Professor Limbaugh: CO2 can't be bad for the environment because "we exhale CO2"

[CommentClown]

Parts per million, folks. We also urinate. Doesn't mean that we could survive in piss ten feet deep. Thanks for the science, Rush!

[glenndough79]

CO2 is plant food.

[jizzmatic2000]

@glenndough79 Sort of. During the day, when a plant is performing photosynthesis, yes. However, at night, when that plant continues consuming its produced sugars, it's actually exhausting CO2.

Then add the fact that we're actively generating more CO2 as we're destroying acres of forest on a daily basis, and you can see why there might be a problem.

[13fanboi]

@jizzmatic2000 Maybe things have changed since I took biology in highschool,but last time I looked plants produce oxygen as exhaust,not carbon dixoide. That is why the majority of life on earth is possible. Plants need our waste gas and we need their waste gas. There are places on earth where life exists on other gases(deep ocean methane seeps,volcanic vents),but Rush is right; CO2 is a huge part of the equation for life on earth.

[jizzmatic2000]

@13fanboi They might not have taught it at your high school, but everything I said was correct. Plants need CO2 during the day to perform photosynthesis. Maybe I should emphasize "photo," as in, when there's light. At night, plants continue to eat sugars generated during the daytime; a process which vents CO2.

Regardless of the science lesson, it's pretty stupid to argue that anything humans exhale, excrete, or perspire can't be harmful in overabundance, which is what Rush is trying to do.

[victorsossa]

"if it was poison it wouldn't be part of the way we stay alive"...wow, people really listen to this retard??

[13fanboi]

@victorsossa It is part of the way we stay alive. We exhale CO2 as waste. Plants use it and exhale O2 as waste. We breath O2. That is what Rush is talking about.

[windmill10]

@victorsossa It is so simple dude. If all plants and trees can process x amount of CO2 and there is an equlibrium. What happens if the amount of CO2 doubles to 2x as a result of automobile and industrial exhaust? I second the motion by evilsoxkitty. Let this Rush idiot try to survive on CO2 for an hour. That might stop him poisoning the minds of simple Americans with his idiotic rants.

[EtcEtcAndEtc]

what a lizard/weasel/donkey...

[Garo48]

This guy should be on SNL!!! Ha ha h ha!!

[rimaz]

Does he ever listen to his own program?!!!

[dreamdewil]

Did he just say that?!!!

/picardfacepalm

[fudruckers90210]

"if it were a poison, then it wouldn't be a part of how we stay alive." exactly, it isn't a part of how we stay alive. CO2 is WASTE. just like shit and piss, we stay alive by GETTING RID OF CO2.

[FigurinItOut]

If Republicans could figure out how to make a buck off of trees without cutting them down, they'd suddenly become environmentalists.

[AreThereNoMoreNames]

How about orchards, tree-nut growers, parks, and landscaping, people paying people money in a free market to add more trees!

[kyahdhin]

Co2 is what fucking plants need to make oxygen for us. What makes any dumb ass with a lab coat think it is an actual pollutant??? Limbaugh is right. Co2 is not a pollutant it is a means with which to regulate and control the masses. If that is not clear, then perhaps your someone who believes the earth is still flat. I can't believe people actually fall for this crap.

[Silageist]

It doesn't need to be poisonous to be dangerous, dumbass. Water isn't poisonous either, but too much of it can kill you. Likewise, C02 isn't poisonous in small amounts, but in large amounts it can have serious effects.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Suppose human activity emitted some chemical that, at current (hypothetical) rates, would after a decade noticeably decreased crop production in the Great Plains. What if some species were predicted to go extinct because of the ecological impact of the emission? Would you call that chemical a pollutant? The scientific evidence says human emissions of CO2 are changing the climate, hence ecosystems, though at a slower rate. It's thus reasonable to call our levels of CO2 emissions a pollutant.

[fudruckers90210]

that's one of the most idiotic comments i've ever seen

[Navywxman]

Nobody in a lab coat thinks its a pollutant. Any talk is politically driven and improperly trying to describe something that in excessive amounts does do harm though technically not as a pollutant.

The real issue is the continued radical increase in greenhouse gases, CO2 being just one, into a finite space ie. our atmosphere, that is and will be destructive. Virtually nothing is being done about it as industry wants and who Limbaugh serves.

[jimlovesearth2]

Limbaugh is an idiot. he's no scientist. and he's citing scientific studies that were funded by Exxxon or some other oil company. What this man spews is not on criminal, it is evil.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

1) "find one computer model that predicted the current cooling"

I see you're unaware of the work of Keenlyside and Latif, who've been working on modeling decade scales oceanic cycles and their interconnections with surface temperatures. For instance

Letter: Nature 453, 84-88 (1 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06921; Received 25 June 2007 "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector" N. S. Keenlyside, M. Latif, J. Jungclaus, L. Kornblueh & E. Roeckner

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(1 cont)

"Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast ... Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(1 cont)

If the MOC is the cause of the recent global surface temp plateauing, then it's hardly surprising that prior GCMs didn't predict this as it's active research over the past decade, only being fully incorporated into the GCMs during that time. Before betraying your ignorance with your reply, understand the difference between weather and climate - this is about predictive power lying somewhere scaled between the two, so doesn't provide you with a serious complaint against prior GCMs.

[duffer29]

what part of WRONG don't you understand.

if a computer model doesn't coincide with reality, it's WRONG, not right, mistaken, incorrect, defective, false, and kindly, not accurate.

science IS black and white.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

2) "hansons most recent fraud was last year when he announce oct. was the hottest on record. turns out he wasn't using oct records at all, but previous, hotter months to push his averages up in russia."

Clueless. First, Hansen is infinitely smarter than the dolts like you slandering him. If he intended to commit a fraud, he'd do it in a way that would be hard to detect. Repeating the exact same data from Sep to Oct is hardly a subtle move.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(2 cont)

Further, this is science, so this is all public stuff - no scientist would attempt a fraud by simply lying about what the public data is. So much for your "fraud" claim. As to the error itself, it was pointed out immediately (the same day presented by GISS?) and was then corrected. Regions of Central Asia had experienced an unusually warm October, so while Hansen's group should've checked the discrepancy more carefully, a warm Russian October wasn't itself a red flag to a data problem.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(2 cont)

Finally, let's point out that this bad data didn't even come from Hansen; it was from NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network database. That's right, the "fraud" didn't originate with Hansen or GISS, but rather NOAA.

So to allege fraud by Hansen in this case is only possible for someone lacking in either basic integrity, or intelligence, or both. Of course, someone with a 100+ IQ and possessing basic human decency isn't going to end up being a rightwing blowhard anyway.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

3) " the dr.'s claim that the 90's were the hottest decade in the century was proved false, turns out it was the 30's and hanson printed another retraction"

To begin with, your assertion is false. To my knowledge, Hansen never claimed that for the US, the 1990's were hotter than the 1930's - even BEFORE the data error to which you refer was discovered. I DO know of his publishing (in 1999) the exact opposite claim.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(3 cont)

From Hansen et al. 1999. 1999: GISS analysis of surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30997-31022 "The year 1998 was the warmest year of recent decades in the United States,

but in general, U.S. temperatures have not recovered even to the level that existed in the 1930s. This

contrasts with global temperatures, which ..."

Let me explain your own bullshit talking point to you:

In the US, 1998 and 1934 were the hottest years of the 20th century.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(3 cont)

1998 was hotter, but tied with 1934 within the error bounds. McIntyre examined the data in 2000, looking for a y-2-k error. He found a small discrepancy, but it wasn't a y-2-k error. When shown to Hanson, the data was reviewed and the problem found. Hanson's data provider had itself switched sources - so the datasets had to be compared and reset, then readjusted for various effects. If I recall, this was just a miscommunication; each group thought the other was doing this adjustment.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(3 cont)

After this correction was performed, the US temp history changed SLIGHTLY. But it was enough to push 1934 ahead of 1998 as the hottest year IN THE USA. But global warming is a GLOBAL question, and the small changes in the US temp history made basically no change to the GLOBAL temp history, and so 1998 was still the undisputed hottest year of the 20th century globally.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

4) "then there's the matter of the hockey stick graph which was also bogus. A FRAUD"

Clueless. The "Hockey Stick" was studied as normal ongoing scientific research into temp reconstruction continued. This was complicated when a Wall Street Journal article led Republican congressmen to politicize science, and led to additional studies. I've read the summaries of a half dozen studies of temperature reconstructions - including the politically mandated ones by Wegman and the NRC.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(4 cont)

Mann's original paper had statistical flaws, and different studies produce slightly different results with different levels of confidence, and overall the Medieval Warm Period produces a larger bulge than Mann's original paper had. But deviations of these later studies from Mann's original paper were within the large error bars Mann's original paper emphasized.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(4 cont)

Most importantly, the ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE HOCKEY STICK are unchanged:

a) warmer now than in the last 1000 years

b) the current rate of increase of temps is unprecedented over that time

This, of course, gets translated into "the hockey is a bogus fraud' by ignorant/deceitful toadies of the anti-global warming propaganda movement - like you Duffer29.

[carnivore2503]

I have an idea. lets all get on one side of the planet and jump up and down. then we can move the plant to it's correct orbit. which would change GWarming Because obviously we can change our environment with this simple act.

most people don't force their beliefs on anyone why do envo's force their religion on the rest of us.

Naturalism is a religion too. Besides, is the earth all that nice to us? it produces things like hurricanes and tornados.

take it as sarcasm it's all laid on thick.

[carnivore2503]

I hope you people who believe the scam will wake up. MYth one: CO2 levels increase the greenhouse gases which in turn raise the temp.

Fact: The rise in tempurature is the reason for increase CO2 levels. (It's a reverse of Gore's scenerio. look at his charts closely). Look it up!! 370 PPM that's parts per million think about it.

Yes as Human beings we do contribute to Global warming. a whopping 4 % everyone stop breathing and we'll cut it down to 2%. Look it Up. Scientific facts.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

carnivore:

What's amusing is that you aren't even getting the facts correct for your failed parroted arguments.

CO2 increases don't "increase" greenhouse gases; CO2 IS a greenhouse gas.. 4% isn't the human contribution to global warming, it's the human contribution to total annual CO2 sources. Further, you confuse partial correlation with causation, and think you can intuit what counts as a significant CO2 concentration levels for influencing infrared opacity. You're clueless about this topic.

[bbbbmer]

maybe if rush would just stop talking we might be able to save the icecap

[grandtheftm0tt0]

what a fucking tool

[Navywxman]

One of the greatest pollutants is Limbaugh, which is exactly what he has done to intelligent dialogue all these years

The real issue isn't about debating whether CO2 is a pollutant, which it isn't, but the damage done by the exponential increase of CO2 into a finite atmosphere from human activities, primarily the corporate output of those who would happily burn our very real world just to make man made money

Internationally scientists understand the damage being done unlike this sell out

[duffer29]

facts are pesky things.

the entire human contribution to atmospheric co2 is estimated to be about 13 PPM that ends up to be 0.0013% of the atmosphere and 0.0335% of total co2.

temps have remained steady or dropped for the last 11 years while co2 levels have risen by 22ppm.

every single computer model has been wrong, not just some or most, EVERY single one. and yet, idiots like you continue to believe.

welcome to the church of gaia.

[Navywxman]

duffer - In countless studies I have never seen those numbers you site. Can you site where you have gotten your info I would like to check it out?

Probably unlike you I have first hand experience with weather computer models and climatology as I was a weather forcaster in the Navy & also helped run one of the Navy's major climatology offices on the east coast. Coupled with global scientific studies your numbers have no support I've seen. I guess your busy running the church of ignorance.

[Kaimosae]

Rush Limbaugh didn't graduate college, he dropped out, and he's questioning some of the smartest ppl in the world. HAHAHAHhahHhHhHa

[duffer29]

he's questioning people like al gore who flunked out of both divinity school and law school. HAHAHAHhahHhHhHa

[petehjr1]

I'd say he could eat his own feces too but then he's probably already there. "Yeah eating your own feces can't be bad for you since it comes out of you." *jiggle jiggle*.

[mapmanic]

A chemical becomes a pollutant by its context; e.g., oil pumped from the ground and allowed to spill into the ocean is a pollutant. CO2 in greater concentrations than 350 ppm in our atmosphere is a pollutant. Rush Limbaugh's ranting masquerading as serious political commentary is a pollutant.

[duffer29]

"350 ppm in our atmospere is a pollutant"

REALLY

must have been a real bitch when it was about 7000 ppm or during the Ordovician ice age when levels were around 4000ppm.

i find global warmers to the least informed people on the planet, gorbots.

[mapmanic]

Unfortunately we don't live in the Ordovician or Carboniferous & there were equilibria of atmospheric gases at that time with high concentrations of CO2. Question is: do we want to screw around with the current equilibrium just because we too stupid to develop alternative energy sources? The vast majority of actual climate scientist say no. These people have no agendas. The hired-by-Exxon scientist DO have an agenda. Why do people believe them?

[duffer29]

you missed the part about ordovician ICE- AGE. co2 levels of approx. 4000 ppm. a full magnitude of difference. since the whole scam is based on the premise that higher levels of co2 are the causation of higher temperatures there would seem to be an historic contradiction.

the question is ; do we want to feed the lefts appitite for power and money. the cap and trade scheme will be the biggest money grab in the history of the planet.

fortunately it's not the vast majority any longer.

[mapmanic]

I didn't miss that part. There is a vast array of mechanisms that affects the temp. of Earth: Milankovitch cycles, continental positions, solar activity, ocean currents, etc. Too many for me to list or fully understand. But there are people who have much more experience & smarts in this field than me (or you, I presume)--this is why we defer to experts. To say that there's a conspiracy by academics and "leftists" when the glaring, obvious elephants in the room are oil companies, is laughable.

[duffer29]

ah, you didn't miss it, you chose to ignore it.

you're not intelligent enough to understand a glaring contradiction in the theory but you are smart enough to pick and choose which experts you're going to side with. do i have that right?

you've made that choice based on what?

it's not a conspiracy, peoples jobs are on the line.

the global warming fraud has the potential to dwarf the oil industry. look for another elephant.

[mapmanic]

What?! me ignore? You read one shill's propaganda web page, & you're a freakin' expert! ...& you must be more intelligent than the 97% of the climate scientists! (5% of climate scientists report pressure to change findings on global warming issues because of industry contributers to universities) Any idiot can see the pressure to deny reality from the oil companies. But to think that there's a "liberal" conspiracy to invent global warming is whacko even by right-winger standards. You're a dupe.

[duffer29]

who's the dupe when cap and trade gets passed? current estimates are a cost of $1500 a year per person.

where's that money going sparky, not oil companies.

[duffer29]

it was a simple question. since you've said you're not equiped to answer global warming questions, who did you trust for the info.

it couldn't be the computer models they've all been wrong.

it couldn't be dr. hanson. he's been caught cooking the #s 3 times in the last 15 years.

was it the cute little polar bears? their #s have grown since the late 50's.

who do you trust enough to reconcile higher levels of co2, ice age and lower levels, warming in the middle ages. must be pretty persuasive

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

duffer

"it couldn't be the computer models they've all been wrong"

Lie. Even the original, far less accurate computer climate models from 20 years ago have proven remarkably accurate.

"it couldn't be dr. hanson. he's been caught cooking the #s 3 times in the last 15 years"

Another lie. You oppose an idea by attacking with lies the character of one of its backers. Classy.

Some of your other comments weren't even coherent, though I'd bet, whatever you intended was also crap

[duffer29]

find one computer model that predicted the current cooling.

hansons most recent fraud was last year when he announce oct. was the hottest on record. turns out he wasn't using oct records at all, but previous, hotter months to push his averages up in russia.

the dr.'s claim that the 90's were the hottest decade in the century was proved false, turns out it was the 30's and hanson printed another retraction.

then there's the matter of the hockey stick graph which was also bogus.

A FRAUD

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Duffer29:

You need to start learning about the science, and go a little easier on the republican/free-market propaganda websites if you intend to speak intelligently on this issue. And, even for a rightwing blowhard, try to have a little class and human decency - refrain from disparaging honest men with accusations of fraud - especially when you have no idea WTF you're talking about.

Now to your 4 points, in your order:

[duffer29]

you've got two choices where hanson is concerned; he is either a REALLY bad scientist with an agenda or he's a dishonest scientist with an agenda.

either way you have to ask yourself why a government employee took $720,000. from george soros.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Duffer29:

Let's summarize. You make 4 sleazy and ignorant charges against Hansen, and I give you 4 detailed refutations, and admonish you to show a LITTLE class with your reckless allegations. Your reply? Claiming that Hansen is either a terrible (yet award winning prestigious) scientist, or he's dishonest. Then you add a new bullshit smear against him.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Duffer29:

As to your latest living-in-the-sewer rightwing blowhard smear: Soros didn't give any money to Hansen. Soros gave that money to the Government Accountability Project - a decades old non-profit org that provides advice to whistleblowers. That org provided legal advise to Hansen after the Bush admin attempted to quiet him. Hansen didn't take any money from Soros, you piece of human filth. Every time you post, it's both sleazy and false. This conversation is over.

[duffer29]

nice shot at semantics but soro's open society books say different. $720,000.00

directed to hansen to combat bush "cencorship" while hanson gave 1400 interviews seems, oh, i don't know, strange.

i didn't throw in the hientz foundation money's, i thought it might be piling on.

explaining computer models AFTER the fact doesn't make them right.

ALL of hansen's #s are higher than the other 3 reporting bodies, coincidence?

he's a hack with an agenda trying desperatly to keep his reputation.sad

[duffer29]

open your eyes. hansens #s would be suspect if only because of his outspoken support for gore and the eco-terrorists.

excusing his mistakes makes him look like a sloppy scientist. i don't think he is.

take a look at his latest graphs, he's revised his temps down for 100 years ago.

[duffer29]

the really good news is that less and less people are falling for this scam. a pew poll from the beginning of this year showed only 30% of americans consider global warming a priority, down 8% in just two years.

people are waking up, but if you still need to believe, i've got some carbon credits i'd be happy to sell to you. it's a going out of business sale.

[mapmanic]

ok, duffer29, you can tell us which oil company you're working for now.

[gilgtc]

you're a douchebag

[goldgrif]

HMMM, so put him in a closed room, and let him breathe his CO2, make it a small room and also have in it uranium, and he can make it depleted, and anthrax,

[lawtek711]

wow, I mean,,..... wow! And you know, who can argue with that logic? Unbelievable! Somebody PLEASE shut this guy up!!! How much longer will we allow lies???

[Francebrasil]

Now he´s become a scientist ??? All I know this guys spills toxic venom in the air....

[KamikazeK1D]

hmmm

this explains why he's ok with water boarding,

we do need water to live right?

conservatives.

[thebrainsquid]

And mercury isn't poisonous either, it helps stiffen felt for making hats!

[IMCODY2]

I dont know why Republicans choose people like Rush as their role models. Here is a guy who has created or produced nothing in his lifetime - who when his country needed him in Vietnam evaded or avoided serving when he was of age then - cant or wont re-produce offspring - has 3 failed marriages - and is deaf because he was a heroin (derivative) addict for god knows how many years yet neocons worshipped him and hung on every word he said while he was high as a kite

[IMCODY2]

bushputz - Good One LOL Bingo!

[carrierexchange]

Is it me or is the Republican party trying to brainwash people that continuing to burn fossil fuel is ok?

[duffer29]

you've already been brainwashed into believing it's not.

[carrierexchange]

No my friend, unlike you I do my own research.

[duffer29]

i've come to my position BECAUSE i've done my own research.

you've arrived at yours because you haven't.

(reading algore and contributing to the 100 mil and change he's made from this scam doesn't count)

[carrierexchange]

Then, since you've done your research, tell my in your own words why you think the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is not causing global warming.

And no, I don't read Al Gore, I read scientific pear reviewed papers.

[duffer29]

because, historically, co2 has been a lagging indicator. you mistake cause and effect.

because, as i said earlier, EVERY computer model has been wrong.

but, this is your pet theory. your job is to convince me that any warming IS caused by man-made co2, not another natural cycle. pretty tough to do when temps since 98 have dropped while co2 levels have risen.

[Navywxman]

duffer - Once again can you please site the sources for your numbers?

As a former Navy Weather forcaster and having worked at a naval climatology office, I have never seen anything that can support what you claim

It is internationally recognized by 95+% of scientists from numerous countries, from diverse cultures, religions and backgrounds that have found the science says it is human impact

Your numbers appear to be from the 5% or less crowd from oil hacks & religious nuts, is that you?

[mapmanic]

obviously, this guy is smarter than 97% of the climate scientist worlwide.

[mapmanic]

This guy is a total dupe... the vast majority of climate scientist think anthropogenic causes of global warming should be controlled. This guy just hears a couple of stories from Fox news and oil company scientists for hire and concludes there's some sort of conspiracy by environmentalists motivated by, I guess, jealousy for SUVs to deny him his fossil fuel.

[xXxPKw00txXx]

Ummmm.... carbon dating on an ice shelf indicating cyclical patterns of the ice ages becuase of CO2 rises verus "It doesn't surprise me, we exhale it... it can't be bad."

[grifonecoronato]

TIE A PLASTIC BAG OVER YOUR HEAD FOR 15 MINUTES, RUSH!!! Then tell us that CO2 isn't harmful because it comes from us!

What a moron!

[grahamkeithtodd]

now lets test "professor" limpdicks theory shall we? lets for arguments sake lock the fat drug taking dolt in a air tight room without any air holes..lets see if he is singing the same tune after the air he can breath runs out shall we?

discuss(answer worth 50 points!)

[bombonyou]

by this logic, Boss Limbaugh should just eat his own shit.

it's not bad for you, it comes from your body!

[simply161990]

Yeah, of course carbon dioxide helps us stay alive, thats not what causes death when someone is suffocated in a air tight space. We don't exhale it because it is a poison in our bloodstream. No, we just do it so we can be generous and feed trees.

[Propagandhi900]

Gonorrhea can't be harmful...it is natural.

Mercury isn't harmful....it's natural.

Breathing in water won't hurt ya....it's natural.

Lolololol

[j0hnwi11iams]

Because in the world of Rush Limbaugh, if it doesn't kill you immediately, it is not dangerous.

[Emperorlawson]

Rush Limbaugh is fail

[nelsonrc]

We exhale it because it is a poison to us. Our bodies can not use it, and an abundance of it would kill us.

What an over inflated moron!

[newwavewitch]

CO2 poisoning, you lying motherfucker.

[Screenplaya]

Rush should try eating shit. How could it be bad for you? We excrete the stuff.

[strylowskia90]

Going to Rush Limbaugh for political advice is like going to a lawyer for an honest assessment of an injury.

[KRNTO]

I hate Rush as much as you do . But instead of lawyer's use another analogy, because lawyer's are actually human and surprising enough have feelings and a soul,unlike Rush.

[strylowskia90]

The ironic thing, I'm in pre-law.

[KRNTO]

Wow that is ironic !

[OhioDemocrat]

Rush is lucky breathing is involuntary. With his intellect he might not be able to remember on his own.

Its not the CO2 released by humans is bad, it the amount of fossil fuel being burnt and the amount of CO2 released into the enveroment that is the problem.

[joplintech]

People actually believe this guy, sad sad sad. There is an informative lecture from U. of Cal on here, channel is uctelevision and video is: The American Denial of Global Warming

check it out, be informed, and check the facts!

[Versettie]

This is complete rubbish. We breath in Oxygen and breath out CO2. Plants breath in CO2 and breath out oxygen.

[RomeoMD25]

Global warming is a fraud

like gore and obama

[WKaliberr]

prove it

[davomunroe]

Rush should put a plastic bag around his head to demonstrate how CO2 is not dangerous.

[tam705618]

hahah I like that idea a lot.

[JerezJulio]

He say Co2 it is not is no bad, then by that logic Rush Liumbaugh eats his own feces, and drinks his own urine because iit can not be bad if he produce it.

[bushputz]

"He say Co2 it is not is no bad, then by that logic Rush Liumbaugh eats his own feces, and drinks his own urine because iit can not be bad if he produce it."

Hmmm...

That WOULD explain why he looks like that...

[grazon]

It would also explains why he's full of shit.

[rickamabob13]

What is more scary? Things things Limbaugh says or the people that believe him?  I'd go with the latter.

[integral]

Good ole Rush. The perfect leader for the Republican Party.

[m6m17]

DOUCHE-FUCKING BAG.

[gremlinkin]

If its not dangerous, then hold your breath, and let that natural CO2 build up Rush. You pill popping bastard.

[fwalker94]

why do you libs have to go to name calling? why cant you just state the facts as you know them? is it becouse you know no fact and all you have is name calling?

[citizenkong]

CO2 poisoning is a fact. . . . no name calling.

[loki3692]

Way to practice what you preach "why do you... libs.... have to go to name calling?"

[Myschly]

1:03 "It wouldn't be part of the way that we stay alive"

BECAUSE IT'S NOT!!!!

Humans and animals exhailing CO2, YES. Burning every single last fossil fuel on the planet? Saying that's natural is like saying a nuclear weapon is natural.

[kyahdhin]

Yeah were just burning soooo much CO2 in the atmosphere.. why the fuck is there a 15% reduction of CO2 since 1973? Anyone want to tell me why it snowed in the Iraq for the first time in in memory? Its a fucking desert!! If anything shouldnt Iraq be getting hotter? CO2 and global warming is a straw man for political and ideological control over the drone douchebags, that cant see beyond their eco friendly rose colored ray bans and believe any bullshit thats crammed down their throat.

[Navywxman]

kyahdhin - Can you site the sources for your info? From the many reports and sources of data I've reviewed I have never seen such a claim as a 15% reduction except from non-credible sources.

It snowed in Baghdad for the 1st time in about 100 years though it snows often in the mountains of Iraq. The system merely had more energy and moisture than usual bringing the short lived effect.

Actually global warming can provide energy for harsher winter systems as weather is driven by energy.

[Myschly]

We're burning more than a cat! No animal is affecting the planet as much as humans. Sometimes beavers can accidentally change their area too much and create a flooding that completely changes the eco-system. If a couple of tree-eaters can do that, imagine how much we're disrupting the planet!

The thing about global warming is that it's not just making the planet warmer, it's disrupting everything. Everything's getting flipped upside-down. Meaning a warm non-snowy place could get snow.

[pmango1000]

myschly: yeah, its affecting it so much that we have had NO NET INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE since 1998! LOL!!! Its "so bad" that 2008 actually went down in average temp! LOL!! Give it up! They just want to regulate and tax carbon...its the biggest lie in history

PS: hottest record day is from like 1998 BEFORE combustion engine was mass produced!

[Myschly]

It's just simple logic dude... If you change your environment, you're going to have consequences.

I saw a Nat Geo bit about some beavers that had accidentally flooded an area, and in 10 years time, the eco-system changed completely. The plant-life, the fish, the mammals, everything changed.

If a couple of busy beavers can do that by chopping down trees and building dams, imagine what consequences may come from us polluting in all kinds of ways (CO2 being one of them).

We're changing our world

[pmango1000]

myschly: you comparing a small LOCAL ecosystem change to the Atmosphere is not even scientifically comparable! of course changing the flow of water can affect an ecosystem......I am more concerned with REAL pollution...like MERCURY...you know the stuff they put in shoe "carbon saving" lightbulbs? Gee whats going to happen when American throw away 200 million of these bulbs with MERCURY in them?

Poisoning the earth with mercury in the name of saving carbon (an unproven theory) is criminal!

[Myschly]

I used it as a metaphor.

Yes all pollution is bad, that's my point. Which is why for example LED-lamps are going to be very important.

It's like people buying "use-once" batteries instead of rechargeable. It's a waste.

The thing is, we've got to look at everything. People who deny global warming to be a problem, tend to not care about any kind of environmental protection.

[pmango1000]

myschly: I don't think you get it: the real grassroots people that conserve and save energy are the real greens, and should be applauded, but politically the only solution I see is to tax tax tax...global carbon tax based on unproven theory is illegal taxation, and it seems Americans are just ready to roll over and take it...it just channels more money out of free market to govt! that's it!

[Myschly]

Well yes they should be applauded. I mean really, the Amish deserve a lot of credit for their non-pollution ^^

Yes, taxes and subsidizing etc is the way to get through real change. One huge environmental problem is that companies don't get punished enough for dumping toxic waste etc. There are so many things to fix, but there are a LOT of powerful and rich people who only care about profit, and that's why so little's happening.

That and people saying "only God can destroy earth, don't worry".

[spidermonkies008]

What about companies that dump shit into the air and water?

[pmango1000]

spider: what about them? We do go after them...They are the ones we should be looking for and regulating, not "counting carbs"....I was taught: Give a hoot don't pollute" ....today, they teach "the earth is warming and its your fault"....

[pmango1000]

myschly: and people who believe in man-made Global Warming tend to throw it in everyone's face like its 100% proven. and they preach and preach and want to tax and tax...they also block drilling and refineries causing fuel to cost more for all...

[Myschly]

Well I mean it's simple. We should try to use as few of the non-renewable supplies on earth as possible. We should try to do as much difference to the atmosphere, earth etc as possible.

That's the basic science to preventing a man-made natural crisis.

"Too much of anything is a bad thing".

By now it's pretty much proven tho', you've got to admit that. The U.N. report showed that things have changed more than expected in the worst case-scenarios.

[pmango1000]

oops make that 1898!

[Navywxman]

pmango - Where are you getting this data because I haven't seen your description in any scientific journals or reports, only in non-credible sources

The temps have been going up, this is recorded fact not opinion. Speaking of it going down in 2008, If you look closely at the data it has a stock type movement upwards, its not a straight line but the trend has been steadily going up and it coincides with the industrial revolution. Nor was the hottest day 1998 or 1898 as you claim. Truth matters

[pmango1000]

navy: let's see your sources, mine show not increase since 1998, and one of the hottest days recorded was in Utah in 1895 at 117 degrees before the internal combustion engine.

[Navywxman]

I've already responded to you in the PM you sent.

[xenolalia]

Science is about mean trends over long periods of time. The evidence is unmistakable. Although not all at once and not everyday, the earth is definitely getting hotter and the evidence points to greenhouse gasses.

[risingfrost]

YOU SUCK

[pmango1000]

xeno: ok... long term huh? well the last 10,000 years (long term) points to a DOWNWARD trend in world temperatures! The last 100 years show an an upward TICK of about 1 degree, hardly a trend and hardly long term

[digitised]

I think you are excluding the whole issue which has been raised.

Scientists are trying to get it through that CO2 levels have shot up in the past century due to our industrial activity.

The earth is getting warmer (on average) year on year with no viable alternative explanation other than the CO2 increase.

They have shown that CO2ppm is the highest on record, and that solar output is so low that its actually abnormally 'cooling' us currently.

Past records are explainable, THIS isnt.

[digitised]

You cannot just look at old datasets and say 'it was so hot then, that the ice caps melted' and 'it was so cold then that the glacial caps covered 40% of europe'

Because those periods were punctuated by increased solar activity, particulates, glacial reflection etc

However this current trend, is viewed directly with more accuracy and can be tested at any time for verification.

There is no other reasonable explanation, so kindly accept the conclusions of experts that it really might be us.

[wazibabwana]

what's the largest greenhouse gas?

[jmeyerhead]

its called global climate change, and the snow in iraq proves the theory.

[cArNiVal015]

Pure idiocy.

[SaintJust101]

Saving the world is a bit of an economic downer isn't it Mr Limbaugh?

[CivilRadiant]

Limbaugh is such a douche.