stop doing that. We aren't going to stop needing/using fossil fuels for a long time our whole way of doing things is predicated on
their use and not just for getting around but all manner of things need fossil fuel, plastics, so many things.
Oh and carbon dioxide doesn't have to be a "poison" although it is to humans to be bad. I had a friend who filled up his garage with
it and it killed him, so, it's poison. I don't know where that new meme came from but it's frickin' retarded to use it that way. And
I use the word "retarded" in the way that the dictionary means it.
Retarded: slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress
Regarding CO2, it seems to me to be its designation as a pollutant under regulatory nomenclature.
It is like modern powers not wanting to call the traged in Rwanda, or the calls to exterminate Israel "genocide" because if they use such a serious for, for example in the U.N., it means people and governments have to do something to stop it.
While CO2 is a poison to mammals and other animals at certain concentrations, it is also an exhaust product from animals living. It is necessary for plants to grow, so it is a symbiotic balance of sorts.
In a balance, excesses lead to self-correction, more plants grow, scrubbing out more CO2.
The real issue, as I see it, is not a question scientists can argue over about if the earth is, on balance, warming over long periods of recorded time, but rather if change should be imposed because someone is convinced they know better.
If as has been put forward, anthropogenic or otherwise global warming is upon us, then shouldn't those who know best insist that people on the coasts move inland in an orderly and predetermined manner?
Just like no one needs an assault rifle, no one needs to live on the coast.
And if the damage is already done, what makes such a forced migration a bad thing?
Edited by DarthMarley, 19 April 2013 - 03:25 PM.