CO2 and global warming

Scott Lowther wrote:


Hop David wrote:



Scott Lowther wrote:

... Whether it's nations or individuals, "poor" = "dirty" holds as
a general truth.


I've known rich people who don't practice good hygiene. And some of
the working poor are very clean.



Attempt at diversion noted. As you are well aware, personal hygiene was
not the topic under discussion.


From my experience, your opinion is flat out wrong.



Then your experience is odd. Burning wood, paper, crap and garbage to
produce heat is cheap, and has been the heat-producing method of choice
for poor people for millenia.

Most of the poor individuals I know are served by Arizona Public
Service. Their power comes from Palo Verde Nuclear Power plant.

One poor individual I know rides a bike, has a well insulated home, and
has photovoltaic cells in addition to her link to Arizona Public Service.

If you had said poor third world cultures generate more pollution, I
would have agreed with you. But you also said poor individuals are
dirty. If a poor individual and a rich individual are getting power from
the same grid, how is the guy with the hummer and mansion cleaner?


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Hop David wrote:

Here's your statement again:

Not my statement but there you go.

"Whether it's nations or individuals, "poor" = "dirty" holds as
a general truth."

You can run but you can't hide.

I don't think anybody denied poor=dirty. Scott Lowther was attempting
to deny that rich=dirty by pretending that, in this context, CO2 is
not dirty.

I can't run but I can hide.

Congratulations. Your post is 100% wrong - are you trying for the Book
of World Records?.

You may just be able to read but you sure as hell can't comprehend.

--
Martin

Hop David wrote:



Scott Lowther wrote:

Attempt at diversion noted.


Diversion, hell.

Here's your statement again:

"Whether it's nations or individuals, "poor" = "dirty" holds as
a general truth."

You can run but you can't hide.


Why should I run or hide from the truth? Regardless of how much you
bleat, it remains a fact that poverty and clenliness tend to not go
together as well as wealth and cleanliness.

Hop David wrote:


One poor individual I know rides a bike, has a well insulated home, and
has photovoltaic cells in addition to her link to Arizona Public Service.


That's nice. Everyone I ever met who had lice-infested amtted hair and
smelled of urine and worse was poor. Never met a rich guy yet who was as
appallingly filthy as many streeet creatures.

If a poor individual and a rich individual are getting power from
the same grid, how is the guy with the hummer and mansion cleaner?


Because the wealth that created the grid didn;t spring up out of
nothing, and the grid took time to come into existence... and the rich
were served first. One must looka t more than one data point.

Martin Frey wrote:


I don't think anybody denied poor=dirty. Scott Lowther was attempting
to deny that rich=dirty by pretending that, in this context, CO2 is
not dirty.


Ah... CO2 *isn't* dirty. It's a vital trace gas. If you really want to
wipe out "greenhosue gasses," do something about all that water vapor.
Far more prevalent than CO2, and a much bigger effect.



And, it appears that if you really want to make the air cleaner, break
out a chainsaw and cut down some trees:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996526
New trees cancel out air pollution cuts

Industry has dramatically cut its emissions of pollutants, called
volatile organic compounds. But those cuts have been more than offset by
the amount of VOCs churned out by trees.

The revelation challenges the notion that planting trees is a good way
to clean up the atmosphere.

When fossil fuels used in industry and automobiles fail to combust
completely, they generate VOCs, which react with nitrogen oxides and
sunlight to form poisonous ozone in the lower atmosphere. In the past
few decades, the introduction of more efficient engines and catalytic
converters has dramatically reduced these emissions.

....

They calculated that vegetal sources of monoterpenes and isoprene rose
by up to 17% from the 1980s to the 1990s - equivalent to three times the
industrial reductions.

Farmland reverting to scrub, pine plantations and the invasive sweetgum
tree were behind most of the increases in the US.

October 18, 2004

Scott Lowther wrote:


Ah... CO2 *isn't* dirty. It's a vital trace gas. If you really want to
wipe out "greenhosue gasses," do something about all that water vapor.
Far more prevalent than CO2, and a much bigger effect.


More nonsense from the fat man. CO2 is a *critical* trace gas, it
doesn't usually evaporate, condense or solidify in and out of our
atmosphere.

And, it appears that if you really want to make the air cleaner, break
out a chainsaw and cut down some trees:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996526
New trees cancel out air pollution cuts

Industry has dramatically cut its emissions of pollutants, called
volatile organic compounds. But those cuts have been more than offset
by the amount of VOCs churned out by trees.

The revelation challenges the notion that planting trees is a good way
to clean up the atmosphere.


Your ignorance is staggering.


When fossil fuels used in industry and automobiles fail to combust
completely, they generate VOCs, which react with nitrogen oxides and
sunlight to form poisonous ozone in the lower atmosphere. In the past
few decades, the introduction of more efficient engines and catalytic
converters has dramatically reduced these emissions.


They burn air that is already polluted. Your mind is polluted.

People like you are the problem with America.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

October 18, 2004

Scott Lowther wrote:

You can run but you can't hide.

Why should I run or hide from the truth?


Because acknowledging it would require to change your lifestyle.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.member.atlantic.net

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

October 18, 2004

Scott Lowther wrote:


Ah... CO2 *isn't* dirty. It's a vital trace gas. If you really want to
wipe out "greenhosue gasses," do something about all that water vapor.
Far more prevalent than CO2, and a much bigger effect.



More nonsense from the fat man.


Beautiful comeback.


CO2 is a *critical* trace gas, it
doesn't usually evaporate, condense or solidify in and out of our
atmosphere.


Correct. It is converted into plants and oxygen.


And, it appears that if you really want to make the air cleaner, break
out a chainsaw and cut down some trees:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996526
New trees cancel out air pollution cuts

Industry has dramatically cut its emissions of pollutants, called
volatile organic compounds. But those cuts have been more than offset
by the amount of VOCs churned out by trees.

The revelation challenges the notion that planting trees is a good way
to clean up the atmosphere.



Your ignorance is staggering.


Whose ignorance? You mean the journalist at New Scientist who reported
the story? Or the scientists who showed that trees emit more VOCs than
industry?

Or are you just ****ed that I posted this?

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

October 18, 2004

Scott Lowther wrote:

You can run but you can't hide.


Why should I run or hide from the truth?



Because acknowledging it would require to change your lifestyle.


Uh... what? You mean I should stop using that dirty, dirty natural gas
for my heat, and just start burning plastic and wood instead?

October 19, 2004

Scott Lowther wrote:

You can run but you can't hide.

Why should I run or hide from the truth?

Because acknowledging it would require to change your lifestyle.

Uh... what? You mean I should stop using that dirty, dirty natural gas

Yes, and it wouldn't hurt you to start burning some of that fat, too.

Thomaas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net