|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 20:35:08 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 27, 2015 20:35:08 GMT -5
No. Not really. I mean, CO2 clearly isn't a pollutant at all. Unless you think water is also a pollutant. After all, water vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Maybe it's just a problem with semantics. Perhaps we shouldn't call CO2 a pollutant. That doesn't mean that corporations should be permitted to emit as much as they care to. They actually *do know* that CO2 levels have been rising. One takes a core of ice and can test it for dissolved CO2. The farther down you go the longer ago. Science is NOT your enemy, regardless of what the GOP would have you believe. Whether you think it's too large or too small, government has NO BUSINESS attempting to regulate things it doesn't understand - such as CO2 emissions. So, then, industrialists should be able to emit any chemical they like in any amount they like unless the government can somehow prove to your satisfaction that it "understands" that chemical? I suppose that you GOPers believe Pacific Gas and Electric should have been permitted to pump chromium VI into the water table no matter how many folks got cancer from it? Because, after all, until Erin Brockovich came along no one really understood the link between the two. After all, making them stop would have cut into their profits, and in the GOP world, profits are the only thing that matters. And you guys wonder why your base is dwindling.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 20:36:04 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 27, 2015 20:36:04 GMT -5
Because OSHA is a part of this criminal regime, and are being told to do so. That, and the poison is in the dose. Under what conditions can one achieve 40,000 ppm, unless one does so intentionally? It is literally impossible to take you seriously because you are wrong about so much.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 20:57:04 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2015 20:57:04 GMT -5
No. Not really. I mean, CO2 clearly isn't a pollutant at all. Unless you think water is also a pollutant. After all, water vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Maybe it's just a problem with semantics. Perhaps we shouldn't call CO2 a pollutant. That doesn't mean that corporations should be permitted to emit as much as they care to. They actually *do know* that CO2 levels have been rising. One takes a core of ice and can test it for dissolved CO2. The farther down you go the longer ago. Science is NOT your enemy, regardless of what the GOP would have you believe. It does if you can't demonstrate the substance will cause a problem. Should we stop people from emitting pure water into the environment? There is also ample evidence that CO2 levels have, in the past, been significantly higher than they are today. It seems that's a common feature of inter-glacial periods. Science is very much my friend. But not so much so with the Greenie alarmists who work so hard to butcher it in the name of their totalitarian agenda. If the government doesn't know what the substance's impact will be on the environment, how can they make any sensible determination as to whether it should be emitted or not? Clearly they're wrong about CO2 being a problem. The "precautionary principle" is the work of morons. You got suckered into signing a petition to ban di-hydrogen monoxide, didn't you?
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 21:19:35 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2015 21:19:35 GMT -5
No. Not really. I mean, CO2 clearly isn't a pollutant at all. Unless you think water is also a pollutant. After all, water vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Maybe it's just a problem with semantics. Perhaps we shouldn't call CO2 a pollutant. That doesn't mean that corporations should be permitted to emit as much as they care to. They actually *do know* that CO2 levels have been rising. One takes a core of ice and can test it for dissolved CO2. The farther down you go the longer ago. Science is NOT your enemy, regardless of what the GOP would have you believe. Whether you think it's too large or too small, government has NO BUSINESS attempting to regulate things it doesn't understand - such as CO2 emissions. So, then, industrialists should be able to emit any chemical they like in any amount they like unless the government can somehow prove to your satisfaction that it "understands" that chemical? I suppose that you GOPers believe Pacific Gas and Electric should have been permitted to pump chromium VI into the water table no matter how many folks got cancer from it? Because, after all, until Erin Brockovich came along no one really understood the link between the two. After all, making them stop would have cut into their profits, and in the GOP world, profits are the only thing that matters. And you guys wonder why your base is dwindling. First, Erin Brockovitch was a fraud. Most of the "evidence" she presented was falsified, or misrepresented. Same with a lot of the "disasters" that the enviroMarxists have invented to further their agenda. Second, until about 2 years ago, saturated fat was a "poison" as far as the government was concerned. Now we find out that it was all based on a falsified "report" from the 50's. Same with much of the government's "science". As for ice samples, when did that CO2 dissolve? Was the content higher then than now? Was it warmer? How long did it take for the concentrations at any given level to get there? fumento.com/brockovich/mickeyerin.html
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 22:10:50 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2015 22:10:50 GMT -5
Because OSHA is a part of this criminal regime, and are being told to do so. That, and the poison is in the dose. Under what conditions can one achieve 40,000 ppm, unless one does so intentionally? It is literally impossible to take you seriously because you are wrong about so much. Wrong about what, exactly? Is OSHA not part of the government? Is this government not doing it's best to destroy our economy? Is it not using the EPA and OSHA to derail and bankrupt as many businesses as possible? Is the EPA not colluding with enviroMarxists to lose lawsuits so it's "forced" to do what it wants to do anyway?
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 23:11:01 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 27, 2015 23:11:01 GMT -5
If CO2 is so harmless, why has the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) set a permissible exposure limit to it?... CO2 is present in the atmosphere at 0.035% As for that room filled with CO2... A value of 40,000 ppm is considered immediately dangerous to life and health based on the fact that a 30-minute exposure to 50,000 ppm produces intoxication, and concentrations greater than that (7-10%) produce unconsciousness... acute toxicity data shows the lethal concentration low for CO2 is 90,000 ppm (9%) over 5 minutes... DEATH... Fill a room with water, and put a human being in it, and he is also unlikely to last more than about 5 minutes. It doesn't mean water is toxic or a pollutant. We're not talking about water... (deleted)...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 23:14:04 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 27, 2015 23:14:04 GMT -5
If CO2 is so harmless, why has the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) set a permissible exposure limit to it?... CO2 is present in the atmosphere at 0.035% As for that room filled with CO2... A value of 40,000 ppm is considered immediately dangerous to life and health based on the fact that a 30-minute exposure to 50,000 ppm produces intoxication, and concentrations greater than that (7-10%) produce unconsciousness... acute toxicity data shows the lethal concentration low for CO2 is 90,000 ppm (9%) over 5 minutes... DEATH... Because OSHA is a part of this criminal regime, and are being told to do so. That, and the poison is in the dose. Under what conditions can one achieve 40,000 ppm, unless one does so intentionally? A lack of proper ventilation... bit at least your answer was better then Ranger John's idiotic comments...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 23:15:09 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 27, 2015 23:15:09 GMT -5
Because OSHA is a part of this criminal regime, and are being told to do so. That, and the poison is in the dose. Under what conditions can one achieve 40,000 ppm, unless one does so intentionally? It is literally impossible to take you seriously because you are wrong about so much. Don't overlook his comrade...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 23:24:25 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 27, 2015 23:24:25 GMT -5
First, Erin Brockovitch was a fraud. Most of the "evidence" she presented was falsified, or misrepresented. Same with a lot of the "disasters" that the enviroMarxists have invented to further their agenda. Second, until about 2 years ago, saturated fat was a "poison" as far as the government was concerned. Now we find out that it was all based on a falsified "report" from the 50's. Same with much of the government's "science". As for ice samples, when did that CO2 dissolve? Was the content higher then than now? Was it warmer? How long did it take for the concentrations at any given level to get there? fumento.com/brockovich/mickeyerin.htmlA "science reporter" who relies on tests performed at the offender's plant. Wow. You only convince me the GOP's gotta go. Fortunately, it looks like that's happening. Hopefully some kind of real conservatives will replace it, because the Dems need something to keep them honest.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 27, 2015 23:27:09 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 27, 2015 23:27:09 GMT -5
It is literally impossible to take you seriously because you are wrong about so much. Wrong about what, exactly? Is OSHA not part of the government? Is this government not doing it's best to destroy our economy? Is it not using the EPA and OSHA to derail and bankrupt as many businesses as possible? Is the EPA not colluding with enviroMarxists to lose lawsuits so it's "forced" to do what it wants to do anyway? You have got to dial back on reading the conservative conspiracy websites. They're not good for you!
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 5:55:49 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 28, 2015 5:55:49 GMT -5
Fill a room with water, and put a human being in it, and he is also unlikely to last more than about 5 minutes. It doesn't mean water is toxic or a pollutant. We're not talking about water... (deleted)... Only because doing so crushes your point. It is, after all, every bit as toxic, and every bit the pollutant, and about 3 times the greenhouse gas that CO2 is.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 9:01:10 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Jan 28, 2015 9:01:10 GMT -5
First, Erin Brockovitch was a fraud. Most of the "evidence" she presented was falsified, or misrepresented. Same with a lot of the "disasters" that the enviroMarxists have invented to further their agenda. Second, until about 2 years ago, saturated fat was a "poison" as far as the government was concerned. Now we find out that it was all based on a falsified "report" from the 50's. Same with much of the government's "science". As for ice samples, when did that CO2 dissolve? Was the content higher then than now? Was it warmer? How long did it take for the concentrations at any given level to get there? fumento.com/brockovich/mickeyerin.htmlA "science reporter" who relies on tests performed at the offender's plant. Wow. You only convince me the GOP's gotta go. Fortunately, it looks like that's happening. Hopefully some kind of real conservatives will replace it, because the Dems need something to keep them honest. You mean, as opposed to "science lawyers" who relied on tests performed by enviroMarxists? Wow. That entire lawsuit was nothing but emotional propaganda, and relied on the ignorance of those on the juries. None of the "evidence" presented had anything to do with any of the alleged illnesses. I'm all for science, when it's real science, and not political theater, corrupted and abused solely for a political position. And that's all "climate change" is. It's an attempt to get the weak minded and the LIV's to "vote" away all their, and our, liberty, for a mess of pottage. Those that are demanding slavery in exchange for "protection" from climate change are simply the modern equivilent of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 9:02:35 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Jan 28, 2015 9:02:35 GMT -5
Wrong about what, exactly? Is OSHA not part of the government? Is this government not doing it's best to destroy our economy? Is it not using the EPA and OSHA to derail and bankrupt as many businesses as possible? Is the EPA not colluding with enviroMarxists to lose lawsuits so it's "forced" to do what it wants to do anyway? You have got to dial back on reading the conservative conspiracy websites. They're not good for you! You mean like WSJ, WaPo, and NYT? All have shown the corruption of this regime, and all you have to do is listen to The Puppet's speeches to see the "conspiracy".
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 9:16:42 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 28, 2015 9:16:42 GMT -5
We're not talking about water... (deleted)... Only because doing so crushes your point. It is, after all, every bit as toxic, and every bit the pollutant, and about 3 times the greenhouse gas that CO2 is. Being in a room packed full of feces might render one dead in 5 minutes as well... and makes about as much sense to this particular discussion... after all, the conference does deal with CO2... not water... not feces...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 12:14:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ranger John on Jan 28, 2015 12:14:18 GMT -5
Only because doing so crushes your point. It is, after all, every bit as toxic, and every bit the pollutant, and about 3 times the greenhouse gas that CO2 is. Being in a room packed full of feces might render one dead in 5 minutes as well... and makes about as much sense to this particular discussion... after all, the conference does deal with CO2... not water... not feces... This thread exists because their attempts to deal with CO2 are hypocritical, absurd, and unscientific. Further proof this is going over your head as well, is the reality that water vapor is a much more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. In short, if they're not dealing with H2O as well, they're being deliberately unscientific and ignorant. The fact that they arrived in Davos in 1,700 separate private jets underscores their hypocrisy. As for CO2, no one really knows what the ideal levels ought to be, or indeed if such a thing as an ideal level exists. The same is true of global temperatures as well. There is as much scientific evidence to support the idea that pumping MORE CO2 into the atmosphere is beneficial as there is evidence that it is harmful. On the objective evidence side, all the evidence supports the contention that MORE CO2, and higher global temperatures are beneficial, rather than harmful. After all, they lead to longer growing seasons, and higher crop yields. Thus they contribute to the planet's ability to support life rather than undermine it as less CO2 and lower temperatures would.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 15:52:06 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 15:52:06 GMT -5
Being in a room packed full of feces might render one dead in 5 minutes as well... and makes about as much sense to this particular discussion... after all, the conference does deal with CO2... not water... not feces... This thread exists because their attempts to deal with CO2 are hypocritical, absurd, and unscientific. Further proof this is going over your head as well, is the reality that water vapor is a much more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. In short, if they're not dealing with H2O as well, they're being deliberately unscientific and ignorant. The fact that they arrived in Davos in 1,700 separate private jets underscores their hypocrisy. As for CO2, no one really knows what the ideal levels ought to be, or indeed if such a thing as an ideal level exists. The same is true of global temperatures as well. There is as much scientific evidence to support the idea that pumping MORE CO2 into the atmosphere is beneficial as there is evidence that it is harmful. On the objective evidence side, all the evidence supports the contention that MORE CO2, and higher global temperatures are beneficial, rather than harmful. After all, they lead to longer growing seasons, and higher crop yields. Thus they contribute to the planet's ability to support life rather than undermine it as less CO2 and lower temperatures would. Life is too short to read this ridiculous shìt.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 16:01:27 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 28, 2015 16:01:27 GMT -5
Being in a room packed full of feces might render one dead in 5 minutes as well... and makes about as much sense to this particular discussion... after all, the conference does deal with CO2... not water... not feces... This thread exists because their attempts to deal with CO2 are hypocritical, absurd, and unscientific. Further proof this is going over your head as well, is the reality that water vapor is a much more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. In short, if they're not dealing with H2O as well, they're being deliberately unscientific and ignorant. The fact that they arrived in Davos in 1,700 separate private jets underscores their hypocrisy. As for CO2, no one really knows what the ideal levels ought to be, or indeed if such a thing as an ideal level exists. The same is true of global temperatures as well. There is as much scientific evidence to support the idea that pumping MORE CO2 into the atmosphere is beneficial as there is evidence that it is harmful. On the objective evidence side, all the evidence supports the contention that MORE CO2, and higher global temperatures are beneficial, rather than harmful. After all, they lead to longer growing seasons, and higher crop yields. Thus they contribute to the planet's ability to support life rather than undermine it as less CO2 and lower temperatures would. According to St Ranger John 1:1...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 16:02:50 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 28, 2015 16:02:50 GMT -5
This thread exists because their attempts to deal with CO2 are hypocritical, absurd, and unscientific. Further proof this is going over your head as well, is the reality that water vapor is a much more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. In short, if they're not dealing with H2O as well, they're being deliberately unscientific and ignorant. The fact that they arrived in Davos in 1,700 separate private jets underscores their hypocrisy. As for CO2, no one really knows what the ideal levels ought to be, or indeed if such a thing as an ideal level exists. The same is true of global temperatures as well. There is as much scientific evidence to support the idea that pumping MORE CO2 into the atmosphere is beneficial as there is evidence that it is harmful. On the objective evidence side, all the evidence supports the contention that MORE CO2, and higher global temperatures are beneficial, rather than harmful. After all, they lead to longer growing seasons, and higher crop yields. Thus they contribute to the planet's ability to support life rather than undermine it as less CO2 and lower temperatures would. Life is too short to read this ridiculous shìt. You got that right... maybe he needs to call someone who could give him some good advice... perhaps Dick Cheney...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 16:24:01 GMT -5
Post by stevez51 on Jan 28, 2015 16:24:01 GMT -5
I thought Davos was a poster here who needed help.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 17:42:04 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 28, 2015 17:42:04 GMT -5
This thread exists because their attempts to deal with CO2 are hypocritical, absurd, and unscientific. Further proof this is going over your head as well, is the reality that water vapor is a much more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. In short, if they're not dealing with H2O as well, they're being deliberately unscientific and ignorant. The fact that they arrived in Davos in 1,700 separate private jets underscores their hypocrisy. As for CO2, no one really knows what the ideal levels ought to be, or indeed if such a thing as an ideal level exists. The same is true of global temperatures as well. There is as much scientific evidence to support the idea that pumping MORE CO2 into the atmosphere is beneficial as there is evidence that it is harmful. On the objective evidence side, all the evidence supports the contention that MORE CO2, and higher global temperatures are beneficial, rather than harmful. After all, they lead to longer growing seasons, and higher crop yields. Thus they contribute to the planet's ability to support life rather than undermine it as less CO2 and lower temperatures would. According to St Ranger John 1:1... No. That's scientific fact. CO2 is plant food. More of it in the atmosphere will cause plants to flourish. A warmer climate will also expand the amount of arable land. Both of these are unquestionably good things for all life on this planet. A colder climate - especially one that falls into a new ice age - will reduce food supplies and will be catastrophic for humanity in ways a warmer climate could never be. Now I realize both you and Bald Eagle have your marching orders from the First Church of the Environment (Fundamentalist), but you're the one using religious thinking here, not me.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 18:05:12 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 28, 2015 18:05:12 GMT -5
That's scientific fact. CO2 is plant food. Too rich not to preserve. To me, clear evidence you're working from Limbaugh's talking points or some GOP flyer. CO2 is not food. It bears the same *daytime* relation to plants that O2 does to us; it is what they "breathe". If you don't know that "scientific fact" I must wonder about your understanding of the more complex issues surrounding the carbon cycle. More of it in the atmosphere will cause plants to flourish. A warmer climate will also expand the amount of arable land. Both of these are unquestionably good things for all life on this planet. It will also melt the ice caps. This will decrease the planet's albedo, which will lead to trapping still more energy. Lowlying coastal areas, some of which are also arable, will flood. People will be displaced, and since *someone* owns every piece of land, where will they go when theirs disappears? Most species depend on specific temperatures for optimal growth. This follows from the fact that the chemical reactions of life have become optimized by evolution (I'll wash my mouth out with soap for using that word where GOPers could read it later) for specific temperatures. Too hot is as bad as too cold. Species will be forced north, seeking their optimal temperatures. That will cause wholesale disruption of ecosystems, and likely impact food production. There's just a lot that the Kochs and their puppets, the GOP, do not want you to understand about this. It's more complicated than their talking points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 18:13:21 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 18:13:21 GMT -5
According to St Ranger John 1:1... No. That's scientific fact. CO2 is plant food. More of it in the atmosphere will cause plants to flourish. A warmer climate will also expand the amount of arable land. Both of these are unquestionably good things for all life on this planet. A colder climate - especially one that falls into a new ice age - will reduce food supplies and will be catastrophic for humanity in ways a warmer climate could never be. Now I realize both you and Bald Eagle have your marching orders from the First Church of the Environment (Fundamentalist), but you're the one using religious thinking here, not me. Too funny! Unlike your goodself and the ditto heads on this forum, I do not March in lockstep with any political or religious body, I take orders from no one, well perhaps some selected ones from Mrs. BE. Furthermore, I quite frequently disagree with aboutwells positions and I'm sure he often disagrees with mine. It's known as free thinking, of course, you rightie guys wouldn't know much about that.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 18:45:54 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 28, 2015 18:45:54 GMT -5
That's scientific fact. CO2 is plant food. Too rich not to preserve. To me, clear evidence you're working from Limbaugh's talking points or some GOP flyer. CO2 is not food. It bears the same *daytime* relation to plants that O2 does to us; it is what they "breathe". If you don't know that "scientific fact" I must wonder about your understanding of the more complex issues surrounding the carbon cycle. Again, you get it wrong. And no, I didn't get it from Limbaugh - it's science. Don't let your religious beliefs get in the way of your understanding. Here's a brief explanation of photosynthesis at Wikipedia: WIKI[emphasis mine] Clearly your own understanding is lacking on the carbon cycle. Maybe yes, and maybe no. The truth is we don't really know that the ice caps will melt. There hasn't been much evidence at the South Pole. But lets say the ice caps do melt completely.... and that huge continent at the south pole that no one currently lives on all of a sudden becomes inhabitable. Oh wait... no.. that undermines your concerns about where people will go when they're displaced. Lets forget about that. It amuses me that everyone seems to think all of the climate 'feedback loops' are positive. Somehow the earth managed to drop into an ice age several thousand years ago, in spite of the apparent belief that warming only adds to itself. I would say this is good proof that the apparent belief is fatally flawed. We know that the Earth has been both much colder and much warmer than it is today. Including before humans existed. It is probable that it will be both much warmer and much cooler again in the future, in spite of human involvement... because the human impact on the environment is almost certainly dramatically over-stated. The simple truth is that we do not understand the global climate sufficiently to support the claims of the eco-nuts. It is entirely possible that human activity has a net cooling effect on the earth (indeed, that was the "scientific consensus" as recently as 40 years ago), and that any warming that takes place, is taking place IN SPITE of us, rather than because of us. The ONLY thing we really know is that the Earth's climate is changing. We know it always has, and it probably always will. It has NEVER been static. So the question I have for you, is since we're faced with a choice between further warming, or cooling that would almost certainly eventually put us in another ice age (the status quo can not be maintained), why in AlGore's name, would you choose the ice age? You listed a whole bunch of possible horrors that may or may not come about due to warmer temperatures and rising oceans. They absolutely pale in comparison to a 3,000 foot high sheet of ice that would start somewhere near my front door in Central PA. Why in the world is that where you want the planet to go? Because that's the alternative you're putting out there as the goal. There's a lot you clearly don't understand about this. And it's not the Koch's fault. It's what you think of as "science" which is, in fact, politics pretending to be science.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 20:44:10 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 28, 2015 20:44:10 GMT -5
For the unscientific folks who are sure CO2 is a problem, here's a brief history: LINKAs you will notice, historically speaking, atmospheric CO2 levels are very near historic lows for Earth. And they really don't correlate well with climate temperature. I also strongly recommend the Penn & Teller Bullstuff! episode on Environmental Hysteria for those of you who think what's going on in Davos is a sensible thing. It does contain some strong language, and you'll have to subscribe to Showtime or Amazon to get it. But it is well worth the education it will provide to you.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 28, 2015 20:57:48 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Jan 28, 2015 20:57:48 GMT -5
That's scientific fact. CO2 is plant food. Too rich not to preserve. To me, clear evidence you're working from Limbaugh's talking points or some GOP flyer. CO2 is not food. It bears the same *daytime* relation to plants that O2 does to us; it is what they "breathe". If you don't know that "scientific fact" I must wonder about your understanding of the more complex issues surrounding the carbon cycle. More of it in the atmosphere will cause plants to flourish. A warmer climate will also expand the amount of arable land. Both of these are unquestionably good things for all life on this planet. It will also melt the ice caps. This will decrease the planet's albedo, which will lead to trapping still more energy. Lowlying coastal areas, some of which are also arable, will flood. People will be displaced, and since *someone* owns every piece of land, where will they go when theirs disappears? Most species depend on specific temperatures for optimal growth. This follows from the fact that the chemical reactions of life have become optimized by evolution (I'll wash my mouth out with soap for using that word where GOPers could read it later) for specific temperatures. Too hot is as bad as too cold. Species will be forced north, seeking their optimal temperatures. That will cause wholesale disruption of ecosystems, and likely impact food production. There's just a lot that the Kochs and their puppets, the GOP, do not want you to understand about this. It's more complicated than their talking points. Really? So, with "record" levels currently, that must be why we have "record" levels of Antarctic ice, and Arctic ice growing. And all those poor polar bears, said to be dying out, I guess their record and increasing numbers are just Kock Bros plots as well. As for optimized by evolution, how many species die out every year, just to be replaced by a new species? Things like that have been going on since there's been life on this ball of mud, and Liberals won't change that, no matter how much angst and hair pulling they engage in.
|
|