CO2. That's why it is recommend to open your window daily to recirculate the air.

btw - car does not produce just CO2 but also NOx, CO, HC, SOx, and bunch more. That's why the EPA listed it as pollutant. It depends on the context. Like I said - CO2 is not considered as pollutant in the context of Earth as it is the necessity for life.
Click to expand...

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.
 
naisho said:
some of my biochemistry, organic chemistry professors and even one physics man denounced on Al Gore's statements..

After having actually studied the whole global warming issue before, I can safely say that no one knows the real answer, not even the experts, Gore, or anti-Gores. Global warming continues to baffle even many of those who already made claims.

but I do realize everyone's entitled to their own opinions regardless!

PS. The physics prof. ranted on about the conglomeration of "useless" twisty lightbulbs, he saw it all as marketing schematic to him "Thanks to Al Gore".
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is no consensus.

Just curious....what was the age of that physics prof?
 
Reba said:
If he's such an expert, why doesn't he live "green?" His personal carbon footprint is probably larger than all us ADers combined.
Click to expand...

How could you possibly know whether he does or doesn't?
 
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...

Bingo.
 
Jiro said:
Please do find me any scientific community member (preferably with weighty background) that agrees with Al Gore's finding. Perhaps it doesn't to pick up a textbook or watch the show that is actually narrated by the qualified scientists. Again- my statements are backed with the consensual findings by the scientific community.

Btw you got confused there. I said the scientific community (including NASA) did not conclude CO2 as the culprit whereas Al Gore did. I've already explained why. It's not because of the lack of consensus and disagreement. It's the lack of scientific evidence and data to prove so. Al Gore seems to magically proved that it's CO2 but cannot even scientifically proved it. All he did is show some yucky factories with spewing smokes and poor polar bear standing on piece of ice.

Take it easy. Don't fret over it.
Click to expand...

What you are failing to take note of, there is just as much a lack of empirical proof that it isn't a main culprit. The scientific community remains very divided, with numerous credible and qualified scientists finding validity in the Global Warming theory.
 
I think the hydrocarbons is one of the main source of air pollution, not CO2 because million of years ago there was more CO2 in the atmosphere and the world was very green, warmer and wet and plants grew faster to large sizes also.
 
sequoias said:
I think the hydrocarbons is one of the main source of air pollution, not CO2 because million of years ago there was more CO2 in the atmosphere and the world was very green, warmer and wet and plants grew faster to large sizes also.
Click to expand...

Plants uses CO2, during the day and releases O2.

It absorb O2, and release CO2 at night.

and also there were more trees left alone. We have chopped down so many due to development. That is why we were wetter and greener, with many trees. They were not chopped down!
 
Fossil Fuels
A third source of carbon dioxide comes from stored CO2. The carbon found in fossil fuels was laid down over millions of years. Because the organisms did not decay completely, the carbon was never released into the atmosphere as CO2. Instead, it was stored up in the earth. Once fossil fuel has been recovered, processed and burned, the CO2, which would normally have been released over tens of millions of years, is suddenly all released within a period of a few hundred years, thus increasing the amount of CO2 in the environment.

CO2 Pollution and Global Warming: When does carbon dioxide become a pollutant? (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)
 
Reba said:
If he's such an expert, why doesn't he live "green?" His personal carbon footprint is probably larger than all us ADers combined.
Click to expand...

He is trying to change the industry by improving its efficency. What do you expect him to do, be barefoot and live in a hut?
 
jillio said:
How could you possibly know whether he does or doesn't?
Click to expand...
Because I keep up with the news. Don't you know about his palatial energy-wasting house and private jet flights?
Don't you know about his energy credits business scam?
 
Reba said:
Because I keep up with the news. Don't you know about his palatial energy-wasting house and private jet flights?
Don't you know about his energy credits business scam?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top