This just ain’t right. Some, but not all (who knows, maybe most) Texans are not this stoopid. Do not bury me in the cold, cold ground with these ijits.

1) Just because something exists doesn’t mean it’s not harmful. Uranium exists naturally, yet no one in their right mind would call it a safe substances for unshielded human use. Also, claiming something is safe by noting that it is used in soft drinks (one of the most unhealthy food substances available in American culture and responsible for quite a bit of the overweight/obesity problem in this country) is not compelleing in any fashion.

But since we’re apparently at a place where we can claim that all things that are naturally part of the Earth are safe and should not be regulated, I fully expect this particular Congressman to gather up the votes needed to legalize pot, since it’s natural and therefore both safe (no snark on that one, it actually IS safe) and without need for regulation (lots of snark there).

2) Same argument as above, with an added criticism: if you have to use the god excuse, then you’re officially out of arguments and need to just shut the eff up. You have nothing left to say, so stop wasting our time.

3) Since you insist on continuing the drivel, anytime you say “it’s just a theory” you prove that you’re a complete moron with no grasp of scientific concepts, and you frankly shouldn’t have graduated highschool with such a primitive and incomplete knowledge of basic scientific terminology. The word “theory” when use in the context of science is almost always a description of a mechanism, not a word that also means “conjecture.” To claim otherwise does nothing to prove your point, and only serves to prove you’re an idiot.

4) Well, here’s the crux of the entire argument. In fact, your point would have been much stronger if you had shyed away from proving you know nothing about that of which you speak and gone straight with what you REALLY mean: “Fcuk the planet, fcuk energy independence, fcuk creating new jobs with energy techonology (poor people suck anyway), I don’t want to have to change MY lifestyle, even a little bit because I’m a selfish bastard, and because I’m 100% owned and subsidized by the oil companies.

In summary, Congressman, the entirety of the load of complete and utter bullshit you just tried to sell was not only totally unconvinving and half-assed (in standard GOP fashion), and not only undermined your position so thoroughly as to rob you of any potential credibility on the topic (in even more standard GOP fashion), but in fact was such a perfect example of the stupidity of those who try to fight this, they should make a damn commercial out of it. So I suppose I should be thanking you, Congressman, for making yourself look so bad.

You are far too kind in assuming Republicans actually learned any biology at the third-grade level. Trying to teach a typical Republican (like “jackass”) anything about science is rather like trying to teach algebra to a cow.

102 / 272. That an increase of 38% over a millennium. Alarming? Perhaps not. Assuring? Not really. Especially when you can’t project how high or low that number COULD go.

First of all, do we know that the ceiling is on carbon dioxide here? The 384 ppm concentration for carbon dioxide…is that low? Is that high? Calling it “only” 384 ppm is misleading if 385 ppm is considered harmful. Gotta give us a ceiling here, and remember that we’re not talking about choking on carbon dioxide here. We’re talking about concentrations high enough to shield in heat to change climate.

Here’s the thing that I think people overlook when it comes to carbon dioxide control–we emit so much pollution and greenhouse gas because our system of energy production has been so inefficient. I’m currently reading a book that states we only actually used 1/3 of the energy produced back in the late 90’s. Wouldn’t you like to have a system that could use 90% of the energy produced instead, thus cutting back on fuel usage and conserving it for actual emergencies, thus providing a longer shelf-life for fuels?

I still have to read the rest, but the concept intrigues me.

As far as global warming is concerned, the solar cycles have much more to do with temperature changes on earth than CO2

Anyone who believes that the the Sun is responsible for the global warming observed over the past few decades is a complete idiot.

“jackass” also said…

If you are scientifically literate as I am,

My cat is about as scientifically literate as “jackass” is…

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans.

The Earths atmosphere is only 384 parts out of 1,000,000 (ppm). If you look at figure 5.1 on the link below you will see that the ice core data from around the year 900 a.d shows the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were about 272 ppm. A difference of only 102 of 1,000,000 parts over the last 1100 years is no reason to be alarmed, and certainly no justification for passing government regulations and imposing limits on and taxing emissions.

Source: U.S. Global Change Research Information Office
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html

As far as global warming is concerned, the solar cycles have much more to do with temperature changes on earth than CO2. Do you think that the early cave man burning fires to stay warm contributed to the last era of global warming?

Another link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature has a figure that shows the temperature of the planet over the last 4.6 billion years. If you will notice, the Quaternary Period, which is our current geological period, the temperatures have oscillated widely numerous times. At present we appear to be at the upper end of the temperature spectrum. Many scientists that we are in fact at the beginning of a cooling period. Another figure on the website above shows that global ice mass has nearly doubled over the last 6 million years. If you are scientifically literate as I am, then please take the time to educate yourself by reading the whole article and come to your own conclusion instead of just believing alarmists like Al Gore.

Empirical evidence suggests that there is no global warming happening outside of the computer models.

Well, Coca Cola used to have significant amounts of Cocaine. So when does he start legalizing that ?

Zooey Says:

The carbon monoxide gets you quicker that way, eyeswideopen1. A better example would be to tie plastic bags over their heads. ;)

The catalytic converters take out Carbon Monoxide.