New study finds CO2 is not a pollutant, does not contribute to climate change - EPA on suicide watch

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/e...as-labeling-of-co2-a-pollutant-totally-false/

 

[MeatRokket08]

I was outta has was when this shit shat out your like 15???

 

[The Great Chandler]

Just because it's a right-wing source that calls out SJW nonsense doesn't mean it's factual either.

 

[IV 445]

I was outta has was when this shit shat out your like 15???

what?

 

[AnOminous]

what?

>tfw you're talking to someone called @MeatRokket08 and expect coherent, intelligent words

 

[lolwut]

I was outta has was when this shit shat out your like 15???

 

[ForgedBlades]

tfw in an industry where you actively inject CO2 into enclosed buildings

Feels pretty alpha tbh.

 

[Male Idiot]

Honestly I did hear some stuff that said it was not CO2 but other gases like methane that had a bigger impact.

While there maybe something in the climate change, I do think it is overdone and used as a popular doom theory stunt by a lot of people.

But scientists are determined by their political side, and all screech either "Dooomeeeed!" or "Everything is absolutely just fiiiine."

 

[UptownRuckus]

Anyone who isn't a cuck has known this for years.

Al Gore must be pissing his pants now

 

[Joan Nyan]

Al Gore must be pissing his pants now

He's obviously not, if he had actually believed anything he was saying in the first place he wouldn't have bought a beach home in Montecito.

 

[Ineedahero]

He's obviously not, if he had actually believed anything he was saying in the first place he wouldn't have bought a beach home in Montecito.

How dare you, Al Gore only bought that house to save some poor sap from ending up with a worthless property because he is a living saint.

 

[proteus4994]

Al Gore really wanted an underwater house, he's playing the long game.

 

[HG 400]

If you could breathe water and pumped that water full of carbon dioxide, it'd also kill you. Carbon dioxide is harmful to breathe for extended periods for any oxygen metabolizing life form.

Yeah but if you could breathe carbon dioxide and pumped that carbon dioxide full of water you'd be dead that way too.

 

[Oh Long Johnson]

Whole bunch of dumb in this buckwheat.

If you could breathe a gaseous mix and tried to breathe in a room full of oxygen, you'd be dead. Noble gasses are not poisonous, but if you have a high enough concentration of them, you die. And neither of these things make argon or oxygen a fucking pollutant - pollutant-ness isn't a chemical property, it is an environmental concept.

And someone please tell me the Mercury/Venus thing was a troll.

 

[Arse Biscuit]

Honestly I did hear some stuff that said it was not CO2 but other gases like methane that had a bigger impact.

While there maybe something in the climate change, I do think it is overdone and used as a popular doom theory stunt by a lot of people.

But scientists are determined by their political side, and all screech either "Dooomeeeed!" or "Everything is absolutely just fiiiine."

Methane is to carbon dioxide as gun cotton is to a child's cap guns. If they still had cap guns.

Thing about climate change is that the models don't work, because people keep trying to look at the big picture without having enough data, instead of sensibly looking at smaller pictures and assembling a bigger picture.

According to Malthus, we all died 150 years ago. All of his facts were correct, but he failed to account for modern farming technology (because it didn't exist at the time.)

According to the Club of Rome, we ran out of resources in 1995 and everyone reverted to a miserable post-industrial existence. Cannibalism may have been involved.

Is something happening? Yes, that's self-evident. Is it as bad as people say? No fucking idea, but probably not.

 

[Pikimon]

But scientists are determined by their political side, and all screech either "Dooomeeeed!" or "Everything is absolutely just fiiiine."

97% of climate studies done by scientists relevant in the field agree that its happening, that its influenced by mankind, and that it will have detrimental effects globally on humans and ecosystems. Its not a question of politics, its a question on whether or not they have eyes and can see the statistical analysis in front of them.

The current "debate" among the scientific community is centered around the extent of how these changes will effect human life, and generally most of them are not good (especially for those living in the Third World). Its not the difference between "oh its gun be a lil' warm" or "literally venus", the models show that its going to be the difference between catastrophe in 30 or 35 years.

Theres significant progress being made against climate change, but these changes are too little, too late and would take just as long if not longer for the climate to return to optimal levels, that it took for them to be wrecked.

Dumbest Jon-Kacho post ever.

So far.

 

[Brandobaris]

Its not the difference between "oh its gun be a lil' warm" or "literally venus", the models show that its going to be the difference between catastrophe in 30 or 35 years.

The problem is, I'm sure I saw a show that told me the world would be in catastrophe in 30 years. 30 years ago or so.

 

[Pikimon]

The problem is, I'm sure I saw a show that told me the world would be in catastrophe in 30 years. 30 years ago or so.

Like a TV show? Or an actual study? Because you do realize that a single study is not equal to a meta-analysis of a series of different studies right?