EPA: Greenhouse gases are harmful to humans

[Neezar]

The administration also has said it will require automobile fuel economy to increase to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2016, another push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Does this mean that we all have to get a KIA before 2016?



Oh wait, let me guess. You can keep your car as long as you pay a Emissions Tax to the government.

Originally Posted by rockdawg21

I agree, it's a natural progression to make changes to renewable energy, but the degree to which the media and crackpot scientists claim about the effects on the environment are just ridiculous. Next thing you know, they're going to tell us in Mayan scripture, it reads that the humans kill themselves in 2012 due to inert gases harming our atmosphere so we should do something drastic right now, like bankrupt ourselves to China.

My initial reaction to your original post immediately caused to me to disregard your post because of your instant labeling of the scientists as crackpots, yet you offered nothing to refute any of their claims. When one immediately places a negative label onto someone without offering anything to refute those claims, I think of the OP as the crackpot because they have brought nothing to counter any claims. The use of these negative labels immediately makes me disregard anything you may have to say and to then thing of you as the crackpot because you have brought nothing to the table.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep//airworkg...ur_dioxide.pdf Sulphur Dioxide

http://www.wunderground.com/health/no2.asp Nitrogen Dioxide

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a Nitrogen Oxides.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9221550AAbl8VT Carbon Dioxide

http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/co...24/5/1716.full CO2 levels in submarines

These links are meant to show some of the problems with higher levels of these gases and some of the effects.

My apologies if these links aren't what I say as I am posting this after 23 hours of no sleep. I'll try to do some more research and post findings when I have had some sleep and can type better than a monkey.

In summation, starting an argument with negative labeling and without bringing anything to back a claim proves nothing and actual hurts the credibility of the one making the post. If the wording in the OP was neutral and provided data to refute the claims of the quoted article, I would be more inclined to read it with more of an open mind rather than immediately going in a defensive mode and thinking that the crackpot was the one that made the original post.

Too late and I hope I made sense in my sleepless rambling.

Do you find all scientists to be crackpots? Were the scientists who stated high levels of Radon in a home could be unhealthy crackpots?

It's way to late for me to finish up without rambling on more and messing up my own arguments due to lack of sleep.

Goodnight all.

[rockdawg21]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

My initial reaction to your original post immediately caused to me to disregard your post because of your instant labeling of the scientists as crackpots, yet you offered nothing to refute any of their claims. When one immediately places a negative label onto someone without offering anything to refute those claims, I think of the OP as the crackpot because they have brought nothing to counter any claims. The use of these negative labels immediately makes me disregard anything you may have to say and to then thing of you as the crackpot because you have brought nothing to the table.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep//airworkg...ur_dioxide.pdf Sulphur Dioxide

http://www.wunderground.com/health/no2.asp Nitrogen Dioxide

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a Nitrogen Oxides.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9221550AAbl8VT Carbon Dioxide

http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/co...24/5/1716.full CO2 levels in submarines

These links are meant to show some of the problems with higher levels of these gases and some of the effects.

My apologies if these links aren't what I say as I am posting this after 23 hours of no sleep. I'll try to do some more research and post findings when I have had some sleep and can type better than a monkey.

In summation, starting an argument with negative labeling and without bringing anything to back a claim proves nothing and actual hurts the credibility of the one making the post. If the wording in the OP was neutral and provided data to refute the claims of the quoted article, I would be more inclined to read it with more of an open mind rather than immediately going in a defensive mode and thinking that the crackpot was the one that made the original post.

Too late and I hope I made sense in my sleepless rambling.

Do you find all scientists to be crackpots? Were the scientists who stated high levels of Radon in a home could be unhealthy crackpots?

It's way to late for me to finish up without rambling on more and messing up my own arguments due to lack of sleep.

Goodnight all.

I realize you were tired so you must have overlooked my reply:

Originally Posted by rockdawg21

In what way has any scientist PROVEN greenhouse gases are causing "global warming"? Saying the temperature of the Earth has increased by a whopping 1.2 degrees Celcius in 70 years is NOT PROOF of anything.

Obviously, those compounds are NOT harming humans in all levels because they are a part of the air we breathe EVERY DAY. As for your question, which of the 3 are safe at "any level?" Well, CO2 and NO2 are part of the NATURAL composition of dry atmosphere, therefore, they are safe because we breathe it every day - it's not as if people are dying off in massive numbers due to "air pollution". As for S02, show me PROOF not THEORY it is destroying our planet and then you and the crackpot scientists MIGHT have a real argument.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by rockdawg21

In what way has any scientist PROVEN greenhouse gases are causing "global warming"? Saying the temperature of the Earth has increased by a whopping 1.2 degrees Celcius in 70 years is NOT PROOF of anything.

Yeah, if you actually study the science involved and don't just blindly accept the word of "experts" then you will see that there is very little real evidence that "global warming/global cooling/climate change" (or whatever this scam is being labeled this decade) is anything more than a natural cyclical process. Any scientist who is truly honest about the subject and not trying to push an agenda must admit that the evidence that this is human-caused is sketchy at best.

There is also evidence that much of our climate and the state of our ozone layer is more of a result of sunspot activity, not pollution. In other words, there is nothing we can do about it and stripping people of the freedom to live their own lives is not the answer.

But of course, this is the internet, so it's really tough to win an argument against the intellectually-stunted, "everything I ever needed to know I learned from internet search engines" crowd.

Originally Posted by NateR

Yeah, if you actually study the science involved and don't just blindly accept the word of "experts" then you will see that there is very little real evidence that "global warming/global cooling/climate change" (or whatever this scam is being labeled this decade) is anything more than a natural cyclical process. Any scientist who is truly honest about the subject and not trying to push an agenda must admit that the evidence that this is human-caused is sketchy at best.

There is also evidence that much of our climate and the state of our ozone layer is more of a result of sunspot activity, not pollution. In other words, there is nothing we can do about it and stripping people of the freedom to live their own lives is not the answer.

But of course, this is the internet, so it's really tough to win an argument against the intellectually-stunted, "everything I ever needed to know I learned from internet search engines" crowd.

So you equate regulation of the emission of pollutants to stripping people of the freedom to live their own life?

I haven't said that I agree or disagree with the global warming arguments, only that I agree with the regulation of the emission of harmful pollutants. I'm not stating that I have been accused of saying that either, just affirming my position.

Where do you get your information about global warming and stuff NateR? Are you taking college classes on it or reading about it in magazines and also internet sites? Do you go to the library and get books on it and study it? Just wondering. I'd guess you are one of the

intellectually-stunted, "everything I ever needed to know I learned from internet search engines" crowd.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Where do you get your information about global warming and stuff NateR? Are you taking college classes on it or reading about it in magazines and also internet sites? Do you go to the library and get books on it and study it? Just wondering. I'd guess you are one of the

I read these things called "books" in big buildings called "libraries." I've also taken a college course on Geography, so I know that there is no real scientific evidence that links human pollution to "climate change."

As I've stated before, the internet is NOT a reliable source for information. Thus, I avoid it unless I can verify a site's content with an actual printed source.

Originally Posted by rockdawg21

I realize you were tired so you must have overlooked my reply:

I was beyond tired and shouldn't post when waiting for a sleeping pill to kick in. While my body was tired, my mind wouldn't shut off completely.

Do you think that there should be regulations for what and how much pollutants can be emitted from power plants?

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Do you think that there should be regulations for what and how much pollutants can be emitted from power plants?

I would say yes, but I don't trust politicians to stop at just regulating the power plants.

Originally Posted by NateR

I read these things called "books" in big buildings called "libraries."

Really, there are things called books in things called libraries?

Originally Posted by NateR

I've also taken a college course on Geography, so I know that there is no real scientific evidence that links human pollution to "climate change."

Wow, you are the man. So because you have taken on course in Geography you think that you are a scientist. Incredible.

Originally Posted by NateR

As I've stated before, the internet is NOT a reliable source for information. Thus, I avoid it unless I can verify a site's content with an actual printed source.

You are wrong too about the internet not being a reliable source for information. Too bad that you can't differentiate between the good sources and the bad. You think that just because something is written in book form it is reliable? Wow. Is an article that is written in a book or magazine and then posted on the internet not reliable just because it now on the internet?

It is absurd to think that humans can pollute and not have some effect on the environment, which in turn has an effect on the climate, however small that effect may be. Granted some changes are natural, but to deny that we have no impact is hardly intelligent. Evidence is out there, but you are too stubborn to accept it. I don't accept all that is out there because there are folks who have fudged information to fit their agendas. There is evidence nonetheless.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Wow, you are the man. So because you have taken on course in Geography you think that you are a scientist. Incredible.

I didn't say that did I? However, I learned enough to know that science doesn't know the answer of what is causing "climate change." Also, just a basic knowledge of the scientific method is helpful in determining what is true science and what is just speculation and guesswork.

I'm not a scientist, but I am also not an idiot. So I am capable of examining the facts and formulating my own opinions, not allowing self-proclaimed experts to dictate my opinions for me.