Forums | MacLife

user wrote:

So? Rush is a fat, pompous, blow-hard.

You forgot "illegal pill-popping" !!!1!

resedit wrote:

It also should be pointed out that attacking the man or the source rather than the message is extremely common in this forum when the message doesn't jive with the left. Especially recently.

You're correct....it happens a lot, on both sides.

Matt is correct as well, however.  It's no excuse.

Apart from Gore not really being a scientist, how is he attackable as a source? Even as far as politicians go, he's not that bad.

Certainly, he's not even in the league of O' Reilly or Limbaugh is he?

While carbon credits are an actual decent idea, I can somehow see the point.  Is Gore supposed to be a leader ?  That's the whole problem with all the closet-gay scandals with the GOP, isn't it ?  A US politician / leader is apparently held up to the standard of "lead by example."

Probably not directly but it has the strong potential of straining resources which has had a history of causing war. There is also the argument that a government busy dedicating it's resources to solving a problem which in theory could cause adverse global changes is less likely to be starting war.

There is a warming trend. I'm personally not stupid enough to believe we humans have had no influence on it.  I'd be willing to buy our influence on top of natural cycles on top of increased solar output but since we can't do anything about the latter to things then it's good logic to adjust the nature of our influence. A substance in the air that can provably acidify water, kill you if you breathe it in sufficient quantities, and (at least in laboratory conditions) increase greenhouse potential we probably should limit how much we add to the atmosphere anyway.

user wrote:

So? Rush is a fat, pompous, blow-hard.

Sounds like your jealous, probably because fat, pompous, blow-hard pill poppers are usually liberals.

Wow, what an intelligent-sounding insult.

Freakout Jackson wrote:

We as humans know if we lock ourselves in a garage with a running internal combustion engine we will die in short order.

Of carbon monoxide poisoning.

jerwin wrote:

Freakout Jackson wrote:

We as humans know if we lock ourselves in a garage with a running internal combustion engine we will die in short order.

Of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Is that what killed your inability to perceive metaphor?

Freakout Jackson wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Freakout Jackson wrote:

We as humans know if we lock ourselves in a garage with a running internal combustion engine we will die in short order.

Of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Is that what killed your inability to perceive metaphor?

It's a stupid analogy.

Carbon Monoxide is a poison. It kills at low partial pressures. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any obvious use for it. It's a greenhouse gas, about three times as powerful as carbon dioxide, but because there's so little about, it's negligible. With the right fuel air mixture and catalytic converters, much of it can be eliminated.

Carbon Dioxide is useful-- it's used in photosynthesis. Total elimination of carbon dioxide would starve the plants, and reduce the planet to a frozen iceball. There's too much of it though, so it tends to heat up the planet.

An engine that emits almost no carbon monoxide or other classical pollutants may never the less be emitting large quantities of greenhouse gasses. To focus on the "poison" ignores the larger issues.

It' a stupid analogy because it breaks down at a fundamental level. The mechanisms at work are completely different.

Chickenhawk wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Carbon Monoxide is a poison. It kills at low partial pressures. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any obvious use for it. It's a greenhouse gas, about three times as powerful as carbon dioxide, but because there's so little about, it's negligible. With the right fuel air mixture and catalytic converters, much of it can be eliminated.

Carbon Dioxide is useful-- it's used in photosynthesis. Total elimination of carbon dioxide would starve the plants, and reduce the planet to a frozen iceball. There's too much of it though, so it tends to heat up the planet.

An engine that emits almost no carbon monoxide or other classical pollutants may never the less be emitting large quantities of greenhouse gasses. To focus on the "poison" ignores the larger issues.

It' a stupid analogy because it breaks down at a fundamental level. The mechanisms at work are completely different.

CO2 is also poisonous. It will kill you for toxic reasons far below the concentrations required for asphyxiation. Even with a 100% clean internal combustion engine, being in a closed garage with no ventilation, the idling car will kill you.

Save your breath ::snicker:: like much of the naysayers, he'll argue details till he's blue in the face ::snickr:: and refuse to look at the bigger picture come hell of high water ::snicker::

We will have to annex Canada in order to stay cool. Shnicky, we are about to award you with honorary U.S. citizen status. About like we did with the native Americans.