This video is pure retardation. Carbon dioxide isn't poisonous, its the carbon monoxide in car exhaust that is. And even if it was poisonous, that would have nothing to do with its greenhouse properties. Go back to school.
@1986JMM Carbon dioxide and water are the products combustion. Carbon monoxide is sometimes formed as well, it is the product of an incomplete combustion reaction. Both can kill you.
Wow this is just the kind of video I would expect from the majority of liberals who don't have the intellegence to have an actual civil debate.. Let alone make important decisions about the future of our country. Some people just shouldn't have the right to vote without an intelligance test
@EsClayWilson Oh yes, I must agree that conservatives simply lack any miniscule modicum of understanding regarding the fallacy of greenhouse gases and man-made global warming. Why as all liberals realize, groups of people that find them to be complete and utter morons must certainly have a simplistic, juvenile grasp of science. Faux pah indeed! Oh please enlighten the rest of us to more scientific grouping of those you disdain master of morons.
@ThorkilKowalski Actually you expel that CO2 (ever belch after drinking a coke?) as well as the CO2 you expel every time you breathe out, because it is a waste byproduct of a process that makes you alive. Breathing it in is like eating your shit. There are organisms that live off it, but you aren't one of them.
I am not completely sold on the CO2 angle. But when it comes to SUVs, they create a lot more old fashioned pollution as well as cause more congestion. As well as heavier vehicles do more damage to roads. So nobody is going to tell me they are concerned about the environment too much when they drive around in a Hummer.
@GodAthie Hmm, that is good. Trouble is that the little cars, besides making more sense, get into less accidents since they handle better & there is less of it to hit. The safest car on the road is not an SUV.
I am not talking about accient totals i am taking about accient deaths. Which fractionally if you get into a wreck with a small car you are more likey to die. And as unconsitutional federal regulations on how much mpg a car should get increase car makers will simply cut down on the weight of their cars so they can get better milage.
I am not saying that we should fuck the enviroment infact i prefer a car, but the government should not meddle in certain areas.
I think almost every single human activity as a co2 output, so regulating and taxing that would give control to government to tax and control any human activity. That's what Glenn Beck talk about not it"S safe to breathe from an SUV muffler.
However, I believe a carbon tax would be one of the least effective ways of curbing pollution. ( I'm not convinced CO2 is a problem. And even if it was, it is one of our least urgent ones)
In my county, there is a city that has a really bad PCB problem in it's canals. The PCBs have gotten into the soil and is spread through the air when it rains. It is well above the safe ppm by a 1000.
Someone is either dumping directly or improperly disposing of old transformers/electronics.
Then i believe we are near agreement =). Find a more effective and economical way to be green and I'm all for it. (not you of course lol)
China does produce alot of smog and serious pollution. Unfortunately, the US lecturing China is like a kid lecturing their parents.
I'm all for stricter guidelines on the disposal of solid and gas waste in the United States. There is no excuse for dumping contaminants and poisons into our land/water.
"There are already waste management programs and guidelines set by the government"
The problem is they aren't nearly enough. CO2ppm have not dropped even though we've gotten better about curbing our pollution. The problem is everyone is still polluting too much and the US in particular would have to get at least 50% below our 1990 levels of pollution to have any real impact.
Another problem is China now pollutes more than us overall and several big countries are deforesting like crazy.
Wow your cleaver, i always thought the exhaust from any vehicle was CO, carbon monoxide, and that is bad for you, in fact it kills you if you do that, CO2 carbon dioxide, is a natural gas needed for the environment to function properly and balanced, without it plants would die, and so would you. you people really need to stop being sheep and look at the science for yourselves, or is that to much hard word and reading for you? well there are plenty of videos on youtube for you to watch. go look.
@neo58421964 Plants don't need 385ppm of CO2 to grow properly. They grow just fine when the earth's atmosphere is only 180ppm of CO2.
"and so would you"
Humans need extremely little CO2 to function. An atmosphere of more than 1% CO2 is harmful to a human. Before calling people sheep and telling them to look at science you should figure out that CO2 is a GHG at significant levels.
The earths atmosphere has been fluctuating between .02-.04% CO2 for a long time.
I think that the main problem everyone is having is the stretching and distorting of facts so that the people in charge can make a few bucks off of carbon tax credits.
They will not simply be taxing vehicles. They will tax everything that involves carbon dioxide. Livestock, farms, humans, wildlife, and heating are a few of the things that will be included.
For the past 20 million or so years the Earth's atmosphere has been pretty consistently under 400ppm of CO2. Before the recent 20 million years or so the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere was lower than it is now.
"distorting of facts"
1) No facts have been distorted. If you believe so which ones?
2) At least you're admitting your objection to science is politically motivated. The carbon tax is not the only method of dealing with pollution.
These are the most annoying videos I've had the misfortune to stumble upon....from now on whenever I see "headzup" I'm running as fast as I can to get away.
And if you think you are convincing me that man has anything to do with the ebbing and flowing of the worlds temperature....get lost!
Some people will believe anything and you must be one of them.
@A86 ... I could not agree more with your statement sir ...
looks to ME as if those folks are the ones that try to PROOVE that the world is 6.000 years old ( young ) ... loool and can´t figure out WHY they canot come up with a solution to the Myth of the world being older then there HOLY Book says it is !
Are you people really that stupid? CO2 is harmless to humans unless there is so much of it that there is no longer enough oxygen to live. We can breathe 100% pure CO2 for short time with no negative effects whatsoever, as long as we get normal oxygen before we pass out and then continue to not have oxygen for some time.
I don't know where you got that from. There is no source that says you can breath 100% pure CO2 for any longer than a few seconds with no ill effects.
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Carbon _ dioxide # Toxicity
It's funny how layman AGW denialists are so ready to contradict scientists when they themselves usually have less than an 8th grader's understanding of science. Even in middle school we knew what you just said is nonsensical.
Sorry layman, you are wrong. I've actually done it. There is no ill effects from CO2. Might you be incorrectly thinking of Carbon Monoxide? That IS a truly dangerous gas, Dioxide is not.
Then you should be able to breath in a chamber filled with CO2 with no harm. Can you? Hell no.
(dot) emedmag (dot) com / html / pre / tox / 0500 (dot) asp
You don't know what you're talking about. But I suppose you believe you do and know better than the doctors who wrote the sources of information cited in the article on CO2 toxicity. Sad.
-__- They're all used for less than 15 minutes. The reason why being exposure for much longer than that would be toxic.
"BTW, you do know man-made climate change has been exposed as a hoax, right?"
No it wasn't:
watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
What were exposed were 3 emails from an unknown time over 15 years about a deletion of unreliable tree ring data. The guy who deleted the data is in trouble for not following proper procedure and violating FOI. But the data was not vital.
If it CO2 wasn't toxic to you your body wouldn't be getting rid of it in the first place. The human body goes to great lengths to expel carbon dioxide out of itself.
There's a reason why carbon dioxide-rich blood is dark and comes back to your heart to be cleaned while oxygen-rich blood is bright in color and sent TO the rest of your body......
What would be the purpose? Your "scientific" sources will ALWAYS disagree. Then the debate goes on to which source is true and a never ending circle would ensue. You will simply never be ABLE to believe the truth because you are so entangled in the lie. ACTUAL science would not sway you a bit, you are too far gone.
BTW, to be skeptical of AGW is one thing. I disagree with AGW skeptics but there is a little room for debate on that issue. But to claim CO2 is not toxic to non-plant living beings is pure nonsense. It's about like trying to deny gravity or evolution.......something tells me you probably don't believe in evolution. Am I right?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a gaseous waste product made from metabolism. The blood carries carbon dioxide to your lungs, where it is exhaled.
As the cells use the oxygen, carbon dioxide is produced and absorbed into the blood. Your blood then carries the carbon dioxide back to your lungs through the capillaries, where it is removed from the body when you exhale.
GlenBeck, MikeGallagher, MichaelMedved, MarkLevin, DennisPrager, MichaelSavage,RushLimbaugh,BillCunningham,MichaelReagan, et al. That's all you can get on radio airwaves and they all parrot the same hateful propaganda 24/7. to hear opposing or alternate views you have to suscribe to paid digital radio!
@tracer740 Ha! Ha! Ha! EPA say's carbon is a pollutant! This means you are a Pollutant! You Carbon Based Organism! You will be paying taxes on yourself! You crack me up! Save the planet!!!!!!! Say something else funny I am LMFAO!
...actually the song in this vid is abit timely because SyFy just made people sit through a 2 part Alice rethread from the people who made Tin Man (Wizard of OZ)...
Back on Global Carbon Taxes... why should we pay it? Unless you have large smokestacks sticking out of your roof and your churning out greenhouse gases you already pay hand over fist the major utilities and whatever else for their burning of greenhouse gases (and that really should be more than enough out of your pocket as is).
Tell the EPA the difference? Wouldn't it just be quicker to lock the EPA heads in a sealed room with a running Hummer? I'd think they'd know the difference after that... if they, you know, survive that... but at least they'd know the difference... either way.
unfortunately for you and the rest of the warm-mongers, man's contribution is only 15 ppm. Not only that, but CO2 has risen while the temp has declined.......this seems to destroy the entire theory that CO2 is a contributing factor to climate
" Your claims are based on scientific inaccuracies and sometimes falsehoods. " ..........funny I was about to say the same thing about you....You were probably one of those guys who believed the scientists when they told us that cigarettes were good and relaxing.........
I'm not confusing anything, there has been a steady decline since 1998 whether 98 was la nina or el nino is inconsequential, the point is that temps are moving in the opposite direction that the warm-mongers predicted
Lol, what scientists were those? The majority of scientists have never said smoking is alright. Stick with the science and put down the conspiracy theory.
"there has been a steady decline since 1998"
No matter how many times you repeat a falsehood....it's still a falsehood:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / global - warming - stopped - in - 1998 (dot) htm
Now explain this. What would be causing this supposed decline? Lol. I'd be really interested for you to explain this.
Dude.....did you not hear about the 240 billion dollar lawsuit the tobacco industry lost, they had scientists on their payrolls for decades coming up with any conclusion they wanted, you really need to get out more...
I don't know what caused it, most say it is because the sun has been going through an 11 year period in which it has had the lowest activity ever recorded.....but you probably haven't heard of that either........
Yes I heard about it. I know you can always find rent-an-experts to back up just about anything you say. My point was that there was never a scientific consensus that smoking is harmless.
Yes, I've heard the sun's activity has gone down. Its activity has been decreasing since the 1950s. That's part of the reason the son is not really a major contributor to global warming anymore. It WAS but now human GHGs are amplifying the natural effect far beyond what it would have been naturally.
The reason some parts of the oceans seem to be cooling is because of unusual La Nina/El Nino activity for the past decade. However, land temperatures are as high as ever and the past 2 decades have been the hottest in history.
Well, the last time the land temperatures and CO2 levels were this high was millions of years ago when volcanic activity was much higher due to continental movement.
But anyway god damn you are pathetic. Every single thing you are spewing is nothing more than news sites masquerading as science sites. They don't do any actual science themselves you fucking tool. So stop quoting them like they are scientific journals.
Get an original thought in your head and stop cutting, pasting a changing a few words from your BS sites.
2) You have yet to quote an empirical data or scientific source that rebuts anything I've said so far.
3) As for scientific journals the Skepticalscience site quotes several scientific journals in every article.
If I were your science teacher I'd be ashamed as shit that I didn't even teach you that CO2 is a GHG (I doubt you even know what that means). That's pretty fucking basic science.
HEY headzup brick for brains!!!!!!!! Car exhaust is carbon monoxide CO which is a very poisonous gas. CO2 is is plant food, and you drink it every time you suck down your cola, uneducated redneck trash! How do you morons get on the internet anyway? Go back to eating paste and keep your delusions of intelligent thought to your self.
Fun fact: Plants and animals breath different gases.
Too much CO2 is bad for plants as well and it's certainly bad for the atmosphere. The atmosphere already traps enough heat as it is. CO2 causes it too trap TOO much heat.
Hey fool, time for a reality check! The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is something around the order of .03%, about 250ppm. How much of that .03% is man caused?
Some greenhouses use CO2 enrichment to DOUBLE that amount to 500ppm, which increases quality and the value of the plants. this is called C02 enrichment. A study at Colorado U showed 40 percent increase in yield.
Plants require slightly different amounts to grow (if the amount drops bellow 150-220ppm the plant quality suffers)!
Continued: How much is man made? A few percent of the .03%, fool! You think humans can double that in the atmosphere? Like they do in CO2 enrichment?
Fun fact: where does most of the mass come from in a tree, ground or air? A: the Air! Less CO2 means stunted growth, and in a commercial sense, less market value.
Other fun fact: planet has been warming for a few hundred years already, warming and cooling follows trends in the sun and orbit much more than co2.
With less trees every year, and more pollution, do you really think there is going to be any risk of a CO2 shortage which could stunt the growth of plants? Also, you're severely underestimating the impact that seemingly 'miniscule' amounts of CO2 can have on global warming.
Did I say there was CO2 shortage in the atmosphere? Moron.
Some idiot said CO2 can kill plants, which is totally misleading.
Obviously I can drown a plant in water, or bury it in dry ice. So pay your h2o and co2 taxes and don't exhale stupid.
The amount that's in the atmosphere isn't even close to being bad for plants.
CO2 shortages happen in closed greenhouses, which can lead to stunted growth. Which is why some are using CO2 enrichment (~200%) to increase the quality of the plants.
Maybe you should consider that you are severely overestimating that truly minuscule amount of man produced CO2 in the atmosphere, before you start a climate cult and demand world banks save us.
Obviously there are real pollution and environmental problems.... which aren't nearly as profitable to consider. This has just turned into a global financial cash cow by taxing and trading something that doesn't really exist.
This "cult" you are describing refers to 60% of Americans and 90% of the scientific community. And forgive me if I take the word of meteorologists on the subject over yours.
Though I do think its funny that you really do believe that Ph.D's go into the field of research for the money.
Only if square one is number one. Again, I never said the normal CO2 levels were in any way endangering plants growth.
I said it's pure ridiculous BS the plants are going to die unless we reduce CO2.
Earth has been a lot warmer in the past, and still no significant correlation between co2 being the main cause, sorry
From my reading, 1 degree over a hundred years (maybe) isn't going to scare me enough to take swimming lessons or believe the global government propaganda cop15 is putting out.
Carbon dioxide in too high levels causes acidosis in plants and eventually kills them. Too much of any gas is a bad thing eventually.
Of course before earth's climate gets to that point the CO2 levels would be so high the caps would be basically completely gone and the earth would be at least 2.5 degrees hotter than it currently is.
"Earth has been a lot warmer in the past"
As I've said before the last time it was this hot was millions of years ago - from high CO2 levels from volcanoes.
Give me a break, the levels are around 300ppm currently, the OPTIMUM is over 1000 for most green plants, rice is 1500-2000, algae is as much as 50,000ppm. Totally pointless and dishonest of you to claim the co2 levels in the atmosphere would ever kill plants... or even be non beneficial.
Hah, millions of years ago? It was hotter in medieval times. Did you get your facts from a cop15 commercial?
Actually its over 375ppm which not good for everything else on the planet. You're also not taking into account the fact that half of the planet's forests have been removed since 1800 leaving the rest to have to pick up the slack and absorb more CO2.
You're trying to compare optimal levels for greenhouse plants to a much more complex system. The earth has polar caps, animal life, oceanic temperatures, etc.
"to claim the CO2 levels in the atmosphere would ever kill plants"
I said in too high concentrations CO can cause acidosis in plants and reduce their nutritional value by throwing off their pH balance. Of course by that point all other living things would be dead..
"It was hotter in medieval times"
Not at all:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / medieval - warm - period (dot) htm
What are you trying to say, man made co2 pollution will cause acidosis and kill off the plants? Obviously not, so what is your point? You're just trying to scare people into believing co2 is toxic, which is just ridiculous.
Water is toxic too, so I beg you to stop drinking more than 20ml a day, if your in a developing country drink 10ml. Join my petition to list water as a dangerous substance and tax its use. Thank you.
I said that too much CO2 is a bad thing for plants and if you put too much CO2 in a greenhouse it affects their pH. Of course the earth is much bigger place so manmade CO2 won't kill the plants off but it does start to affect their pH levels. Especially because CO2 isn't the only gas we're putting in the air......
Carbon dioxide is good for plants and bad for animals and humans:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Carbon _ dioxide # Toxicity
"still no significant correlation between co2 being the main cause"
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki/ Geological _ history _ of _ Earth # Ordovician _ Period
CO2 ppm was much higher during hotter periods.
Perhaps you people should read about WHY the earth was this hot before before claiming CO2 had nothing to do with it. It really makes it look like you're just parroting what someone else said instead of actually understanding the science of what you're talking about.
Man, you need to stop posting bullshit. Do you think just saying it was 7000 ppm way back when the continents were still separating, and then saying that the earth was also hotter back then, proves co2 was the reason it was so hot? Oh, my god, logic fail. Please spare me your idiocy. Tell you what, if you believe in man made co2 doom so much, why don't you just stop breathing or stop arguing and pay your overlords in copenhagen a carbon credit for your transgressions.
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Greenhouse _ effect
This is basic science. You do not understand the Greenhouse Effect, which is basic science. If you don't even understand that then this material is far too advanced for you.
You're trying to debunk AGW but don't even realize that the greenhouse effect exists. Pathetic.
It's also apparent that you don't even understand what cap and trade is. Hint: cap and trade is a tax on individual companies for going over a certain limit. Not citizens.
(dot) politifact (dot) com / truth - o - meter / statements / 2009 / oct / 20 / christopher - monckton / british - climate - skeptic - says - copenhagen -treaty - thr/
Get your info from someone else other than Lord Monckton.
I know what "cap and trade" is stupid, and I'd bet my understanding of international banking and finance is waaaaay superior.
My point is you obviously believe in the ideology behind taxing carbon emissions (which isn't the only financial gimmick which comes from this by the way) so much you should pay your dear leaders for your own carbon footprint.
Oh, but you probably will in energy costs, food costs, etc. cause those costs will be passed to you. Did I say you were stupid already?
If you know about banking and finance you would know that cap and trade is not a citizen tax.
"you obviously believe in the ideology behind taxing carbon emissions"
I haven't made any conclusion on what policies would be best to combat pollution. Regulation, cap and trade (which is different from regulation, you would know if you know about Econ and Public Policy) and marketable permits all have their benefits and drawbacks.
Give me a break, I never said it was a direct tax on every citizen. That doesn't mean you won't help pay for it. You clearly can't read or understand economics. I'd say your high school economics101 failed you and you've probably never dealt with international business in your life. Stop replying to my comments because you're really starting to waste my time.
Cap and trade is not a normal tax. It can be completely avoided if a company stays under a certain limit of pollution. If they do go over they are only taxed a certain rate per ton (not a set amount) and only for that year. They can still avoid this with credits and permits that can get someone else to clean up so they can avoid the tax.
And FYI corporate taxes were higher in the US in past decades yet consumer prices were not higher than now.
Obviously consumer prices are based on more than corporate taxes, that doesn't mean corporate taxes aren't factored into the cost of goods and services. Are you sure you're an economist?
A working economist, or a youtube economist? Too funny.
Of course. But lowering corporate taxes, lowering regulations and lowering wages over the decades has not lowered consumer prices. Inflation rate effects this but inflation isn't rising fast enough to account for the rate at which CPI is rising. Corporate taxes do factor in but you're not taking into account they can be offset by increases in demand, technological advancement, economies of scale, economies of scope, etc.
It potentially can if companies refuse to decrease emissions. If they reduce emissions then no - it doesn't because there is no extra tax. In fact with cap and trade companies are encouraged to invent and innovate cleaner and more efficient technology in order to avoid the tax. Of course there are drawbacks but those are some benefits.
No, I'm not a teacher. I'm an economic analyst. My political bias? What would that be? If being against waste is a bias I see no problem with that.
The reason the tax exists in cap and trade is not just for the heck of it so the government can raise more money. The tax exists because if the companies go over the limit the government has to come in and clean up the rest of the waste. It's already expensive to clean up waste and even more so for the government since it's not as equipped for cleanup. The tax is a fee for the government having to clean up their mess.
Well, the problem with that is co2 is not itself waste, governments aren't actually "cleaning" it up, and when you're talking about international cap and trade, it's other governments who are paying for it. And it all comes back to the fact that man made co2 isn't as big a problem as they want people to think.
CO2 is waste for everything else. It's good for plants but toxic for all other living beings in significant quantities. Like I said earlier it also acts as a blanket (Greenhouse Effect) which warms up the planet enough to melt caps which causes flooding and throws off planetary weather. This causes billions and trillions annually in damage.
Actually its damage is understated because at this point if we stopped polluting altogether global warming would still continue for over a century.
Man made co2 causes 2,000,000,000,000+ of dollars in damage annually? I would love to know where you pulled that crazy number from, or how you came up with that fantastic correlation. Oh, Global warming (and cooling) will continue for long over a century. One could say it will continue as long as we orbit a sun.. and I don't think taxing the sun will be effective at stopping climate change either.
(dot) theregister (dot) co (dot) uk / 2008 / 09 / 22 / global _ warming _ mitigation _ vs _ adaptation /
I didn't give a particular number. You did.
"it will continue as long as we orbit a sun"
The sun stopped being a significant factor of global warming in the 50s. Every period of warming in earth's history has taken centuries and millennia for CO2 to build up. CO2 has gone up over 100ppm in the past 120 years. Faster than at any point in the planet's history.
You said trilions in damages, a trillion is 1,000,000,000,000, trillionS is at least 2,000,000,000,000. So yes, 2,000,000,000,000+ is the exact same as trillians. I just wanted to help you visualize.
How funny that for the first time in the history of the earth the sun stopped being a significant factor in climate change, when politicians decided they wanted to tax co2.
anyway, I'm seriously done commenting on this ridiculously stupid video. what a waste of time, and I suggest you stop commenting here too because this slice of internet manure is even below you.
In each climate change period the sun eventually stops being a major factor as the earth's inclination around the sun changes or solar activity decreases. In this case solar activity is decreasing. This isn't a first at all. It's nothing new.
So naturally the heating effect should be stopping if it's mostly natural. But it's increasing at a faster and faster rate every few years because CO2 ppm rates are still climbing rapidly. No other source now but human activity.
CO2 is taxed because the government has to clean up whatever the private companies don't clean up. Cleanup is very expensive and just like companies the government doesn't work for free. No one does.
Imagine it this way: imagine I'm letting you rent a room in my house and you use my garage every weekend to make industrial products. You produce a lot of soot each time and it eventually starts accumulating in trees and the air in the neighborhood. What do you think I'm going to do?
One comment poses the question if you would want Carbon Dioxide in your water supply.
Well, at times yes! You see Carbon Dioxide (CO2) dissolved in water makes Carbonated Water, used in all soft drinks. It also causes champagne to be bubbly.
Also, CO2 in its solid state is commonly known as Dry Ice!
Now don't go breath exhaust fumes, because they contain Carbon Monoxide, a very toxic gas, produced from exhaust pipes because of a lack of oxygen in the fuel mixture!
Um....Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is emitted from exhaling, and from plants during photosynthesis. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is what a car produces out the exhaust. Who the fuck made this video without checking the difference between CO2 and CO?!
CO2 can be dangerous if exposed to large quantities. We currently have between .036 and .039% CO2 in our atmosphere. If our atmospheric CO2 level increases at the rate it has since the start of the industrial revolution it will be just over 20000 years before someone could possibly feel dizzy from long term exposure and over 100000 years before it could cause any deaths.
It's not about how much it will be before humans feel dizzy. It's about how much it takes before the planet warms to a point where caps melt and oceans flood.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ahh carbon dioxide isn't a dangerous gas. its in our atmosphare and we wouldnt exsist without it. When Volcano's erupt they pump out loads of CO2 into the atmosphere. Plants wouldnt survive without it. There are lots of other by products of combustion that are really noxious so breathing exhaust gas wouldn't be a good idea. To die of CO2 you would need to be exficiated by it, kinda like drowning in water. I'm with Glenn Beck (for once) on this one.
if u rnt stupid then u would know that its also what is posioning peole exspecailly womens breast milk and its not good to breath in at all thats y we need more trees only oxygen is good to breath in unless u r a tree tress take CO2 and create O so we can breath and if u drink to much H2O u will die just like if u dont have enough of it go look this info up if u didnt no it and if u r a lazy ass like many republicans i will look it up for u just tell me if u want me to
Actually, if the air your room were to contain just 8-9% CO2, it would kill you in minutes. Its called hypercapnia.
Of course, there's almost no possibility of the air in our atmosphere getting to that level anytime within the next 20,000 years, but the fact that it exists in nature doesn't make it harmless. Lead is also "all natural". So is uranium, and all kinds of poisons.
Animals also need to drink water to live - water can also kill you. Just because something is natural doesn't make it harmless in any given quantity. Typical pseudo-scientific talking points from conservatives.
CO2 is non toxic and plants collect it during photo synthesis. i'm not sure it is locking in heat. You can die from CO2, but it is a condition more like drowning than poisoning. It is denser than air. If it gets red hot without O2 then it morphs into CO which is very toxic in enclosed areas. There are government programs that dump particulates into the air. Our economy is based on wasting fuel, so we should think about that first. Glenn Beck and Flush Jumbos are professional convoluters.
Glen Beck blows for sure... but you need an actual comedian and a real voice over person to pull this off.. 1 man show not working.
mskinetik 7 months ago
tracer740 thats i guess because the U.S.A. is only like 8 percent Lib-tarded
tarastrucker 9 months ago
so does any dumbass on here know the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide? because i learned it in 10th grade chemistry.
4flyingpickles 10 months ago
You have to admit, it is funny. I love the acid rock interlude.
EsClayWilson 1 year ago
Normally I think Glenn Beck is one of the biggest jerks around. But CO2 is not poisonous though it can smother you in large amounts.
EsClayWilson 1 year ago
carbon dioxide is the output of humans or animals taking oxogyen. theres a fact.
tjl1297 1 year ago
This video is pure retardation. Carbon dioxide isn't poisonous, its the carbon monoxide in car exhaust that is. And even if it was poisonous, that would have nothing to do with its greenhouse properties. Go back to school.
hayesism 1 year ago
Plants produce more and grow larger in a C02 rich atmosphere.
kramcas2 1 year ago
shit
kickthedamcat 1 year ago
Carbon monoxide is not carbon dioxide...
1986JMM 1 year ago
@1986JMM Carbon dioxide and water are the products combustion. Carbon monoxide is sometimes formed as well, it is the product of an incomplete combustion reaction. Both can kill you.
Riff625 1 year ago
hahahaha oh my god!
Beanz920 1 year ago
Wow this is just the kind of video I would expect from the majority of liberals who don't have the intellegence to have an actual civil debate.. Let alone make important decisions about the future of our country. Some people just shouldn't have the right to vote without an intelligance test
ryanrdb123 1 year ago
@ryanrdb123 oh lighten up/ Besides, Beck, like most cons, has a juvenile grasp of science.
EsClayWilson 1 year ago
@EsClayWilson Oh yes, I must agree that conservatives simply lack any miniscule modicum of understanding regarding the fallacy of greenhouse gases and man-made global warming. Why as all liberals realize, groups of people that find them to be complete and utter morons must certainly have a simplistic, juvenile grasp of science. Faux pah indeed! Oh please enlighten the rest of us to more scientific grouping of those you disdain master of morons.
jampitts 1 year ago
Every time you drink a coke, a beer or champagne, you drink and inhale huge amounts of CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant, retards.
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
@ThorkilKowalski Actually you expel that CO2 (ever belch after drinking a coke?) as well as the CO2 you expel every time you breathe out, because it is a waste byproduct of a process that makes you alive. Breathing it in is like eating your shit. There are organisms that live off it, but you aren't one of them.
Riff625 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Riff625
"Breathing it [CO2] in is like eating your shit"
No. Eating shit is harmful and disgusting. Inhaling CO2 is not.
Indirectly, I am very dependent of CO2. No life on earth would exist, if it wasn't for CO2.
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
This is moronic. the thing that would hurt you, (from an auto) is NOT co2 but carbon monoxide.
But then, the carbon taxers don't really care
joygarner 1 year ago
I am not completely sold on the CO2 angle. But when it comes to SUVs, they create a lot more old fashioned pollution as well as cause more congestion. As well as heavier vehicles do more damage to roads. So nobody is going to tell me they are concerned about the environment too much when they drive around in a Hummer.
jakefree25 1 year ago
@jakefree25
and lighter vehicles kill more poeple than C02 and those pollutiants do
GodAthie 1 year ago
@GodAthie So that is your excuse for driving around in your wasteful, over sized ego boosting shitbox SUV?
jakefree25 1 year ago
@jakefree25
my exsuse? i like driving one and will continue to do what ever the hell i want to do
GodAthie 1 year ago
@GodAthie Hmm, that is good. Trouble is that the little cars, besides making more sense, get into less accidents since they handle better & there is less of it to hit. The safest car on the road is not an SUV.
jakefree25 1 year ago
@jakefree25
I am not talking about accient totals i am taking about accient deaths. Which fractionally if you get into a wreck with a small car you are more likey to die. And as unconsitutional federal regulations on how much mpg a car should get increase car makers will simply cut down on the weight of their cars so they can get better milage.
I am not saying that we should fuck the enviroment infact i prefer a car, but the government should not meddle in certain areas.
GodAthie 1 year ago
A single dog has a larger carbon footprint that a large SUV.
Ban or tax pets? Limit on kids?
jonvssocrates 2 years ago
@jonvssocrates Spoken like a true right wing fool, an SUV causes way more pollution than a pack of dogs.
jakefree25 1 year ago
Comment removed
jonvssocrates 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jakefree25, Sorry bud, unlike global warming, my statement is based on science. Google it.
jonvssocrates 1 year ago
I think almost every single human activity as a co2 output, so regulating and taxing that would give control to government to tax and control any human activity. That's what Glenn Beck talk about not it"S safe to breathe from an SUV muffler.
ChancellorRW 2 years ago
Hopefully they find the source of the PCBs soon and punish the ones responsible.
If people are really concerned about pollution, the best way to get involved and make a difference is to get involved on the local level.
Join a committee, volunteer for cleaning the land, collect evidence and appeal to your mayor/governor to take action.
We have much more pressing issues to deal with. To focus on CO2 makes me irritated because it is, at the most, a byproduct of much worse things.
bucourt127 2 years ago
However, I believe a carbon tax would be one of the least effective ways of curbing pollution. ( I'm not convinced CO2 is a problem. And even if it was, it is one of our least urgent ones)
In my county, there is a city that has a really bad PCB problem in it's canals. The PCBs have gotten into the soil and is spread through the air when it rains. It is well above the safe ppm by a 1000.
Someone is either dumping directly or improperly disposing of old transformers/electronics.
bucourt127 2 years ago
Then i believe we are near agreement =). Find a more effective and economical way to be green and I'm all for it. (not you of course lol)
China does produce alot of smog and serious pollution. Unfortunately, the US lecturing China is like a kid lecturing their parents.
I'm all for stricter guidelines on the disposal of solid and gas waste in the United States. There is no excuse for dumping contaminants and poisons into our land/water.
bucourt127 2 years ago
There are already waste management programs and guidelines set by the government. Industries that produce hazardous waste are already taxed.
This is about squeezing an extra dollar out of the regular american and saying its for a cleaner air.
Fact is, there are already major fines and taxes in place to insure clean air/earth without taxing the common man.
bucourt127 2 years ago
"There are already waste management programs and guidelines set by the government"
The problem is they aren't nearly enough. CO2ppm have not dropped even though we've gotten better about curbing our pollution. The problem is everyone is still polluting too much and the US in particular would have to get at least 50% below our 1990 levels of pollution to have any real impact.
Another problem is China now pollutes more than us overall and several big countries are deforesting like crazy.
A86 2 years ago
Wow your cleaver, i always thought the exhaust from any vehicle was CO, carbon monoxide, and that is bad for you, in fact it kills you if you do that, CO2 carbon dioxide, is a natural gas needed for the environment to function properly and balanced, without it plants would die, and so would you. you people really need to stop being sheep and look at the science for yourselves, or is that to much hard word and reading for you? well there are plenty of videos on youtube for you to watch. go look.
neo58421964 2 years ago
i cant believe those fools didnt know the difference!!! They went thru the trouble of making a video.....hilarious
cliffyknight 2 years ago
@neo58421964 Plants don't need 385ppm of CO2 to grow properly. They grow just fine when the earth's atmosphere is only 180ppm of CO2.
"and so would you"
Humans need extremely little CO2 to function. An atmosphere of more than 1% CO2 is harmful to a human. Before calling people sheep and telling them to look at science you should figure out that CO2 is a GHG at significant levels.
A86 2 years ago 2
@A86
The earths atmosphere has been fluctuating between .02-.04% CO2 for a long time.
I think that the main problem everyone is having is the stretching and distorting of facts so that the people in charge can make a few bucks off of carbon tax credits.
They will not simply be taxing vehicles. They will tax everything that involves carbon dioxide. Livestock, farms, humans, wildlife, and heating are a few of the things that will be included.
bucourt127 2 years ago
For the past 20 million or so years the Earth's atmosphere has been pretty consistently under 400ppm of CO2. Before the recent 20 million years or so the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere was lower than it is now.
"distorting of facts"
1) No facts have been distorted. If you believe so which ones?
2) At least you're admitting your objection to science is politically motivated. The carbon tax is not the only method of dealing with pollution.
A86 2 years ago
carbon dioxide is the reason we have oxygen you idiots
chozenone111 2 years ago
Comment removed
fliesh 2 years ago
They produce both. Vehicles are a significant source of CO2 emissions.
A86 2 years ago 5
@tomcwpb it works because you still exhale minimal amounts of o2 co2 is not safe
moonpie50 2 years ago 2
These are the most annoying videos I've had the misfortune to stumble upon....from now on whenever I see "headzup" I'm running as fast as I can to get away.
And if you think you are convincing me that man has anything to do with the ebbing and flowing of the worlds temperature....get lost!
Some people will believe anything and you must be one of them.
dipsydi 2 years ago
There is no other major factor affecting world temperature at this point.
A86 2 years ago 3
well ...
@A86 ... I could not agree more with your statement sir ...
looks to ME as if those folks are the ones that try to PROOVE that the world is 6.000 years old ( young ) ... loool and can´t figure out WHY they canot come up with a solution to the Myth of the world being older then there HOLY Book says it is !
well ... stupity is NOT on the rise !
Lucky us !!!
Brgds
GSO
GermanStraight1 2 years ago 3
Are you people really that stupid? CO2 is harmless to humans unless there is so much of it that there is no longer enough oxygen to live. We can breathe 100% pure CO2 for short time with no negative effects whatsoever, as long as we get normal oxygen before we pass out and then continue to not have oxygen for some time.
tomcwpb 2 years ago
watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI&feature=related
I don't know where you got that from. There is no source that says you can breath 100% pure CO2 for any longer than a few seconds with no ill effects.
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Carbon _ dioxide # Toxicity
It's funny how layman AGW denialists are so ready to contradict scientists when they themselves usually have less than an 8th grader's understanding of science. Even in middle school we knew what you just said is nonsensical.
A86 2 years ago 3
Sorry layman, you are wrong. I've actually done it. There is no ill effects from CO2. Might you be incorrectly thinking of Carbon Monoxide? That IS a truly dangerous gas, Dioxide is not.
tomcwpb 2 years ago
"There is no ill effects from CO2"
Then you should be able to breath in a chamber filled with CO2 with no harm. Can you? Hell no.
(dot) emedmag (dot) com / html / pre / tox / 0500 (dot) asp
You don't know what you're talking about. But I suppose you believe you do and know better than the doctors who wrote the sources of information cited in the article on CO2 toxicity. Sad.
A86 2 years ago 3
Actually, you CAN but only for as long as you could typically hold your breath.
Tell me, if CO2 is toxic, exactly how in the world does CPR work?
tomcwpb 2 years ago
You can't safely breath 100% CO2 for more than a few seconds. 5% CO2 is enough to have ill effects if you breath it for a few minutes.
"if CO2 is toxic"
If? This isn't an "if". This is scientific fact. Denying CO2 is toxic to living beings that aren't plants is like denying gravity exists.
"exactly how in the world does CPR work?"
-__- Because when you FORCE yourself to breath out you exhale a lot of air as well. When you naturally exhale it's largely CO2. *facepalm*
A86 2 years ago 2
You are believing a lie.
5% CO2 is used in hospitals for respiration at times because it is beneficial.
For your next reply, I KNOW because it had to be done on my 14 year old daughter.
It helps the lungs breathe more efficiently.
BTW, you do know man-made climate change has been exposed as a hoax, right?
tomcwpb 2 years ago
-__- They're all used for less than 15 minutes. The reason why being exposure for much longer than that would be toxic.
"BTW, you do know man-made climate change has been exposed as a hoax, right?"
No it wasn't:
watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
What were exposed were 3 emails from an unknown time over 15 years about a deletion of unreliable tree ring data. The guy who deleted the data is in trouble for not following proper procedure and violating FOI. But the data was not vital.
A86 2 years ago 3
If it CO2 wasn't toxic to you your body wouldn't be getting rid of it in the first place. The human body goes to great lengths to expel carbon dioxide out of itself.
There's a reason why carbon dioxide-rich blood is dark and comes back to your heart to be cleaned while oxygen-rich blood is bright in color and sent TO the rest of your body......
A86 2 years ago 2
OMG! You are the KING of the lemmings.
tomcwpb 2 years ago
Mind scientifically refuting anything I've said?
A86 2 years ago 2
What would be the purpose? Your "scientific" sources will ALWAYS disagree. Then the debate goes on to which source is true and a never ending circle would ensue. You will simply never be ABLE to believe the truth because you are so entangled in the lie. ACTUAL science would not sway you a bit, you are too far gone.
tomcwpb 2 years ago
1) What are the "actual" scientific sources?
2) How do you know they're correct since you claim the mainstream ones are wrong?
3) Mind citing them?
A86 2 years ago 2
Why would I waste my time?
There is no hope for you.
tomcwpb 2 years ago
You're making excuses because no such sources exist.
A86 2 years ago 2
BTW, to be skeptical of AGW is one thing. I disagree with AGW skeptics but there is a little room for debate on that issue. But to claim CO2 is not toxic to non-plant living beings is pure nonsense. It's about like trying to deny gravity or evolution.......something tells me you probably don't believe in evolution. Am I right?
A86 2 years ago 2
Ah, the old discredit your opponent tactic, right on schedule.
tomcwpb 2 years ago
I asked you a straightforward question. You refuse to show me your 'legitimate sources'.
Now you're using the old tactic of using conspiracy theory to explain away your lack of evidence.
A86 2 years ago 4
Just trying to avoid that never ending circle I mentioned. I really do have much more important things to do.
tomcwpb 2 years ago
@A86
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a gaseous waste product made from metabolism. The blood carries carbon dioxide to your lungs, where it is exhaled.
As the cells use the oxygen, carbon dioxide is produced and absorbed into the blood. Your blood then carries the carbon dioxide back to your lungs through the capillaries, where it is removed from the body when you exhale.
bucourt127 2 years ago
@bucourt127 We know. It's also produced by many other processes in industry. The burning of fossil fuels being one of them.
A86 2 years ago 3
GlenBeck, MikeGallagher, MichaelMedved, MarkLevin, DennisPrager, MichaelSavage,RushLimbaugh,BillCunningham,MichaelReagan, et al. That's all you can get on radio airwaves and they all parrot the same hateful propaganda 24/7. to hear opposing or alternate views you have to suscribe to paid digital radio!
tracer740 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@tracer740 Ha! Ha! Ha! EPA say's carbon is a pollutant! This means you are a Pollutant! You Carbon Based Organism! You will be paying taxes on yourself! You crack me up! Save the planet!!!!!!! Say something else funny I am LMFAO!
shazizz 1 year ago
Hey gelnn come're and tell me, does this smell like chloroform?
OmarFernandoChavez 2 years ago 3
Now I'd like to show Glenn that methane is safe if he'd care to take a whiff.
suicidechickenshit 2 years ago 3
Thank goodness affordable electric cars are just around the corner (2012) if anyone still has a job and/or money by then to pay for one.
suicidechickenshit 2 years ago
anyone wanna cam and swap pics then let meh know
seeexiamberr 2 years ago
...actually the song in this vid is abit timely because SyFy just made people sit through a 2 part Alice rethread from the people who made Tin Man (Wizard of OZ)...
Back on Global Carbon Taxes... why should we pay it? Unless you have large smokestacks sticking out of your roof and your churning out greenhouse gases you already pay hand over fist the major utilities and whatever else for their burning of greenhouse gases (and that really should be more than enough out of your pocket as is).
DarkeRaven09 2 years ago
Liberals do know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide right ? One of you idiots needs to tell the EPA
ShiekYerbooty 2 years ago
Tell the EPA the difference? Wouldn't it just be quicker to lock the EPA heads in a sealed room with a running Hummer? I'd think they'd know the difference after that... if they, you know, survive that... but at least they'd know the difference... either way.
DarkeRaven09 2 years ago
True, if you were to huff any amount of air that is mostly C02, it would outright kill you instead of sending you on a fun acid trip.
11111110 2 years ago 2
Well it certainly is a good thing that co2 is only 385 parts per million for a standard volume of air. And only 15 ppm is supposedly manmade.....
want to see what that looks like ?
watch?v=gZ8wUJWUMCE
ShiekYerbooty 2 years ago
Incorrect:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / human - co2 - smaller - than - natural - emissions (dot) htm
A86 2 years ago 3
All vehicles that run on fossil fuels put out significant amounts of CO2 as well as CO:
(dot) epa (dot) gov / oms / climate / 420f05001 (dot) htm
A86 2 years ago 2
Wrong again dumbass.... John Heilprin, Associated Press Writer Tue Nov 24, 12:00
.......CO2 levels are hovering around 385 parts per million......
check it yourself
ShiekYerbooty 2 years ago
10ppm higher than what I said. That means it's even WORSE than I claimed. Thanks for helping to prove my point.
A86 2 years ago 2
unfortunately for you and the rest of the warm-mongers, man's contribution is only 15 ppm. Not only that, but CO2 has risen while the temp has declined.......this seems to destroy the entire theory that CO2 is a contributing factor to climate
ShiekYerbooty 2 years ago
I don't know where you pulled that BS number from. The majority of the 100ppm increase over the past 120 years is from humans.
"temp has declined"
Not at all:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / global - cooling (dot) htm
This was the hottest decade ever recorded. Much hotter than the Medieval Warm Period. You're confusing La Nina for global temp drop.
This is why I can't take AGW-deniers seriously. Your claims are based on scientific inaccuracies and sometimes falsehoods.
A86 2 years ago 2
" Your claims are based on scientific inaccuracies and sometimes falsehoods. " ..........funny I was about to say the same thing about you....You were probably one of those guys who believed the scientists when they told us that cigarettes were good and relaxing.........
I'm not confusing anything, there has been a steady decline since 1998 whether 98 was la nina or el nino is inconsequential, the point is that temps are moving in the opposite direction that the warm-mongers predicted
ShiekYerbooty 2 years ago
Lol, what scientists were those? The majority of scientists have never said smoking is alright. Stick with the science and put down the conspiracy theory.
"there has been a steady decline since 1998"
No matter how many times you repeat a falsehood....it's still a falsehood:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / global - warming - stopped - in - 1998 (dot) htm
Now explain this. What would be causing this supposed decline? Lol. I'd be really interested for you to explain this.
A86 2 years ago 2
Dude.....did you not hear about the 240 billion dollar lawsuit the tobacco industry lost, they had scientists on their payrolls for decades coming up with any conclusion they wanted, you really need to get out more...
I don't know what caused it, most say it is because the sun has been going through an 11 year period in which it has had the lowest activity ever recorded.....but you probably haven't heard of that either........
ShiekYerbooty 2 years ago
Yes I heard about it. I know you can always find rent-an-experts to back up just about anything you say. My point was that there was never a scientific consensus that smoking is harmless.
Yes, I've heard the sun's activity has gone down. Its activity has been decreasing since the 1950s. That's part of the reason the son is not really a major contributor to global warming anymore. It WAS but now human GHGs are amplifying the natural effect far beyond what it would have been naturally.
A86 2 years ago 2
The reason some parts of the oceans seem to be cooling is because of unusual La Nina/El Nino activity for the past decade. However, land temperatures are as high as ever and the past 2 decades have been the hottest in history.
Well, the last time the land temperatures and CO2 levels were this high was millions of years ago when volcanic activity was much higher due to continental movement.
A86 2 years ago 4
But anyway god damn you are pathetic. Every single thing you are spewing is nothing more than news sites masquerading as science sites. They don't do any actual science themselves you fucking tool. So stop quoting them like they are scientific journals.
Get an original thought in your head and stop cutting, pasting a changing a few words from your BS sites.
girzwald3 2 years ago
"nothing more than news sites"
1) Skepticalscience is a science site, dumbass.
2) You have yet to quote an empirical data or scientific source that rebuts anything I've said so far.
3) As for scientific journals the Skepticalscience site quotes several scientific journals in every article.
If I were your science teacher I'd be ashamed as shit that I didn't even teach you that CO2 is a GHG (I doubt you even know what that means). That's pretty fucking basic science.
A86 2 years ago 3
2supersuper2 is a fucking coward they insult u then remove the comment so u cant reply to them
kazooga1234 2 years ago 2
Carbon monoxide is what cars give off diffrent fom CO2 and too much of any thing is bad.
xchanxzenx 2 years ago
Yeah, this video proves nothing but you're a moron. Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide are two different things you idiot!
UU238 2 years ago
Time to pay your global carbon taxes
biometricsislavery 2 years ago
Don't breath out.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
Pay my global carbon taxes? Only if the Earth or EPA sends me a refund check once a year.
DarkeRaven09 2 years ago
carbon dioxide carbon monoxide
their both the same thing right ?
WRONG
mlkkkkkkk 2 years ago
this is one of the best ever that headzup has ever done
seventhstar 2 years ago 2
Lost in the Sixties you are Yes !
ZZTWP :
zztwp 2 years ago
This video is going to have all the crack heads sucking on tailpipes, maybe it will reduce the crime rate.
gemini067 2 years ago 4
Epic Lose.
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
Dioxide Monoxide
goodinohio 2 years ago
5 stars
enemigosocultos 2 years ago 3
HEY headzup brick for brains!!!!!!!! Car exhaust is carbon monoxide CO which is a very poisonous gas. CO2 is is plant food, and you drink it every time you suck down your cola, uneducated redneck trash! How do you morons get on the internet anyway? Go back to eating paste and keep your delusions of intelligent thought to your self.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
Fun fact: Plants and animals breath different gases.
Too much CO2 is bad for plants as well and it's certainly bad for the atmosphere. The atmosphere already traps enough heat as it is. CO2 causes it too trap TOO much heat.
A86 2 years ago 3
Hey fool, time for a reality check! The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is something around the order of .03%, about 250ppm. How much of that .03% is man caused?
Some greenhouses use CO2 enrichment to DOUBLE that amount to 500ppm, which increases quality and the value of the plants. this is called C02 enrichment. A study at Colorado U showed 40 percent increase in yield.
Plants require slightly different amounts to grow (if the amount drops bellow 150-220ppm the plant quality suffers)!
tooosweeet 2 years ago
You're off man (or woman):
A natural change of 100ppm takes 5,000-20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has occurred in just 120 years.
(dot) globalwarmingart (dot) com / wiki / File : Carbon _ History _ and _ Flux _ Rev_ png
Our current rate is far over 220ppm. It's actually high enough that a significant amount more causes acidosis:
(dot) nytimes (dot) com / 1992 / 09 /18 / us / report - says - carbon - dioxide - rise - may - hurt - plants (dot) html
Try again.
A86 2 years ago 2
Continued: How much is man made? A few percent of the .03%, fool! You think humans can double that in the atmosphere? Like they do in CO2 enrichment?
Fun fact: where does most of the mass come from in a tree, ground or air? A: the Air! Less CO2 means stunted growth, and in a commercial sense, less market value.
Other fun fact: planet has been warming for a few hundred years already, warming and cooling follows trends in the sun and orbit much more than co2.
Oh, the sound of your failure!
tooosweeet 2 years ago
With less trees every year, and more pollution, do you really think there is going to be any risk of a CO2 shortage which could stunt the growth of plants? Also, you're severely underestimating the impact that seemingly 'miniscule' amounts of CO2 can have on global warming.
11111110 2 years ago 2
Did I say there was CO2 shortage in the atmosphere? Moron.
Some idiot said CO2 can kill plants, which is totally misleading.
Obviously I can drown a plant in water, or bury it in dry ice. So pay your h2o and co2 taxes and don't exhale stupid.
The amount that's in the atmosphere isn't even close to being bad for plants.
CO2 shortages happen in closed greenhouses, which can lead to stunted growth. Which is why some are using CO2 enrichment (~200%) to increase the quality of the plants.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
Maybe you should consider that you are severely overestimating that truly minuscule amount of man produced CO2 in the atmosphere, before you start a climate cult and demand world banks save us.
Obviously there are real pollution and environmental problems.... which aren't nearly as profitable to consider. This has just turned into a global financial cash cow by taxing and trading something that doesn't really exist.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
Minuscule? We put out far more CO2 every year than volcanoes ever do.
A86 2 years ago 2
This "cult" you are describing refers to 60% of Americans and 90% of the scientific community. And forgive me if I take the word of meteorologists on the subject over yours.
Though I do think its funny that you really do believe that Ph.D's go into the field of research for the money.
11111110 2 years ago 7
"Less CO2 means stunted growth"
There much more than enough CO2 in the air to sustain plants. Reducing emissions is not going to hurt plants.
"planet has been warming for a few hundred year already"
Indeed, the natural effect wore off decades ago:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / global - warming - early - 20th - century (dot) htm
Human emissions amplify the natural effect beyond what it would be on its own.
Looks like you're back to Square One.
A86 2 years ago 3
Only if square one is number one. Again, I never said the normal CO2 levels were in any way endangering plants growth.
I said it's pure ridiculous BS the plants are going to die unless we reduce CO2.
Earth has been a lot warmer in the past, and still no significant correlation between co2 being the main cause, sorry
From my reading, 1 degree over a hundred years (maybe) isn't going to scare me enough to take swimming lessons or believe the global government propaganda cop15 is putting out.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
Carbon dioxide in too high levels causes acidosis in plants and eventually kills them. Too much of any gas is a bad thing eventually.
Of course before earth's climate gets to that point the CO2 levels would be so high the caps would be basically completely gone and the earth would be at least 2.5 degrees hotter than it currently is.
"Earth has been a lot warmer in the past"
As I've said before the last time it was this hot was millions of years ago - from high CO2 levels from volcanoes.
A86 2 years ago 2
Give me a break, the levels are around 300ppm currently, the OPTIMUM is over 1000 for most green plants, rice is 1500-2000, algae is as much as 50,000ppm. Totally pointless and dishonest of you to claim the co2 levels in the atmosphere would ever kill plants... or even be non beneficial.
Hah, millions of years ago? It was hotter in medieval times. Did you get your facts from a cop15 commercial?
tooosweeet 2 years ago
Actually its over 375ppm which not good for everything else on the planet. You're also not taking into account the fact that half of the planet's forests have been removed since 1800 leaving the rest to have to pick up the slack and absorb more CO2.
You're trying to compare optimal levels for greenhouse plants to a much more complex system. The earth has polar caps, animal life, oceanic temperatures, etc.
A86 2 years ago 2
"to claim the CO2 levels in the atmosphere would ever kill plants"
I said in too high concentrations CO can cause acidosis in plants and reduce their nutritional value by throwing off their pH balance. Of course by that point all other living things would be dead..
"It was hotter in medieval times"
Not at all:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / medieval - warm - period (dot) htm
A86 2 years ago 2
What are you trying to say, man made co2 pollution will cause acidosis and kill off the plants? Obviously not, so what is your point? You're just trying to scare people into believing co2 is toxic, which is just ridiculous.
Water is toxic too, so I beg you to stop drinking more than 20ml a day, if your in a developing country drink 10ml. Join my petition to list water as a dangerous substance and tax its use. Thank you.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
I said that too much CO2 is a bad thing for plants and if you put too much CO2 in a greenhouse it affects their pH. Of course the earth is much bigger place so manmade CO2 won't kill the plants off but it does start to affect their pH levels. Especially because CO2 isn't the only gas we're putting in the air......
Carbon dioxide is good for plants and bad for animals and humans:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Carbon _ dioxide # Toxicity
Basic science. This is not new nor up for debate.
A86 2 years ago 2
"still no significant correlation between co2 being the main cause"
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki/ Geological _ history _ of _ Earth # Ordovician _ Period
CO2 ppm was much higher during hotter periods.
Perhaps you people should read about WHY the earth was this hot before before claiming CO2 had nothing to do with it. It really makes it look like you're just parroting what someone else said instead of actually understanding the science of what you're talking about.
A86 2 years ago 2
Man, you need to stop posting bullshit. Do you think just saying it was 7000 ppm way back when the continents were still separating, and then saying that the earth was also hotter back then, proves co2 was the reason it was so hot? Oh, my god, logic fail. Please spare me your idiocy. Tell you what, if you believe in man made co2 doom so much, why don't you just stop breathing or stop arguing and pay your overlords in copenhagen a carbon credit for your transgressions.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
It does indeed:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Greenhouse _ effect
This is basic science. You do not understand the Greenhouse Effect, which is basic science. If you don't even understand that then this material is far too advanced for you.
You're trying to debunk AGW but don't even realize that the greenhouse effect exists. Pathetic.
A86 2 years ago 3
It's also apparent that you don't even understand what cap and trade is. Hint: cap and trade is a tax on individual companies for going over a certain limit. Not citizens.
(dot) politifact (dot) com / truth - o - meter / statements / 2009 / oct / 20 / christopher - monckton / british - climate - skeptic - says - copenhagen -treaty - thr/
Get your info from someone else other than Lord Monckton.
A86 2 years ago 2
I know what "cap and trade" is stupid, and I'd bet my understanding of international banking and finance is waaaaay superior.
My point is you obviously believe in the ideology behind taxing carbon emissions (which isn't the only financial gimmick which comes from this by the way) so much you should pay your dear leaders for your own carbon footprint.
Oh, but you probably will in energy costs, food costs, etc. cause those costs will be passed to you. Did I say you were stupid already?
tooosweeet 2 years ago
If you know about banking and finance you would know that cap and trade is not a citizen tax.
"you obviously believe in the ideology behind taxing carbon emissions"
I haven't made any conclusion on what policies would be best to combat pollution. Regulation, cap and trade (which is different from regulation, you would know if you know about Econ and Public Policy) and marketable permits all have their benefits and drawbacks.
A86 2 years ago 3
Give me a break, I never said it was a direct tax on every citizen. That doesn't mean you won't help pay for it. You clearly can't read or understand economics. I'd say your high school economics101 failed you and you've probably never dealt with international business in your life. Stop replying to my comments because you're really starting to waste my time.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
Hint: I AM an economist.
Cap and trade is not a normal tax. It can be completely avoided if a company stays under a certain limit of pollution. If they do go over they are only taxed a certain rate per ton (not a set amount) and only for that year. They can still avoid this with credits and permits that can get someone else to clean up so they can avoid the tax.
And FYI corporate taxes were higher in the US in past decades yet consumer prices were not higher than now.
A86 2 years ago 2
Obviously consumer prices are based on more than corporate taxes, that doesn't mean corporate taxes aren't factored into the cost of goods and services. Are you sure you're an economist?
A working economist, or a youtube economist? Too funny.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
Of course. But lowering corporate taxes, lowering regulations and lowering wages over the decades has not lowered consumer prices. Inflation rate effects this but inflation isn't rising fast enough to account for the rate at which CPI is rising. Corporate taxes do factor in but you're not taking into account they can be offset by increases in demand, technological advancement, economies of scale, economies of scope, etc.
Yes, I'm a working economist.
A86 2 years ago 3
So you agree that it raises costs. You answered me fine with your first two words, no need to babble outside the point.
I'm guessing you're probably teaching economics in high school. I hope you keep your political bias outside the classroom.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
It potentially can if companies refuse to decrease emissions. If they reduce emissions then no - it doesn't because there is no extra tax. In fact with cap and trade companies are encouraged to invent and innovate cleaner and more efficient technology in order to avoid the tax. Of course there are drawbacks but those are some benefits.
No, I'm not a teacher. I'm an economic analyst. My political bias? What would that be? If being against waste is a bias I see no problem with that.
A86 2 years ago 3
The reason the tax exists in cap and trade is not just for the heck of it so the government can raise more money. The tax exists because if the companies go over the limit the government has to come in and clean up the rest of the waste. It's already expensive to clean up waste and even more so for the government since it's not as equipped for cleanup. The tax is a fee for the government having to clean up their mess.
A86 2 years ago 2
Well, the problem with that is co2 is not itself waste, governments aren't actually "cleaning" it up, and when you're talking about international cap and trade, it's other governments who are paying for it. And it all comes back to the fact that man made co2 isn't as big a problem as they want people to think.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
CO2 is waste for everything else. It's good for plants but toxic for all other living beings in significant quantities. Like I said earlier it also acts as a blanket (Greenhouse Effect) which warms up the planet enough to melt caps which causes flooding and throws off planetary weather. This causes billions and trillions annually in damage.
Actually its damage is understated because at this point if we stopped polluting altogether global warming would still continue for over a century.
A86 2 years ago
Man made co2 causes 2,000,000,000,000+ of dollars in damage annually? I would love to know where you pulled that crazy number from, or how you came up with that fantastic correlation. Oh, Global warming (and cooling) will continue for long over a century. One could say it will continue as long as we orbit a sun.. and I don't think taxing the sun will be effective at stopping climate change either.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
(dot) theregister (dot) co (dot) uk / 2008 / 09 / 22 / global _ warming _ mitigation _ vs _ adaptation /
I didn't give a particular number. You did.
"it will continue as long as we orbit a sun"
The sun stopped being a significant factor of global warming in the 50s. Every period of warming in earth's history has taken centuries and millennia for CO2 to build up. CO2 has gone up over 100ppm in the past 120 years. Faster than at any point in the planet's history.
A86 2 years ago 3
You said trilions in damages, a trillion is 1,000,000,000,000, trillionS is at least 2,000,000,000,000. So yes, 2,000,000,000,000+ is the exact same as trillians. I just wanted to help you visualize.
How funny that for the first time in the history of the earth the sun stopped being a significant factor in climate change, when politicians decided they wanted to tax co2.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
Or I should say when banks decided, they are probably the ones that will benefit the most from this.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
anyway, I'm seriously done commenting on this ridiculously stupid video. what a waste of time, and I suggest you stop commenting here too because this slice of internet manure is even below you.
tooosweeet 2 years ago
In each climate change period the sun eventually stops being a major factor as the earth's inclination around the sun changes or solar activity decreases. In this case solar activity is decreasing. This isn't a first at all. It's nothing new.
So naturally the heating effect should be stopping if it's mostly natural. But it's increasing at a faster and faster rate every few years because CO2 ppm rates are still climbing rapidly. No other source now but human activity.
A86 2 years ago 3
CO2 is taxed because the government has to clean up whatever the private companies don't clean up. Cleanup is very expensive and just like companies the government doesn't work for free. No one does.
Imagine it this way: imagine I'm letting you rent a room in my house and you use my garage every weekend to make industrial products. You produce a lot of soot each time and it eventually starts accumulating in trees and the air in the neighborhood. What do you think I'm going to do?
A86 2 years ago 2
to much of anything will kill you. FACT....WE ARE ALL DROWNING IN BULLSHIT.....
mike1111qq 2 years ago 5
ROFL Teabagging dream
wblstudios 2 years ago 4
Now for some research for those of you who would like to know what our future holds for our climate temperature.
Go and search, "Sunspot cycle and climate." Read various articles and look at the grafts. Climatecops was an interesting site I viewed.
Pay close attention, and you will see that we are entering into the next solar cycle that will produce lower temperatures.
Then ask yourself if the Climate Change activists and elite, are trying to take credit for the upcoming decline in temps?
nvsyru 2 years ago
One comment poses the question if you would want Carbon Dioxide in your water supply.
Well, at times yes! You see Carbon Dioxide (CO2) dissolved in water makes Carbonated Water, used in all soft drinks. It also causes champagne to be bubbly.
Also, CO2 in its solid state is commonly known as Dry Ice!
Now don't go breath exhaust fumes, because they contain Carbon Monoxide, a very toxic gas, produced from exhaust pipes because of a lack of oxygen in the fuel mixture!
nvsyru 2 years ago
Um....Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is emitted from exhaling, and from plants during photosynthesis. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is what a car produces out the exhaust. Who the fuck made this video without checking the difference between CO2 and CO?!
mjnr7777 2 years ago
CO2 can be dangerous if exposed to large quantities. We currently have between .036 and .039% CO2 in our atmosphere. If our atmospheric CO2 level increases at the rate it has since the start of the industrial revolution it will be just over 20000 years before someone could possibly feel dizzy from long term exposure and over 100000 years before it could cause any deaths.
curlylarrymoe 2 years ago
It's not about how much it will be before humans feel dizzy. It's about how much it takes before the planet warms to a point where caps melt and oceans flood.
A86 2 years ago 4
Lol
MiLoMac06 2 years ago
hmmm, inhaling hummer exhaust...that would explain ALLOOOT of things about Glenn.
deveousdevil 2 years ago 5
i wish that beck accually did that it would be funny and ha bisky i would love to c him dead off of his stupidity
kazooga1234 2 years ago 2
I'm having a slow day. What song is this again?
Insanekid95 2 years ago
Jefferson Airplane FTW!!!!
DarkFairy003 2 years ago
I loved Sarah in the suit saying "Come into the liiiiight!"
HomoCyborgZombie 2 years ago
HA!!!
LOVED it.
radudeATL 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ahh carbon dioxide isn't a dangerous gas. its in our atmosphare and we wouldnt exsist without it. When Volcano's erupt they pump out loads of CO2 into the atmosphere. Plants wouldnt survive without it. There are lots of other by products of combustion that are really noxious so breathing exhaust gas wouldn't be a good idea. To die of CO2 you would need to be exficiated by it, kinda like drowning in water. I'm with Glenn Beck (for once) on this one.
alleynz 2 years ago
An over abundance of O2 can kill you too dumb fuck!
wtfoof 2 years ago 2
if u rnt stupid then u would know that its also what is posioning peole exspecailly womens breast milk and its not good to breath in at all thats y we need more trees only oxygen is good to breath in unless u r a tree tress take CO2 and create O so we can breath and if u drink to much H2O u will die just like if u dont have enough of it go look this info up if u didnt no it and if u r a lazy ass like many republicans i will look it up for u just tell me if u want me to
kazooga1234 2 years ago 2
Actually, if the air your room were to contain just 8-9% CO2, it would kill you in minutes. Its called hypercapnia.
Of course, there's almost no possibility of the air in our atmosphere getting to that level anytime within the next 20,000 years, but the fact that it exists in nature doesn't make it harmless. Lead is also "all natural". So is uranium, and all kinds of poisons.
11111110 2 years ago 4
Too funny.
yuukisama2001 2 years ago 2
FUnny
imaginepeace63 2 years ago 2
lol different tea bag experiance, hillarious
huskerbird1 2 years ago 3
Animals also need to drink water to live - water can also kill you. Just because something is natural doesn't make it harmless in any given quantity. Typical pseudo-scientific talking points from conservatives.
w0smith 2 years ago 3
Glenn Beck is a "liar liar pants on fire" and he knows it.
hypnofan35 2 years ago 4
CO2 is non toxic and plants collect it during photo synthesis. i'm not sure it is locking in heat. You can die from CO2, but it is a condition more like drowning than poisoning. It is denser than air. If it gets red hot without O2 then it morphs into CO which is very toxic in enclosed areas. There are government programs that dump particulates into the air. Our economy is based on wasting fuel, so we should think about that first. Glenn Beck and Flush Jumbos are professional convoluters.
hypnofan35 2 years ago