That gas is Dihydrogen Monoxide. Get the facts.

As a green house gas, it is more than twice as effective as Carbon Dioxide and it is 30 times more plentiful in our atmosphere than CO2.

We really should be regulating Dihydrogen Monoxide. Forget CO2.

Read it. The story is interesting, but what is more interesting is the world they describe. It should serve as a warning.

TooMuchTime said …they should read this speech by Michael Crichton about the deleterious effect of attempting to manage complex systems. (For the liberals that will laugh that I use Dr. Crichton as a source, check his biography here.)

Liberals quickly attack the dead especially when the liberals have NOTHING in rebuttal. True about meddling with complex systems that, in this case, have MANY unresolved causes and effects but it is really the simplest of arguments that Michael Crichton has presented with clarity that give the eco-nitwits the greatest angst such as the total disconnect they have in reconciling exactly how such an EXTREMELY TINY contribution of CO2 by humans can possibly have such an ENORMOUS impact on the climate?

Crichton describes this conundrum with an elegant analogy using a football field length to understand the relative makeup of earth’s atmosphere. Given the entire atmosphere is the full 100 yards, 78 yards is Nitrogen. The next 21 yards is Oxygen and the next 32 inches is Argon so that leaves us FOUR INCHES for everything else!

Out of that four inches, almost three inches are taken up by methane, helium, hydrogen and a few other trace gases leaving something a little more than the LAST INCH as CO2.

Liberals scoff at Crichton – “He’s no climate scientist!” Guess what libtards? ONLY 20% OF THE IPCC SCIENCE HACKS ARE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS!

I’m no climate scientist either – I’m a mechanical engineer. The concentration of CO2 right now is about 400 PPM or .0004

A football field is 3600 inches so .0004 of that equals 1.44 inches.

Crichton’s ultimate revelation in his analogy is that of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the human contribution to it is represented by ONE DIME STANDING ON ITS EDGE.

The human contribution of CO2 is 3.2% , .032 * 1.4 inches = .045 inches. The thickness of a dime is about .050 inches so Michael WAS BEING GENEROUS!!

So his argument comes down to the question of how is it possible for such an incredibly tiny change in the amount of anything to make such a ENORMOUS difference? (Especially considering that CO2 has been over 10 times higher in our earth’s ancient past and it didn’t burn up…)

The eco-nitwits ACTUALLY BELIEVE that the TINY change we can possibly make to CO2 concentration is a difference that will SAVE THE PLANET. You cannot classify such a belief into being anything other than a MENTAL DISORDER.

And they do not have EVEN ONE SHRED of scientific evidence to support the claim…. not one!

…to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet…

What scientists? oh yeah, the social engineering scientists.

rightisright, you are correct. No serious scientist believes that CO2 produced by humans is the cause of any appreciable temperature rise.

The problem with regulating CO2 or attempting to reduce it, is the misguided notion that complex systems can be managed. When the topic is reducing wetlands to widen a road, or performing a controlled burn to reduce the possibility of an out-of-control wild fire, the environmentalists scream “kill a mosquito and an eagle dies” because of the complex systems involved.

But when the same environmentalists talk about the atmosphere, they disregard complexity altogether and want to reduce CO2 at all costs. The belief that managing only one part of a complex system will have a positive effect, is sheer arrogance.

What a bunch of complete morons. If they really think that reducing CO2 is going to have a positive effect on the temperature, they should read this speech by Michael Crichton about the deleterious effect of attempting to manage complex systems. (For the liberals that will laugh that I use Dr. Crichton as a source, check his biography here.)

The fact remains that if you reduce CO2, there is no proof that the temperature will go down. If you reduce CO2, something has to fill that gap. Complex system, remember? Also, there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2 and it has a greater influence on the greenhouse effect than does CO2. So, if water vapor fills the gap, the temperature may go up as CO2 levels go down.

There’s no proof of that. But my conclusions are just as scientific as any forwarded by Al Gore and his ilk of climate change alarmists.

I can’t breathe.

Technically, you just can’t breathe out. Breathing in’s still OK.

On February 19th, 2009 at 12:24 pm, lgm said:

What bugs me about MM and the others is that liberals endure constant grousing and ridicule, but we actually do the responsible things that make it possible for you to continue. You should be grateful rather than spiteful.

What a bunch of rubbish.

1. CO2 isn’t warming the planet.

2. Even if CO2 was warming the planet nothing that liberals are doing would matter one bit (except make them feel better). Their conservation efforts are rounding errors. The recommendations on Al Gore’s website are a complete joke.

3. lgm, you’re not allowed to discuss AGW on this website until you answer my questions from last year.

Breaking: Obama to ration oxygen
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama admin…

You should be grateful rather than spiteful.

I’m not spiteful. I like to think of it as filled with the righteous anger of G-d.

Oh, and the ‘grateful’ part? I AM grateful; for the righteous anger of G-d.