dorbie 0 #26 April 9, 2007 Quote>Can I breathe without buying a carbon offset though, that's a freebie right? Only if you have a fern in your SUV. On the plus side, if you name your fern, you can drive in the HOV lane. But if I have a fern in my SUV I have to pipe the exhaust inside so it can consume all the bad CO2, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #27 April 9, 2007 QuoteQuote>Can I breathe without buying a carbon offset though, that's a freebie right? Only if you have a fern in your SUV. On the plus side, if you name your fern, you can drive in the HOV lane. But if I have a fern in my SUV I have to pipe the exhaust inside so it can consume all the bad CO2, right? That would be CO, and the fern can't handle that...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #28 April 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote>Can I breathe without buying a carbon offset though, that's a freebie right? Only if you have a fern in your SUV. On the plus side, if you name your fern, you can drive in the HOV lane. But if I have a fern in my SUV I have to pipe the exhaust inside so it can consume all the bad CO2, right? That would be CO, and the fern can't handle that... CO? Did he disable his air pump and catalytic converter?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #29 April 9, 2007 QuoteQuote> Your reply to my point actually vindicated my position. I have no problem with someone buying a huge house, or owning a huge car either. However, buying the burden on to someone else is not responsible behavior. . Of course it does. It's capitalism in action for the benefit of everyone. Don't forget, pollution credits were invented by the GOP. Free market trading is the most efficient economic mechanism in existence.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #30 April 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Can I breathe without buying a carbon offset though, that's a freebie right? Only if you have a fern in your SUV. On the plus side, if you name your fern, you can drive in the HOV lane. But if I have a fern in my SUV I have to pipe the exhaust inside so it can consume all the bad CO2, right? That would be CO, and the fern can't handle that... CO? Did he disable his air pump and catalytic converter? Carbon Monoxide is the main exhaust gas...it's my understanding that plants can handle CO2, but not CO...am I wrong?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #31 April 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Can I breathe without buying a carbon offset though, that's a freebie right? Only if you have a fern in your SUV. On the plus side, if you name your fern, you can drive in the HOV lane. But if I have a fern in my SUV I have to pipe the exhaust inside so it can consume all the bad CO2, right? That would be CO, and the fern can't handle that... CO? Did he disable his air pump and catalytic converter? Carbon Monoxide is the main exhaust gas...it's my understanding that plants can handle CO2, but not CO...am I wrong? You are wrong: www.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter1.htm www.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #32 April 9, 2007 >Carbon Monoxide is the main exhaust gas...it's my understanding >that plants can handle CO2, but not CO...am I wrong? Used to be true; nowadays it depends on the car. An SULEV car's exhaust contains only nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water; everything else (NOx, CO, SOx, particulates, hydrocarbons) are present in very, very small trace amounts. Maximum emissions allowed under SULEV at the 120,000 mile point: CO <1 g/m (gram per mile) NOx <.02 g/m Particulates <.01 g/m Organics <.014 g/m SOx depends purely on fuel; most gas has almost no sulfur in it And of course that's an old car; a new car will be even better. It's getting so it's impossible to kill yourself by idling your car in the garage! If you drive through LA on a bad smog day, the gas coming out of the tailpipe has fewer pollutants than the air that entered the engine intake. If you piped it into a greenhouse, the plants would love it. (Might have to add a little oxygen, though - plants need oxygen too.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #33 April 9, 2007 Quote(Might have to add a little oxygen, though - plants need oxygen too.) Photosynthesis would help you out there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #34 April 9, 2007 >Photosynthesis would help you out there. True, but night gets in the way there. Fortunately you need only a small amount of oxygen (less than .5psi ppO2) to keep plants alive at night. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #35 April 9, 2007 QuoteLook Al Gore's movie is alarmist bullshit, but that does not mean there isn't a serious problem that scientists have uncovered. There is a significant human contribution to climate change, that's the science. The video explains that when this is modelled it correlates with observations, when it is not modelled it diverges, these are not simple models they're talking about.Maybe we should adopt China's policy on child birth. Only one. But we still have to deal with the overpopulation of the third world. That's easy. If there aren't enough people around to run the farms, the third world will starve to death. See, nature always regulates itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #36 April 9, 2007 >If there aren't enough people around to run the farms, the third world will starve to death. Not sure what you're saying here. If they have too many people, they'll have problems, but if they don't have too many people, they'll starve? Generally fewer people means you need less food. Same percentage of people have to farm though (or run farms, or whatever.) >See, nature always regulates itself. True, and a nuclear war would accomplish the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #37 April 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteLook Al Gore's movie is alarmist bullshit,Maybe we should adopt China's policy on child birth. Only one. Applied retroactively to Gore? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #38 April 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Can I breathe without buying a carbon offset though, that's a freebie right? Only if you have a fern in your SUV. On the plus side, if you name your fern, you can drive in the HOV lane. But if I have a fern in my SUV I have to pipe the exhaust inside so it can consume all the bad CO2, right? That would be CO, and the fern can't handle that... CO? Did he disable his air pump and catalytic converter? Carbon Monoxide is the main exhaust gas...it's my understanding that plants can handle CO2, but not CO...am I wrong? You are wrong: www.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter1.htm www.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter2.htm You are correct...I was wrong, CO is not a "main" emission, but it is still an emission, i.e. the exhaust in the garage...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #39 April 10, 2007 Quote You are correct...I was wrong, CO is not a "main" emission, but it is still an emission, i.e. the exhaust in the garage... That's what makes the suggestion funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #40 April 10, 2007 Before you swallow the Attenbourgh vid watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ZU2pVfbQI Also the subsequent parts, its a scientific exploration of the facts. I used to belive the human CO2 tripe before I saw this. Now I simply don't belive that global warming is caused by CO2. The evidence simply isn't there.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #41 April 11, 2007 (That is global warming isn't caused by human produced CO2.)When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #42 April 11, 2007 QuoteBefore you swallow the Attenbourgh vid watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ZU2pVfbQI Also the subsequent parts, its a scientific exploration of the facts. I used to belive the human CO2 tripe before I saw this. Now I simply don't belive that global warming is caused by CO2. The evidence simply isn't there. Well, if it's on Youtube it must be true. Meanwhile, the IPCC and their peer reviewed researchers are just a load of idiots.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #43 April 11, 2007 It was taken from the BBC if I remember correctly. Did you bother to watch it before passing comment Prof?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #44 April 11, 2007 QuoteIt was taken from the BBC if I remember correctly. Did you bother to watch it before passing comment Prof? www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/04/11/gingrich_drops_skepticism_on_global_warming/ Newt Gingrich and I prefer to believe the IPCC.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #45 April 11, 2007 So you form your opinions dismissing the opposing evidence without even looking at it? Not a scientific approach, I'm suprised.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #46 April 11, 2007 QuoteNewt Gingrich and I prefer to believe the IPCC. I believe the scientists in the IPCC. The non-scientists that write the drivel such as the political statement for policy makers are almost as bad as Al Gore. It's interesting that a number of scientists have quit the IPCC after seeing how their findings were being presented. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #47 April 11, 2007 From your link :- Quote"I'm not going to stand up here and defend our failure to lead," said Gingrich, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and plans to release a book in the fall burnishing his environmental credentials. Well I can certainly see why Newt believes the IPCC Whats your reason John? Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #48 April 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteNewt Gingrich and I prefer to believe the IPCC. I believe the scientists in the IPCC. The non-scientists that write the drivel such as the political statement for policy makers are almost as bad as Al Gore. It's interesting that a number of scientists have quit the IPCC after seeing how their findings were being presented. This development was quite telling: QuoteStephen McIntyre, an IPCC reviewer, attempted to obtained unpublished research which was cited by the IPCC drafts he was reviewing. He found that it was impossible to get access this data. When, following up on a suggestion by one of the researchers, he requested the data from the Journal of Geophysical Research, the IPCC threatened to remove his credentials as an expert reviewer and accused him of using "your access to unpublished material on our review web site to attempt to influence editorial decisions by the Journal of Geophysical Research". McIntyre claims that he sought the data for the sole purpose of reviewing the IPCC report and that he never did anything of the sort. As of March 2007, McIntyre has still not been able to obtain the data used in the cited papers. McIntyre recommends that the "IPCC should require authors who submitted papers for citation to consent to provide data." The IPCC has responded that to do so would be interfering with journals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #49 April 11, 2007 If you watch the documentry you'll see the facts are based on hard scientific research by leading scientists.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #50 April 11, 2007 > If you watch the documentry you'll see the facts are based on hard >scientific research by leading scientists. If you really care about the science, it generally pays to pay more attention to peer-reviewed journal articles than Youtube movies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
