A question for warmers

[longview]

Ah, yes. The slippery slope.

I swatted a mosquito today and felt no remorse.

Therefore, I need to be careful because I could become a serial murderer or, with enough power, a genocidal dictator.

Platitudes, discuss the data please!
I pointed out where some politician already connected the dots between Co2 being a
Pollutant and heavy breathing being taxable.
I even Referenced it with a liberal blog (Unless TreeHugger has become conservative all of a sudden)
Our Government is already becoming invasive in our lives.
Do we really need to open the door and encourage them to become more invasive.

 

[MoSurveyor]

When we declare Co2 a waste product, or pollution, our breathing does in fact become one
of the sources of that pollution.
When they assign a value to each unit of Co2 emitted, We do not have to ask how long it will
be before some politician suggests taxing breathing, it has already happened.
Ask Pablo: Does Driving Really Emit Less CO2 Than Cycling? : TreeHugger

Your cite was the peer review of the idiot's article that claimed cycling was somehow worse than driving an SUV.

Finally, and most importantly, the exhalations of humans and animals are biogenic, meaning that they are essentially "carbon neutral" (unlike the emissions from burning gasoline). Since most of our caloric intake comes directly, or indirectly, from plants, and since those plants grow by converting atmospheric CO2 into oxygen, most of the CO2 that we exhale originally came from the atmosphere. I write "most" because there is some portion of caloric energy that can be attributed to synthetic fertilizers and the production of some foods results in emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), which are both much more potent greenhouse gasses than carbon dioxide is (21 and 310 times as potent, respectively).

(emphasis added)

It's not the CO2, it's where the carbon for the CO2 comes from. In the case of humans, it ultimately comes from plants, which took the carbon from the air at most 2-3 years before consumption, compared to the tens of millions of years the carbon from oil and coal has been sitting in the ground.

 

[Threegoofs]

Platitudes, discuss the data please!
I pointed out where some politician already connected the dots between Co2 being a
Pollutant and heavy breathing being taxable.
I even Referenced it with a liberal blog (Unless TreeHugger has become conservative all of a sudden)
Our Government is already becoming invasive in our lives.
Do we really need to open the door and encourage them to become more invasive.

So a politician interprets CO2 induced warming wrong and somehow that invalidates the science?

Seemed to me that YOU were agreeing with the concept, too.

I fail to see the logic of how we should ignore reality because the only solution you see to address a problem is government intervention.

 

[longview]

Your cite was the peer review of the idiot's article that claimed cycling was somehow worse than driving an SUV. (emphasis added)

It's not the CO2, it's where the carbon for the CO2 comes from. In the case of humans, it ultimately comes from plants, which took the carbon from the air at most 2-3 years before consumption, compared to the tens of millions of years the carbon from oil and coal has been sitting in the ground.

The cite was to show that some politician was already thinking of how to tax breathing,
now that Co2 is considered a pollutant.

 

[MoSurveyor]

The cite was to show that some politician was already thinking of how to tax breathing,
now that Co2 is considered a pollutant.

I'm more inclined to believe it's more Chicken Little arguments from the Denier side. Both sides have their extremists. Warmers tend toward the high end of the model predictions and Deniers tend toward the fantastic for economic impact of mitigation. We already went through all this 40 years ago with the beginnings of the EPA.

As usual, the good answers are somewhere in the middle.


Besides that, we have a Young Earth Creationist on the House science committee. That's all one needs to know about politicians in this country.

 

[code1211]

We do have AGW. The debate is what is causing global warming. Political policies to control it is a whole other can of worms. I think what the first Bush put into place is plausible. Ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist won't do much about the problem btw.

Do you know what the A in AGW stands for and what it means?