1 2 3
yes, yes, let's do an experiement! :)
6/19/2012 7:19:48 AM
Please, even if you won't do the C02 experiment, at least cut off your own balls before the gene pool is further weakened you utter fool.
6/19/2012 7:37:27 AM
I'm sorry, not poisonous to human beings? Do me a favor, take a nice loose plastic bag, put it over your head and hold it shut. Breath normally for a while. See what happens.
6/19/2012 7:47:16 AM
We're not worried that co2 will suffocate us. We're worried about the disastrous consequences of a quick rise in temperatures on our environment, water cycles and food supply, as well as the largely unpredictable feedback loops of global warming through the release of artic methane, reduction of white surface of the earth and dieoff of tropical forests.
Edit: there are a number of groups - religious nuts, free market enthusiasts, even the traditional labour movement - whose kneejerk reaction to any suggestion that we shouldn't dig, burn and throw away as much as we possibly can is one of instictive, blind, aggressive denial. I understand wishful thinking, but why the fuck is it so hard to get that we shouldn't sink the boat we sail in?
6/19/2012 7:51:06 AM
Trees give off carbon dioxide; all the plants around us give it off.
Someone missed biology class that day.
6/19/2012 7:58:25 AM
"The fact is some scientists have done some studies saying we’ve got a carbon dioxide shortage right now. That then causes plants to die, that causes environmental damage."
Is this guy trying to justify his massive CO2 footprint by saying it's doing a service to the natural world?
6/19/2012 8:14:19 AM
I can say this with absolute confidence: You are utterly wrong on everything you asserted here.
6/19/2012 8:35:43 AM
Trees DO in fact give off CO2.
I give this yahoo answers answer for its clarity, not its authority. The answerer reiterates what my High School biology teacher taught.
I infer that the OP's claim about Carbon dioxide shortage relates to the fact that plants do better under higher CO2 levels than they do today, all other things being equal.
The average weather conditions over the last thirty years are still better than the long term average. I've seen reputable studies that satisfy me on that, though I don't have the citation handy on this computer.
His wording seems to me to be sophistry, intended to imply more than he can validly claim, but his facts are accurate, with the exception of vegetative death right now.
I don't doubt the existance of global warming, but the most alarmed claims are as overhyped as Ehrlich's overpopulation claims were back when I was a boy. He proclaimed the need for compulsory race based sterilisations or 50 percent of all species would be dead by 2000, all of us dead by 2015. U.S. population was to crash to 30 million by 2000, and a number of other disasters were prophesised.
Likewise the world didn't see fifty million climate refugees by 2010, a billion dead by 2012, or an ice-free Arctic by 2012.
Extra heat from CO2 is subject to the law of diminishing returns, while cooling down is a function of the fourth power of the temperature above absolute zero.
Global warming has not yet reached the temperatures that geologists refer to as 'global climactic optimums'.
While I agree its a potential future environmental problem, the worst-case scenarios have already failed to come to pass. I personally judge that helping the world's human population pass the demographic transition is a much better way of dealing with that and all other environmental crises than anything else on offer.
6/19/2012 8:40:10 AM
The fact is some scientists have done some studies saying we’ve got a carbon dioxide shortage right now.
And I've been led to believe Tom DeWeese is having a cyanide shortage.
Lying for Jeebus (the fundy Jesus, not the real, nice Jesus)....that's the only way I could explain this!
I believe we all have an evil twin inside us, I know I do, the dirty bastard plays pranks on me all the time; loses keys, hides glasses, etc. It's yin & yang, or Jekyll & Hyde maybe. Jesus is also apparently a split personality. The difference is Evil Jesus has most of the followers.
6/19/2012 9:00:34 AM
I do believe that trees do give off a very small amount of Carbon Dioxide. Though it is less than they use up, and less than the Oxygen they release. Hmm.
6/19/2012 9:08:15 AM
Suck on an car exhaust pipe. Don't worry it's perfectly safe.
6/19/2012 9:15:01 AM
That last sentence exhibits the vast ignorance this man has.
6/19/2012 9:22:02 AM
Oh for fuck's sake. Plants take in water and CO2. They use them to make sugar and give off O2 as a waste product.
Animals take in that oxygen and water and exhale CO2 as a waste. CO2 is poisonous to us, just as O2 is poisonous to plants. This is fucking grade school level biology. Just another example as to why we shouldn't let creationists teach anything, even if it's how to cook an egg.
6/19/2012 9:35:26 AM
CO2 is the ENTIRE reason we breathe out. Becuase it's fucking toxic. You tool.
Also I'd like to be introduced to the work of the scientists saying there's not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. It must be quite extraordinary, what with knowing for a certain fact that levels are higher than they've been for a long time.
6/19/2012 10:45:29 AM
6/19/2012 12:02:05 PM
Tom Deweese is a liar.
That is all.
6/19/2012 12:08:06 PM
CO2 not poisonous? Well, not exactly, though I encourage you to breathe straight CO2 for a few minutes. Most, if not quite all, scientists aren't saying CO2 is poisonous, just that too much of it and other gases have negative effect on our plantet.
You might want to rethink who you are calling idiots.
6/19/2012 12:48:08 PM
Are you fucking cereal?!
6/19/2012 12:57:41 PM
It's always nice to remember that in spite of all the advancement and available knowledge in our society, there will always be those too insane or retarded to pick up a goddamned third grade science book.
6/19/2012 1:00:19 PM
breathe only co2 and you will die. It may not be poisonous but you cant breathe it alone. Plants only use co2 during photosynthesis, I believe the other part of the cycle is o2 intake and co2 output.
6/19/2012 1:06:38 PM
Big Jilm, do I maybe know you?
6/19/2012 1:09:53 PM
Gentlemen, I give you Wikipedia:
6/19/2012 1:29:48 PM
Every time we have a dry season or we have strong hurricanes or we have a really hot summer or a mild winter, these idiots start this drumbeat again, ‘global warming, see here’s what it is.’
No climate scientist has ever said any such thing. In fact they keep telling us that global warming has nothing to do with local weather conditions. Tom would know that if he listened to somebody besides Rush and Glenn.
I can say this with absolute confidence, there is no evidence of man-made global warming causing problems.
I've never understood where these people get their information from. I'm sure Tom's not climate scientist himself, and almost everyone who is a climate scientist has said there is man-made global warming. So where does he get a statement like this from? And why would "they" make stuff up about a non-existent global warming? As investigators often say when looking for a motive, "cui bono" (who benefits). Only the ones who want to deny global warming have any sort of financial incentive. They're the ones paying to keep suckers like Tom doing their dirty work for them.
6/19/2012 1:50:48 PM
The USA is the only country on the face of the planet where a whole class of people, i.e. conservatives, deny anthropogenic global warming. Save for the occasional oddball, all over the rest of the world even the staunchest conservatives accept some degree of AGW as the truth.
The world is laughing at us, very loudly.
When the French stiill want to believe in the existence of the Grande Nation and think their language is still internationally important, that's just silly.
When conservative America denies AGW, that's deadly.
You can't deny the truth just so you can drive your SUV with a good conscience, call recycling un-American and waste, waste, waste as a God given life style.
What a shame there's no Hell. You belong there.
6/19/2012 1:52:53 PM
Yes, trees and other plants DO give off carbon dioxide--this is a side effect of the process that allows them to survive in the dark, by burning sugars they made and stored using sunlight by day. The amount of CO2 released is quite small compared to what animals generate, or compared to the amount they take in by day, and it would have to be or life on Earth as we know it really wouldn't be possible.
Unfortunately, it's the ONLY fact he managed to get right, and given the context, it only makes the rest of his comment look even more screamingly wrong than it already is.
The climate change denialists are slowly moving their goalposts from "outright denial" to "so what if it IS happening, there's no proof it's hurting anything."
6/19/2012 2:13:04 PM
1 2 3