WTF is "carbon pollution"? surely it is not carbon dioxyde but carbon monoxyde you are talking about... you seem very confused  Of course it's carbon dioxyde, carbon monoxyde is another subject. And it's pollution because it's an addition on nature by humans. That's just the definition: human production that change natural state. That's the definition, if you're not happy with it change the word. Well, since co2 is a natural gas, then it cannot be a pollutant, except to the extent that someone decides they can differentiate between co2 give off by man as a pollutant, but that occurring naturally to not be. The problem with is in an effort to define a naturally occurring material as something good, below a certain level, and bad, a pollutant, above a certain level, and only when above that level through the acts of man. Anyone who does not see the problem with that is crazy. |
|
|
|
Atheism is poison? Don't you mean Poison are atheists?
Many good things are poisons, they are just metered in small amounts. Lisinophil, a blood pressure medicine is modeled directly after the venom of the Fer De Lanc snake. Coffee, in sufficient doses will kill you. |
|
|
|
Twitter users threaten to move to Mexico if Trump is electedTwitter users are most frequently naming Mexico as the country they would move to BE MOVED TO if Donald Trump wins the White House..... Well it would probably be the best thing to do indeed :-/ Read the above as ... corrected ... |
|
|
|
Trump will be quite happy with the results. He has gained all the 44 delegates declared so far, from South Carolina. The primaries in SC followed the "winner takes all" methodology, so everyone else got ZERO delegates. His next challenge will be to win the Nevada caucus on February 23. It will be tough. Jeb has dropped out of the race. So his votes will go to Rubio, and to a smaller extent to Kasich and Carson.
Just hope Trump will win the first step. Then Bernie Sanders will crush him ^^By vomiting cheetos? |
|
|
|
In a different perspective, some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.
You should also count those non-Muslims who were killed by the Muslims. A few examples here: 1. 2 million Animist South-Sudanese killed by the Sudanese Arabs from 1983 to 2011. 2. 3 million Hindus exterminated by Pakistani Muslims during the 1971 Liberation of Bangladesh. 3. Thousands of Buddhists killed by Muslims in Chittagong Hill Tracts from 1977-2016. 4. A total of 400,000 indigenous people exterminated by Indonesian Muslims in New Guinea, 1962-2016. 5. A total of 300,000 indigenous people exterminated by Indonesian Muslims in Timor, 1975-1999. 6. Tens of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) killed by Muslims during 1989-2016. 7. More than 6,000 Greek Christians exterminated by Turkish Muslims, during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. I agree. #7, my friends from Greece say it was way, way more than 6,000. |
|
|
|
It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition.
That makes zero sense. Unscientific, politically biased propaganda. The carbon cycle is well understood. No you're stupid. If humans change the concentration of CO2, the carbon cycle changes. That's all. No, the carbon cycle does not change one bit. I don't think you even understand what you are saying. Even IF in worst case nutcase zealot Warmer the polar ice cap melted, the carbon cycle would not change. However, if you actually believe that, support it with actual facts, instead of proclaiming people stupid. Ok here is the fact: Without humans nature absorbs X amount of CO2 With humans nature has to absorb X + Y amount of CO Hence the cycle of CO2 is changed. I didn't say it was a huge amount, I didn't say it would break the cycle or anything. But the cycle changes and THAT'S WHY it's called pollution! Because it's the main definition of pollution... No, and I knew that's what you meant. But it's incorrect because the carbon cycle is unchanged. Varying one flow or one parameter does not change the cycle. It's like talking about winter and summer or day and night. I'm wondering now if anyone even knows what pollution is. Go to Beijing, the minute you step out of the airport terminal you will learn real fast. It's the stink, crushing unbearable air. Never seeing the sun from the muck in the sky. Nature has no problem absorbing the carbon that man emits. None whatsoever. This is really a different subject than "climate change." It's an attempt to ascribe more evil and terrible to carbon than just climate change. All life on Earth is carbon based. Carbon is not evil or terrible. Carbon is simply a very reactive atomic element which has high energy forms (think say methane) and very low energy forms, like carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle is all of these flows. Life is in the middle of them. |
|
|
|
This is a topic that I completely agree with you. You can't really "categorize" an entire religion for a few people's actions.
Sure you can categorize an entire religion for a few people's actions. You can make this statement. "The Catholic church has a problem with pedophile priests." And you can make this statement. "Islam has a serious problem with barbaric extremists committing atrocities." And you can say "Preachers' daughters are hot." What's the big deal? (the next thing that happens is the intellectually dishonest argument "All muslims are not terrorists." This is the logical fallacy "Straw Man." The person bringing it is arguing against an argument that was never made, thinking that nobody will notice. That is what this OP is - a straw man argument logical fallacy.) |
|
|
|
Could we agree on the fact that most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....
We created them....
No, that's ridiculous. I rarely disagree with you, but you're wrong on this one. The US and the USSR went out of their way to create this mess for over 80 years. One easy example being Saddam Hussein, who's Ba'ath revolution was almost entirely financed via CIA arranged pipelines. This is pretty well documented and public knowledge. Another one, the Shah of Iran. Prior to the British Mandate, the Arab nations pretty much restricted themselves to killing each other. Not good, but not a global issue. They though Westerners were strange, but bought oil by the shipload, so they tolerated us. It would probably have turned out a lot different if the US and USSR weren't playing "let's you and him fight" all over the world. ... You are reciting the anti-neo colonial rhetoric. Here's the problem. To note how we encouraged various dictators in that area and such does not equate to distorsions of history which makes, somehow in it's twisted logic, "the West" responsible. For example a prior poster's assertion... most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....We "consider the Saudis our friends" but there originates the Wahhibi extremist sects. We give massive foreign aid to Egypt and prop them up, but fundamentalists in Egypt are our enemies. "Propping up structure" and encouraging stability is not "being responsible for all the killings <blah blah blah>. In fact, there's nothing wrong with attempting to prop up unstable regions that are always going to be chock full of dictators with some that are allied with us or our interests. Thinking otherwise is exactly what created/is creating the stupid mess in Libya and Syria. Thinking otherwise was the primary cause of the mess in Lebanon. Maybe it's just my view, but there can be benevolent dictators. There can also be areas which can only be ruled with an iron hand, whether it is that of a secular dictator or a religious one. Take your pick and live with the consequences. |
|
|
|
Muslims are not terrorists. But extremists are always dangerous. Even if they are iron man believers, you know.
Sure yeah. Muslims are not terrorists. Except when they are. |
|
|
|
.....In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that
"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding." Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare. Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is: "the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form." Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare. And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly.".... https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htmThe simple problem with ever broadening rules such as this is that everything imaginable fits the definition, which of course is a conclusion bureaucrats and control freaks would love. |
|
|
|
I know this is just talking but I'm sure they'll discover new and better batteries soon.
We have tried all the available permutations and combinations using various chemicals and metals. If you want newer batteries, then I am afraid that you might need to travel to the Andromeda galaxy, to bring minerals and metals which does not exist in the solar system. The Lithium-ion battery was invented in 1973. More than 4 decades have passed and we are still using it. False. Continual improvements in lithium batteries and other types. Often by incorporating nano techniques. Little relation between the 1973 lithium battery and those in common use now. No metals in other galaxies that are not here. Bounded by periodic table. Any minerals that exist somewhere else can be fabricated here. |
|
|
|
Could we agree on the fact that most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....
We created them....
No, that's ridiculous. |
|
|
|
It certainly is possible for a religion to cause a people to exist perpetually in dire poverty.
The same stands true for most of the major religions. But in case of Islam, the problem is very much evident. Has anyone ever thought what would have happened to the Muslim nations, if there were no oil / gas reserves? The OPEC nations in the Gulf region, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar are subsidizing the other Muslim nations such as Pakistan and Bangladesh. Without the oil money, these nations will disintegrate. Without the oil and gas reserves, the world would have left the muslim nations to fight amongst themselves and disintegrate. The world might have been a safer place to live in. Better late than never. The crude oil prices have fallen to $30 per barrel from the 2014-levels of $110 per barrel. The price of natural gas, which was going at $400 per thousand cubic meters is now fluctuating between $140 and $150 per thousand cubic meters. Soon the monetary reserves built by the Arab nations will run out. And along with that, their negative influence over the world will also wane. Oil prices are low and that should drive this economy with cheap gas but it doesn't.... how bad is this economy then? Low oil and energy prices are said to be great for the consumer, but bad for the stock market. |
|
|
|
I remember 2 years ago reading an article about a 17 year old Indian girl that that developed a new type of battery that would charge in 30 seconds. Haven't heard anything about it since. I don't know if the project was destroyed by interested parties or it's being developed.
Also there are a number of alternative fuels. A friend once asked me what alternatives are for gasoline. Well - gasoline is an alternative. When the first vehicle was developed they used ethanol if I'm not mistaken. Any liquid that can burn can be used as fuel. Again - if I'm not mistaken.
The fifth largest used industrial chemical is methanol, and it is available today in huge quantities, enough to run all cars in big cities. Think in terms of buying it not by 18 wheel truck loads, but by ocean barge loads. Modern cars will run methanol with a few changes to seals and tubing. However, methanol use is not amendable to corruption, so it's use is not considered. Preferred are things like massive wind farms, corn ethanol, huge solar installations, because they create entire ecologies of corruption, bribery and wealth. |
|
|
|
....
what you be the percentage of human CO2 production vs nature?
What about it? It's a valid ARGUMENT to ask if human CO2 production is raising the global temperature by some significant amount. Whether you agree or do not are answers to the argument. It's not a valid argument to claim the carbon cycle is changed by man. That's ridiculous, it's like denying the Earth is round or such. One aspect of the large scale introduction of propaganda is the necessary elimination or narrowing of critical and skeptical thinking. Everything must support "the narrative." |
|
|
|
It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition.
That makes zero sense. Unscientific, politically biased propaganda. The carbon cycle is well understood. No you're stupid. If humans change the concentration of CO2, the carbon cycle changes. That's all. No, the carbon cycle does not change one bit. I don't think you even understand what you are saying. Even IF in worst case nutcase zealot Warmer the polar ice cap melted, the carbon cycle would not change. However, if you actually believe that, support it with actual facts, instead of proclaiming people stupid. isnt that what they teach in school.  must be true. I do not think that's what is taught in high school, no. The carbon cycle simple describes the conversion of carbon from atmospheric co2 to plant tissue, ocean floor deposits, minerals, partial pressure in water masses, and then eventually back into an atmospheric gas. Similarly there is a hydrologic cycle which describes the movement of water. It may well be that the high schools are so clogged up teaching the propaganda that they simply do not have time to teach aspects of science such as these cycles. |
|
|
|
Gas and oil will go out soon and people must think an prepare for the alternatives. Why they fight electric vehicles althought investing in it have a promising future
Peak oil theories seem to have all been disproved. Regardless, there are many, many other fuels. Methane, butane, propane, (natural gas), methanol, ethanol come to mind. There is a huge convenience in LIQUID FUELS because of transport and storage considerations. |
|
|
|
It's pollution because it changes the way ecosystem works. That's the definition.
That makes zero sense. Unscientific, politically biased propaganda. The carbon cycle is well understood. No you're stupid. If humans change the concentration of CO2, the carbon cycle changes. That's all. No, the carbon cycle does not change one bit. I don't think you even understand what you are saying. Even IF in worst case nutcase zealot Warmer the polar ice cap melted, the carbon cycle would not change. However, if you actually believe that, support it with actual facts, instead of proclaiming people stupid. |
|
|
|
Tesla that has sucked up vast amount of fresh metals and chemicals or But it takes up to 6 hours to fully charge an electric run car.
 check "smart fortwo electric drive" Whit a "wallbox" this is charged in 1 hour. My Smartcar charges with gasoline. In 3 minutes. And why in the world would anyone want to take a car that gets some 35 miles per gallon and turn it electric? This destroys the good points of the Smartcar. It takes a low cost commuter vehicle, (less than 20k USD) with a couple hundred miles range and extremely good gas mileage, and turns it into an expensive commuter vehicle with terrible range. |
|
|
|
Bah they just don't give a fuck about the truth...
Christianity: 15 milions deaths
Islam: 2Millions.
But they don't give a fuck.
Because your numbers are wrong. Since 911 there have been over 27,000 terror attacks. Typically these kill more than 2,000 in any given month. In just forty years, that adds up to a million people - and that's largely innocent victims, isn't it? Really nice bunch you are defending there..... But going to historical sources, let's see what we find. Here is a source that suggests just since 1948, 11 million muslims have been killedhttps://wasteofmyoxygen.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims/.... This grisly inventory finds the total number of deaths in conflicts since 1950 numbering about 85,000,000. Of that sum, the deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1950 include 32,000 deaths due to Arab state attacks and 19,000 due to Palestinian attacks, or 51,000 in all. Arabs make up roughly 35,000 of these dead and Jewish Israelis make up 16,000. These figures mean that deaths Arab-Israeli fighting since 1950 amount to just 0.06 percent of the total number of deaths in all conflicts in that period. More graphically, only 1 out of about 1,700 persons killed in conflicts since 1950 has died due to Arab-Israeli fighting. (Adding the 11,000 killed in the Israeli war of independence, 1947-49, made up of 5,000 Arabs and 6,000 Israeli Jews, does not significantly alter these figures.) In a different perspective, some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
