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

[jillio]

perhaps you might want to look back and read again. You should remember that I suck in chemistry. I've mentioned it quite a number of times

but since we're on that subject, do you?

No, I don't. I was referring to your post that stated, "Let's see - I have a degree in it."

 

[jillio]

right.... using source from... "questionable" shoddy sites... the one who believed bringing down the Saddam statue was the American ploy to uh... whatever.

perhaps CO2 level is a bit too high in his room....

Judging from the nature of his posts, I'd say that the CO2 levels are much higher elsewhere.

 

[Jiro]

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.

Like I said - CFC is not the main culprit for ozone hole but the scientists acknowledge that CFC does interfere with ozone chemistry. It's that destructive.

The Ozone Hole appears in South Pole because it's colder down there - especially Antarctica. The process that destroys ozone works optimally at colder condition... which is in South Pole.

 

[Jiro]

No, I don't. I was referring to your post that stated, "Let's see - I have a degree in it."

I've stated this before - I have a degree in Geography which covers quite a field. This subject falls under it (a large portion of it). I love Earth but I need to understand it better - scientifically. I know many politicians and media distorted the facts. That's why I took opportunity to get educated on it and to know the truth myself.

After I obtained the degree in this, it really opened my eyes. It completely changed the way I see and know about Earth.

 

[jillio]

I've stated this before - I have a degree in Geography which covers quite a field. This subject falls under it (a large portion of it). I love Earth but I need to understand it better - scientifically. I know many politicians and media distorted the facts. That's why I took opportunity to get educated on it and to know the truth myself.

After I obtained the degree in this, it really opened my eyes. It completely changed the way I see and know about Earth.

A degree in Geography does not confer expertise in environmental chemistry.

 

[Jiro]

A degree in Geography does not confer expertise in environmental chemistry.

right and? This subject is not entirely about chemistry.

 

[Hwy99]

Yeah, the rich will pay, too. But at least they can afford it. It'll hurt the poor and middle class more.

Why just poor and middle that would be hurt? I thought the rich class hate taxes too?

Taxes sucks, but we have to pay as long as it is needed.

Bingo. The title was intentionally worded to create fear in the poor to middle class, typically who are democratic voters. A very transparent effort to further a personal agenda.

*nods*

Why didnt the title say that? Why did it make it sound like the poor and middle class will be the only group subjected to this tax?

That's what I am wondering too.

 

[jillio]

right and? This subject is not entirely about chemistry.

It is about environmental chemistry.

 

[Jiro]

It is about environmental chemistry.

so what are you getting at? You and I have no degree in environmental chemistry

 

[jillio]

so where are you getting at? You and I have no degree in environmental chemistry

Exactly. So your posts claiming expertise in the topic are moot.

 

[Jiro]

Exactly. So your posts claiming expertise in the topic are moot.

actually no. I have a more in-depth understanding than you in Earth science. The ozone, oxygen, etc. are covered in it as well. Environmental Chemistry covers a far more than just this ozone and CO2.

back to topic please.

 

[Jiro]

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.

there you go! thank you for the link. You just proved my point. It listed out the efficiency rating as I explained to you. You can see that solar power technology is hardly efficient at all especially for household purpose.

 

[jillio]

actually no. I have a more in-depth understanding than you in Earth science. The ozone, oxygen, etc. are covered in it as well. Environmental Chemistry covers a far more than just this ozone and CO2.

back to topic please.

I seriously doubt that.

And you still have no expertise in environmental chemistry simply because you have a degree in geography. Nor in any science for that matter. Geography doesn't qualify as a science.

Yes, back on topic. This does not target low and middle income individuals alone, as the title attempted to imply.

 

[Jiro]

Nor is there empirical evidence to prove that it isn't. That is what you are failing to take note of.

Are you confused, Jillio? I said for dozens of time - there is no evidence to point that CO2 is the main culprit of the cause. So how in the world Al Gore is able to state that CO2 is the cause of it if scientific community has not been able to conclude on the main culprit?

 

[kokonut]

"Ozone hole" is a scare tactic words. There is no hole at all. It's simply an ozone thinning. Ozone is found all over the Earth high above the atmosphere down to city levels.

Yes, cold is factor. The dynamics of how climate works remain complex and elusive. Scientists continue make assumptions about ozone thinning and the factors involved causing ozone to thin. Remember, we have only recent ozone data to look into vesus data going back 600 million years in oxygen isotope studies in sea cores to understand what climate was like temperature wise and the amount of CO2 concentration over time.

 

[kokonut]

A degree in Geography does not confer expertise in environmental chemistry.

Nor does your degree(s), Jillio.

 

[Jiro]

"Ozone hole" is a scare tactic words. There is no hole at all. It's simply an ozone thinning. Ozone is found all over the Earth high above the atmosphere down to city levels.

Yes, cold is factor. The dynamics of how climate works remain complex and elusive. Scientists continue make assumptions about ozone thinning and the factors involved causing ozone to thin. Remember, we have only recent ozone data to look into vesus data going back 600 million years in oxygen isotope studies in sea cores to understand what climate was like temperature wise and the amount of CO2 concentration over time.

yes "technically" - it's a very very very thin on that specific area. So thin that it's a "hole". It's just easier for media to say "omg there's an ozone hole!"

Just the matter of being politically correct (or not) for public

 

[jillio]

Are you confused, Jillio? I said for dozens of time - there is no evidence to point that CO2 is the main culprit of the cause. So how in the world Al Gore is able to state that CO2 is the cause of it if scientific community has not been able to conclude on the main culprit?

Because, Jiro, and I repeat, because there is no evidence to prove that it isn't, either.

 

[Jiro]

I seriously doubt that.

And you still have no expertise in environmental chemistry simply because you have a degree in geography. Nor in any science for that matter. Geography doesn't qualify as a science.

Yes, back on topic. This does not target low and middle income individuals alone, as the title attempted to imply.

yes it does. Perhaps it doesn't in your school. Geography is the "Study of the Earth" as specified by my program. It involves Natural Science and Diversity requirements.

With that in mind - I can understand and explain better intrinsically.. which is quite apparent based on your posts and my posts.

 

[Jiro]

Because, Jiro, and I repeat, because there is no evidence to prove that it isn't, either.

I'm confused. Help me -

I said - There is no evidence to say that the CO2 is the main culprit of it
you said - There is no evidence to say that CO2 isn't the main culprit of it

correct?