CO2

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, Jul 2, 2009.

  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Is it a pollutant or plant food? Should it be regulated? Why or why not?

    Discuss...
     

  2. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Neither, it is a greenhouse gas.

    In sustainable quantities it is plantfood but in excessive quantities it si a pollutant.

    The problem is with Co2's very nature, it is plant food and plants consume it, the plant dies and then tunrs to soil, oil, coal, etc... trapping the Co2 within it, we then burn it and release the Co2 back into the environment. The problem being and when it becomes a pollutant is that we are releasing hundreds of thousands of years of collected Co2 that has been trapped inside the earth and pumping it into the atmosphere. At the same time we are destroying the food cycle by killing the natural Co2 predator; plants.

    It is great that we can burn fuels and use the suns energy that was given to the planet all those years agao, but we must also be realistic in understanding that when we use that energy we must also put back the gases that were trapped with it. At present we are doing this to excess, so Co2 is a pollutant.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2009
  3. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2009
  4. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I'm not going to derail this thread but respond with the fact that CO2 is a natural gas in the atmosphere. It is essential for the life cycle of earth. Plants absorb it, and give us O2... I mean this is stuff I learned in 5th grade science class.

    The point I was making about the media is the fact that they only present one side of the argument and it's no wonder people only believe that global warming is happening. The facts show that it's not, NASA scientists have proven earth is going into a cooling period, link but do you hear that on the main stream media? No, because the media is controlled by liberal elitists that want to tax us into oblivion based on a hoax. They aren't going to present the other side of the argument because of their political bottom line as I have stated. I live in the north east... here we are on the 3rd of July and it's only in the 60's right now. It should be at least 90 degrees.

    As I said, CO2 is not a pollutant, it's plant food.
     
  5. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    Did you read the article you posted? From the article:

     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2009
  6. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Yes I did, but the fact still stands that it does in fact absorb CO2 regardless of how much. There is a natural earth cycle that regulates the CO2, O2 cycle. the ocean is just a large piece of the pie. There are thousands of other factors the help eliminate CO2 as well. The fact is you can't get rid of it no matter how hard you try, it has to go somewhere. Capping it doesn't make it go away, it just means it stays somewhere else.

    Also you missed that last part in regards to CO2 killing animals etc...

    How do you take that for fact when that process hasn't even been studied?
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2009
  7. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    The point of capping it isn't to get rid of it, but to release less of it. Incidentally, you can get rid of it. If you heat it up and combine it with lithium hydroxide, you get lithium carbonate and water. Carbon dioxide scrubber.

    It's been studied, as the article would seem to indicate, just not in the ocean. You can dissolve some carbon dioxide in saltwater containing shellfish to see what happens, without going to the ocean.
     
    pro2A likes this.
  8. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    Pro, the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 released by men is fact and unanimously agreed upon by the scientific community. You can easily simulate it in any greenhouse and see how it works.

    It's true that CO2 is a vital compound important for the functioning of the ecological system, but that does not mean it does not have devastating effects if released in horrendous quantities way above the natural release rate. As Bananas said, the natural emission of CO2 is much lower than the current, man-made emissions -- if we weren't burning fossil fuels, only so much CO2 would be released as the ecological system can swallow. But we emit many more times as much as would be natural.

    Your problem is that you are trapped in bi-partisan thinking: Anything will be wrong and bad for you, as long as "the other side" advances it, and at the same time, you will agree with everything "your side" says. But global warming is too serious an issue to be considered a partisan issue. It can and most likely will have devastating effects for global climate, resulting in famines, floods, natural disasters affecting many people, if no action is taken.

    This should be an issue above partisan bickering. If you still have doubts about the fact that every single serious scientist agrees global warming does exist and most likely is caused by man-made emissions, you should try to inform yourself by other sources than low-quality far right propaganda, instead of discarding any piece of information that doesn't come from FOX News or a talk-radio host as "liberal".
     
  9. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I'm sorry, Sim, I just have to call you on this. You chastised Pro for saying this above partisan bickering and of course have to throw the "Fox News" insult which adds nothing, then make the partisan claim that "every single serious scientist agrees with global warming does exist and most likely is caused by man-made emissions". Not true. First, you obviously claim than only scientists who believe that are serious (so those that don't are circus clowns?) then claim this "global warming" does exist and is most likely caused by man. Not true, there are MANY scientist (serious ones also of you can believe that) that don't agree man-made emissions are warming the planet, and actually, about half of the hottest years on record in the 1900's occurred before WWII.

    It's not a known fact. There are some that believe what you've written, and some that don't. I would suggest you heed your own advice, and let's get away from labels such as "low-quality right-wing propoganda", it really ruins the rest of the argument that you made.
     
  10. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    It's funny, in the whole world, there is a consensus about this in the scientific community. Leading scientists who were invited to climate conferences at the UN found temperature is heating and will surpass 2 degrees by the mid of the century. Every second week, there is a new study supporting it.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Here the key findings published in their report:
    The ice in Greenland has already melted considerably and farmers there now have 2 more months without ice to grow their crop.

    AM - Greenland ice sheets melting: Global warming advances faster than anticipated

    This panel of the world's leading scientists found such a consensus almost two decades ago already -- the only place in the whole world where people still deny these scientific findings is America, as if large parts of the media have lived under a rock in the past 20 years. I'm not sure why that is, but it probably isn't surprising considering there are people who advocate that some schools are banning Darwinism and evolution from school curricula and instead are teaching the world was created 6000 years ago.

    Maybe it's also because of the sensationalist media -- people are so used to horror scenarios advanced in the yellow press and private TV channels they hardly pay attention to it. The media has been crying "wolf" so often already when there was none, so people don't listen anymore when the wolf is actually there.

    So yes, it's true that scientists who disagree with these facts are neither numerous, nor dominant in the debate. Should they be taken seriously and be given equal attention for the sake of "fairness" and "balance", although they are isolated?

    Also, in many cases, it's worth to look at the money behind these studies which allegedly find there is no global warming -- coincidentally (what a surprise!), many of them are funded by oil companies or other organizations whose interests conflict with climate protection. I remember there was such a study a while ago, which was financed by Shell, IIRC. We have to keep the eyes open.

    ------
    Sorry, but claiming FOX News is right-wing is not a label, it's a hard fact obvious for everybody who has ever watched FOX News. FOX does not even attempt to be neutral. It's a common policy that they attach a "D" to the names of Republican politicians involved in scandals, to evoke the impression if something is bad, it must be liberal. FOX is placing partisan loyalty over truth and information. I think you can admit as much, even if you like to watch FOX.

    And this is not just a baseless claim from my side -- there are even studies which found FOX has a right bias:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/business/media/18scene.html

    Another study has found that people watching FOX News are statistically much more misinformed about important facts than people who rely on other news sources:

    Asia Times -
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2009

Share This Page