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

[naisho]

*reading the whole thread* :-o

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!

Yeah, I was there when this whole deal started a decade ago. A decade later, I'm still seeing it in the works. And naive people. Talk about a case of wtf!

 

[Jiro]

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.

failed to take note of? no that is what I'm telling you guys for the whole time - there isn't much scientific data to point that CO2 is the main culprit..... whereas Al Gore says it is the culprit. I've already repeatedly said that the scientific community has not been able to conclude on anything.

 

[Jiro]

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.

precisely!! hell - our active volcanoes spew ffffaaaarrrrrr more CO2 (and other stuff) into atmosphere than the whole civilizations' waste combined.

My logical assumption - It is the man-made chemical such as CFC, hydrocarbon, etc. that gunked up the atmosphere which caused Earth to deflect less heat than before which causes the warming which caused the Earth to release more CO2 especially from melting ice which caused Earth to correct itself (while our weathers are getting more extreme).

simple as that. the scientific community has agreed on this statement - Earth is simply correcting itself. It is NOT getting worse. What the scientific community has NOT CONSENSUALLY agreed on is the MAIN CULPRIT of it. Some does not believe humans caused it as they stated that this is a NATURE PHENOMENON. Some believed that we humans caused it.

 

[Jiro]

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.

Solar Panel is HIGHLY INEFFICIENT for household purpose especially for Al Gore's mansion. It is barely 20% efficient and it degrades severely over time. Geothermal Energy is at least 75% efficient (for perspective purpose). It takes quite a resource and energy to produce (inefficient) solar panels. It's nothing but a cheap ploy to show the public that he's going green.

We all already know whether or not if he's living green or not because Tennessee Center for Policy Research has already performed the research.

 

[kokonut]

You forget, Jillio. Gore already proclaimed that there is a "scientific consensus" that man-made CO2 caused the the Earth to warm up. And that there is no more debate. "The debate has ended!" Riiiight.

Fact is, there is no proof of manmade CO2 that caused Earth to warm up. NONE. Zilcho. Nada. Zero.

Proof is in the oxygen-isotope sea core studies that go back to 600 million years. Studies showed that CO2 concentration fluctuated between 200 to 7000 ppm and that average temperature fluctuated between 12 and 22 degrees Celsius. All without any human's influence on CO2. Go figure!

 

[Hwy99]

I don't understand why they want to charge the poor and middle class more taxes for to reduce the carbon dixiode, those classes don't have much of money to pollute the earth. It was those who have a lot of money that cause more pollution because they can buy anything that can cause pollution such like snow mobiles, boats, cars, etc.

I am in poor class, but I don't have much things that cause the pollution, even don't have a car, or maybe just my garbage counts? :roll:

 

[kokonut]

precisely!! hell - our active volcanoes spew ffffaaaarrrrrr more CO2 (and other stuff) into atmosphere than the whole civilizations' waste combined.

My logical assumption - It is the man-made chemical such as CFC, hydrocarbon, etc. that gunked up the atmosphere which caused Earth to deflect less heat than before which causes the warming which caused the Earth to release more CO2 especially from melting ice which caused Earth to correct itself (while our weathers are getting more extreme).

simple as that. the scientific community has agreed on this statement - Earth is simply correcting itself. It is NOT getting worse. What the scientific community has NOT CONSENSUALLY agreed on is the MAIN CULPRIT of it. Some does not believe humans caused it as they stated that this is a NATURE PHENOMENON. Some believed that we humans caused it.

Jiro, the CFC scare of the time is the identical equivalent of our decade of CO2 scare. There is no ozone "hole" but rather a thinning. We did not see an ozone "hole" but rather we discovered it. Ozone can only be created with the help of sunlight. A fact. And then you have the northern jet stream that flow to the south and hits near the equator where there is a lot of ozone, because more sun hits that area, and then the jet stream then carries some of the ozone back to the north pole replenishing constantly the lack of ozone development during the dark 6 months out of the year there. We don't have that kind of circulation from the south pole, only the north. And since both poles get no sunlight 6 months out of the year, no sun means less ozone but the south pole cannot replenish it's ozone "hole" so that there is no "hole." Hence, why we see only the south pole ozone "hole" and not the north pole. Ever wonder why we don't see a ozone "hole" in the north pole? Well, you know now.

 

[kokonut]

I don't understand why they want to charge the poor and middle class more taxes for to reduce the carbon dixiode, those classes don't have much of money to pollute the earth. It was those who have a lot of money that cause more pollution because they can buy anything that can cause pollution such like snow mobiles, boats, cars, etc.

I am in poor class, but I don't have much things that cause the pollution, even don't have a car, or maybe just my garbage counts? :roll:

They are not. Rather they are going to try and force companies to reduce the CO2 (or carbon footprint) and that requires a few trillion of dollars overall. The cost of doing that is transferred over to consumers who will pay a much higher price for a product. It's forcing them to pay more which is like a tax. Only that this more insidious and irresponsible to those who cannot afford the higher costs of products the buy and use.

 

[Jiro]

Jiro, the CFC scare of the time is the identical equivalent of our decade of CO2 scare. There is no ozone "hole" but rather a thinning. We did not see an ozone "hole" but rather we discovered it. Ozone can only be created with the help of sunlight. A fact. And then you have the northern jet stream that flow to the south and hits near the equator where there is a lot of ozone, because more sun hits that area, and then the jet stream then carries some of the ozone back to the north pole replenishing constantly the lack of ozone development during the dark 6 months out of the year there. We don't have that kind of circulation from the south pole, only the north. And since both poles get no sunlight 6 months out of the year, no sun means less ozone but the south pole cannot replenish it's ozone "hole" so that there is no "hole." Hence, why we see only the south pole ozone "hole" and not the north pole. Ever wonder why we don't see a ozone "hole" in the north pole? Well, you know now.

CFC did mess up the chemistry of ozone's ability to block out percentage of sun radiation but yes you're right - the Ozone Layer is very fluidic. The layer is not equally distributed in all area. CFC is still not the main culprit either but it exacerbates the problem. see below how fluidic ozone layer is over time.

[yt]taTzqRHNIEc[/yt]

 

[kokonut]

Jiro, even scientists today readily admit they do not fully understand the dynamics of the ozone development and they cannot conclusively say that there was no "hole" prior to 1974 when first discovered. Just like CO2's role in global warming. They also cannot prove that CFC is in fact causing (or has caused) the ozone to get thinner. This is the SAME TEMPLATE being used for the CO2 scare. "Ozone HOLE" sounds really scary to the uneducated saying it was solely caused by man's use of CFC just as using the words "global warming as caused by man's use of hydrocarbons to create additional CO2." Both of these instances never had any shred of proof that those things were the case. NONE!

Ask yourself. Why is there no ozone "hole" in the North Pole but the South Pole has it?

Ozone can only be created with the help of sunlight (UV rays). No sun. No ozone. Both poles get no sun 6 months out of the year. How come the North Pole does not have an ozone "hole" where must of the industrial countries reside that produced most of the CFC?

Secondly, there is no hole. Just a thinning ozone layer. No hole.

Look to the sun. That's most of the answer right there.

 

[jillio]

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?

So what do you suggest? That he drive across country? How would that decrease his use of fossil fuels?

I wouldn't know what sacrifices he's making in his personal living style. And neither would you, as neither one of us live with him.

 

[jillio]

Typical of them to do that all in the name of "do as I say, not as I do." :roll:

That's funny coming from a right winger on the eve of the Sanford scandal!!!

 

[jillio]

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.

So, you live with him and are privy to the way he lives on a daily basis? Or is this just more speculation and dem bashing on your part?

 

[jillio]

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.

Again, I refer you to Chem 101. CO2 is also toxic and a pollutant and certain levels. As has already been pointed out, it does not have to harm the human body in order to classify as a pollutant.:roll:

Your post is very typical of a self centered, no one matters but me, excessive use is good, excessive spending is good, ill informed, ignore what doesn't support my excessive position right winger.

 

[jillio]

Are you on pollutans? I am getting worried about you.

Funny how those substances can cause brain damage that the victim isn't even aware is happening, isn't it?

 

[jillio]

Ignorance is not an excuse.

No it isn't. The problem arises when the ignorant one is so incredibly ignorant that they actually believe they know what they are talking about. And believe that others are so very ignorant as to be totally oblivious to the personal agenda they attempt to promote at every turn.

 

[jillio]

Diligence is the keyword. You're out of your league, son.

Correct. Beowulf falls into a much higher league.

 

[jillio]

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.

You have a degree in environmental chemistry? Since when?

 

[jillio]

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.

And the environment doesn't create ill effects on health?

In short, CO2 is classified as a pollutant at certain levels. To claim that it isn't is either lack of information or a deliberate attempt to distort the facts.

 

[jillio]

Solar Panel is HIGHLY INEFFICIENT for household purpose especially for Al Gore's mansion. It is barely 20% efficient and it degrades severely over time. Geothermal Energy is at least 75% efficient (for perspective purpose). It takes quite a resource and energy to produce (inefficient) solar panels. It's nothing but a cheap ploy to show the public that he's going green.

We all already know whether or not if he's living green or not because Tennessee Center for Policy Research has already performed the research.

Where exactly do you come up with this stuff? But then, I guess living in one of the states with the poorest air quality, it stands to reason that your information would be skewed.

history of solar photovoltaic power and solar panels

Your crystal ball needs to go back in your pocket. It is causing you to second guess things you couldn't possibly know.