CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.

It is, that's why if I sealed you in a box with absolutely no ventiliation you'd die before you used up all the oxygen.

A human's exhalation contains between 200 to 3000 poisonous compounds.

Well I guess We exhale gases worse than the atmosphere of Venus and Jupiter put together which makes smoking more safe and its funny that trees thrive on toxic fumes. I guess science has changed since the last I went to college in the 1980's

A right-winger with no concept of nuance or subtlety, to whom everything must be an absolute black and white issue? What a shock. He must be in the "it's cold outside therefore global warming is a lie" group too.

Rhodococcus erythropolis can metabolize benzene, but that doesn't mean carbonated benzene* will be hitting the store shelves anytime soon. I guess science has changed since you went to college in the 1980s - presumably B.C., because I'm pretty sure we've known for a while that not all organisms thrive in the same conditions.

Edit: *well... ascorbic acid and sodium benzoate mean there's usually some benzene in your coke... but still.

I like this post because I pictured little anthropomorphic rhodococcus erythropolis cells buying carbonated benzene off of store shelves.

Actually, I kind of think the opposite has happened here. You used to be able to have intelligent discussion and debate here but now the liberal consensus of the Massassi Elite precludes any substantive debate.

We do have intelligent discussion. The reason you don't see it is because of the keyword intelligent.

Sounding like bad satire of your own views must come natural to you, huh?

I've been saying for a while that Wookie06 is what would happen if Stephen Colbert had a massive head injury and starting actually meaning the things he says.

Ha ha ha ha

It's because people like Wookie06 don't actually *want* an intelligent debate, they want a circlejerk of people with the same views shouting down a token "liberal" who is really bad at defending his position. Something that can make them feel like they've won, and can be easily chopped up into 20-second segments and aired on fox news between clips of some smug blowhard talking head gloating about it.

And, you know, they could probably have this, except they seem to choose the side that is objectively wrong in any science debate. Evolution, climate change, etc. Things that shouldn't even *be* a debate due to the fact that there *is* a wrong side, but have been turned into one anyway.

Liberals aren't blameless in this respect either, we seem to have gotten all the new-agey "spiritual but not religious" vaccines-and-pharmaceuticals-are-bad kooks. Ugh. Why did both ends of the political spectrum become populated with such idiots?

Yeah, God, I know. I've expressed some radical views in this thread such as I am open minded to the possibility of man made global warming but not when it is predicated upon an argument for global governance and redistribution of wealth. So extreme.

You have it backwards.

The argument for global regulation and taxes on pollution is predicated upon the possibility of man-made global warming.

Why yes, that does make a vast difference. Thanks for noticing.

That would be true if it weren't for the fact that the only reason the issue has been made to be so important is that it is the excuse for the desired end. There are numerous things industrialized nations can do to reduce CO2 emissions [more effectively] that don't require the global schemes I keep referring to. I understand what you are saying but we are told that there IS man made warming and that we must do those things. It isn't even rationally considered that it is only a possibility.

Affirming the consequent. Were it not for 2500 years of propositional calculus your argument might not be completely absurd.

If you can think of a better way of making polluters internalize their externalities without direct government intervention I'm sure the Nobel Prize for Economics committee would be thrilled to hear it. You should probably keep in mind that they've probably had their fill of vague hand-waving, though.

Edit:



Speaking of vague hand-waving...

I assume that you are insulting my age, but when you go again to your class I hope that you still have an admiration and open mind for great scholars such as people like the late Carl Sagan that was an individual that was much more older than me and open minded than you are...............by the way I dont drink coke I am a fitness minded person that is striving to become a fitness trainer. No Im not an old Jock. And I think twenty somethings are not superior over their elders.

I can empathise with Wookie here, though I believe he still has me ignored so he won't enjoy the anomaly.

You're assuming that the thought process of 'liberals' here is:

"I want a global government! Ahah, climate change is something I can exploit!"

I really don't see evidence of anyone adopting that position (though it would make sense for modern day communist parties to try to do that, but they're too busy bickering within themselves to do anything that clever). The reverse is sort of true, though.

No single country wants to reduce CO2 emissions. At the moment, there are indeed many alternate technologies and sensible investment in these technologies could make a lot of money, in the long term. Any CO2 reduction will have an immediate effect on GDP, and no country in the world wants to be the first to take that hit - especially in the current economic climate. If the US unilaterally cuts CO2 emissions, suffers an economic hit, then China could capitalise on that and fill whatever industry is left. This makes China even stronger economically, the US suffers even more, and it makes China even more reluctant to cut CO2 emissions.

This is a bad thing, both for the US domestically and for global climate change. No-one wants that, and so we're left in the stalemate that we are now. Sure, the US and China could come up with some sort of agreement between them, but then India or Brazil would exploit that.

The only way to prevent global climate change is with an international treaty. This does not involve global wealth redistribution, just an agreement on CO2 emissions.

Global wealth redistribution does come into play if we don't prevent global climate change. If we do nothing about CO2 emissions and continue to affect the climate in the same way we are now, then millions - eventually billions - of people will be displaced by severe droughts, food shortages, and rising sea levels. The US will suffer more severe hurricanes and floods, but the most severely affected regions will be Africa and South East Asia.

The IPCC Climate Change 2007 report studied the impact of global climate change and found that

• 75-250 million people across Africa could face water shortages by 2020
• Crop yields could increase by 20% in East and Southeast Asia, but decrease by up to 30% in Central and South Asia
• Agriculture fed by rainfall could drop by 50% in some African countries by 2020
• 20-30% of all plant and animal species at increased risk of extinction if temperatures rise between 1.5-2.5C
• Glaciers and snow cover expected to decline, reducing water availability in countries supplied by melt water

And the first question that will be asked in 2020 is "whose fault is this?", and see that the US is responsible for 20% of the world's CO2 emissions, China is responsible for 20% as well, and EU is responsible for 13% - all emissions vastly disproportionate to population. These people will need vast amount of aid, and will need aid for a very long time. Many of them will need somewhere to live, and the political impetus will be on the biggest polluters to accept climate refugees - millions of new immigrants to the US, China and EU over the next 50 years. This is already happening right now, not in some dystopian future.

Wookie's fear of global wealth (and people) redistribution pretty much becomes a reality if we don't prevent global climate change.

...however, even when this is all happening, I imagine the climate deniers will be ever more vocal changing tack from "this will not happen!" to "this is not our fault!".

On the contrary: I am implying your understanding of biology is 4000 years out of date, if you believe carbon dioxide must be safe for us simply because plants consume it.

Nobody knows how old you are and nobody cares.

Though it does raise the interesting issue of geoengineering, such as the use of artifical trees to collect CO2 emissions. I'm not entirely certain where I stand on geoengineering, I think some discussion on this might be useful.

On the one hand, geoengineering seems like a last-resort option if we're in the situation where we know that destructive climate change is inevitable and we need to forcibly change our climate. It seems like a brute-force method that may have a lot of unintended consequences, but give short term relief from the effects of climate change.

On the other hand, if we start geoengineering soon (within the next few years) it may mitigate the problem somewhat and give us more time to come up with a more permanent solution. Which is good, as political solutions take a lot of time, and time is something we don't have.

I am not a professional biologist and I have no means of defending a heated debate against a student in todays education that bears heavily on the issue of climate change, that is if you are a student. All of the younger generations of today have been indoctrinated from ideas and research from scientists that are probably well in the baby boomer age group. Global Warming, I think is not a proven fact, but its a possibility. Im not going to delve into this anymore and if you think I am a radical conservative, you are wrong.

The line between rhetoric and histrionics is so easily crossed.

Weird, Darth Dan's posts read like a spambot, but as far as I can tell he's not trying to sell us anything?

This thread is just full of

I'm still waiting for wookie's answers though. I was being serious with those questions.

Probably has me on ignore.

wookiegate

These must be kind of like all the various ways in which we're no longer the kind of country the Constitution provides for.

Mort-Hog is entirely correct. But I would emphasize that global warming is bad for us, but who decided it was bad for the planet?

Also, how the hell do we get China or India to agree to any of this?

It's a new cold war.

It's bad for the planet because CO2 is distributed in the atmosphere homogenously, temperature rises will occur all over the world, and all sorts of ecosystems will be destroyed. It's bad for all of humanity and all the living creatures on the planet.

China will agree because there are parts of China that will be affected by climate change before anywhere else, some of the rural areas are affected right now and will only get worse. Because China is such a vastly populous country, that's a lot of people displaced and migrating from rural to urban areas. Political leaders in China know this, but are reluctant to act because they are in competition with the US for export.

Countries like Brazil and India are in similar positions too. So a political agreement is not an impossibility, as long as climate denial doesn't become a popular trend in the political scheme. Saudi Arabia has already joined this bandwagon and are trying to exploit this story in the OP.

Seems to me the planet's life has done it's best when it was a little warmer. Sure a lots going to die now, but that just makes room for new things to evolve. There's no reason to assume that what's bad for humanity or any other existing species is bad for this planet. It looks an awful lot like we're bad for this planet. Maybe she's just trying to get rid of us.

Hey, I'm game.

There is a ridiculously complex natural oceanic carbon cycle that balances carbon dioxide partial pressure, temperature/solubility, pH, organic/inorganic carbon species and a few hundred other factors.

Anthropogenic climate change disrupts this cycle. In particular, the solubility of calcium carbonate is a function of carbon dioxide partial pressure. Coral reefs are made of calcium carbonate. Shells are made of calcium carbonate. Animal plankton is made of calcium carbonate. By disrupting the cycle, we are literally obliterating the entire bottom of the aquatic food chain.

That's pretty bad for the planet.

In fact, this would solve the above problem. CO2 solubility has an inverse relationship with water temperature. If it were a lot warmer, the planet could handle the higher CO2 concentrations... instead, we're coming out of an ice age with 4 times as much CO2 as we should have.

It's pretty hard for life to adapt to the conditions we're creating when they literally dissolve. It'd be like throwing babies out of an airplane until we breed flying humans.

Ok, I know what I'm doing this Christmas.

LOOK AT WHAT THE EVIL LIBERAL AGENDA HAS LED US TO

thanks, liberal agenda!

Don't worry, I'll aim for the chimneys and everyone will think I'm Santa. I'm sure someone must have 'splattered baby corpse' on their Christmas wish list.

I find my wishes are rarely answered if they are splattered with baby corpses.

I may go back to reread what various questions were asked of me and answer any valid ones. Mort is the only one on the forum I have on an ignore list but that is due to his propensity to post material I find objectionable.

Translation: material that truly challenges my beliefs and makes me think for myself!