Alaska senator moves to strip EPA's authority

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ozmar
  • Start date Start date
Congress pushing for more power.
Probably a bad thing.

Aside from CO2, the EPA has been effective in many different areas without hurting business.
 
And Mars' atmosphere isn't even comprable to Earth's. And even if you want to make this as your point, it still looks clearer than the picture that was posted of what was that China?


No shit. See above.
 
I'm curious how many people in this thread would actually want congress to gain an additional power. Who is in charge of congress?
 
Why should politicians be making laws that deal with science? I mean half the republican congressmen claim they don't even believe in evolution.
 
so you think marginally higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will kill you...

also LOL at comparing CO2 to X-rays.
 
for the past 10 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) has gotten a bad rap. Despite the fact that 95 percent of the CO2 emitted each year is produced by nature (see Figure I), environmentalists started referring to CO2 as a pollutant in 1988 after some scientists claimed that the 30 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years was attributable to humans and was causing global warming. In response, Vice President Al Gore in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance called for "carbon taxes," stating that "filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other pollutants . . . is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into vulnerable parts of the natural world." The evidence shows neither that a modest warming will threaten human life through environmental catastrophe nor that the recent rise in CO2 levels is responsible for the measured rise in global temperature.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256
 
385 ppm. But hey, what's a few order of magnitudes amongst friends?

If CO2 made up 2 to 3 ppm in the atmosphere, we would be fucked. Levels are increasing globally at a rate of ~1.5 ppm per year. CO2 behaves roughly according to the following relationship:

ΔF = α ln(C/C0)

Where ΔF is the change in radiative forcing, α is a constant, C is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and C0 is the initial concentration. This means that any doubling of CO2 concentration should make an equal contribution to the greenhouse effect. In other words, a change from 2 to 4 ppm should give roughly the same forcing as a change from 200 ppm to 400 ppm. We have known this since the 1890's.

Hypercapnia is a red herring.
 
Why should politicians be making laws that deal with medicine? I mean most of them aren't even doctors.
Why should politicians be making laws that deal with food? I mean most of them aren't even cooks.
Why should politicians be making laws that deal with automobiles? I mean most of them aren't even mechanics.
Why should politicians be making laws that deal with buildings? I mean most of them aren't even engineers.
Why should politicians be making laws that deal with computers? I mean most of them aren't even technically literate.
Why should politicians be making laws that deal with law? I mean many of them aren't even lawyers.

you fucking moran.
 
that must be the diagram i saw ;P the average increase. i was too busy trying to call 7960 on his bullshit to care ;]
 
logical fallacy. might as well complain about the high concentration of nitrogen in the atmosphere too. the body needs oxygen to survive, and CO2 is what we exhale. You're jumping from the carbon cycle which consists of the entire planet to a locked room.
 
Back
Top