@JohnWoo I can't believe the EPA Administrator, a CHEMICAL ENGINEER, doesn't know the percentage of "GHG's" in the atmosphere, doesn't know the percentage of GHG's that is CO2, and doesn't know the percentage of CO2 that is manmade. She doesn't have a fucking clue, and yet she's trying to regulate it?
I'm with you with the premise of this video BUT you list no sources under those "facts". if you have the sources, cite them. If you don't, this is mere propaganda based on falsehoods. I have seen those numbers before but still have not seen the source. IN this day in age, most people will NOT just believe anything you say (especially on a topic such as "global warming"). Get your facts straight.
The facts are generally right,but the issue isn't with the facts,the issue is that the premise is a bunch of non sequiturs. The first one is that Low % = Low impact,which is nonsensical. Arsine gas can kill you instantly as levels of around 150ppm which is far less than the 330ppm of atmospheric C02,yet you wouldn't argue that arsine gas concentrations don't matter in "low" percentages because clearly they do.
@Aaron518 do you know what the federal law is on the substance where it becomes fatal? I bet you don't 330ppm is nothing the law set out by FDA is 5000ppm. Arsine gas dosn't matter if its 10ppm, if the killing dose is 150ppm
The other junk premise is the same "low % = low impact" premise,but instead its the % of man made C02 in the overall % of atmospheric C02. The issue with this is that under normal circumstances C02 levels in nature want to be in equilibrium and have natural "sinks" which keep levels at a reasonable level. But the 3% of extra C02 created by humans tip the natural scale to far to one side. If more is created than cane be taken out naturally then you have a problem.
Oh my, this guy needs to pick up a science book. I can't believe he is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I'm absolutely shocked.
JohnWoo 1 year ago
@JohnWoo I can't believe the EPA Administrator, a CHEMICAL ENGINEER, doesn't know the percentage of "GHG's" in the atmosphere, doesn't know the percentage of GHG's that is CO2, and doesn't know the percentage of CO2 that is manmade. She doesn't have a fucking clue, and yet she's trying to regulate it?
Willaev 1 year ago
I'm with you with the premise of this video BUT you list no sources under those "facts". if you have the sources, cite them. If you don't, this is mere propaganda based on falsehoods. I have seen those numbers before but still have not seen the source. IN this day in age, most people will NOT just believe anything you say (especially on a topic such as "global warming"). Get your facts straight.
jrelkin12 1 year ago
@jrelkin12
The facts are generally right,but the issue isn't with the facts,the issue is that the premise is a bunch of non sequiturs. The first one is that Low % = Low impact,which is nonsensical. Arsine gas can kill you instantly as levels of around 150ppm which is far less than the 330ppm of atmospheric C02,yet you wouldn't argue that arsine gas concentrations don't matter in "low" percentages because clearly they do.
Aaron518 1 year ago
@Aaron518 do you know what the federal law is on the substance where it becomes fatal? I bet you don't 330ppm is nothing the law set out by FDA is 5000ppm. Arsine gas dosn't matter if its 10ppm, if the killing dose is 150ppm
DaShadowInc 1 year ago
@jrelkin12
The other junk premise is the same "low % = low impact" premise,but instead its the % of man made C02 in the overall % of atmospheric C02. The issue with this is that under normal circumstances C02 levels in nature want to be in equilibrium and have natural "sinks" which keep levels at a reasonable level. But the 3% of extra C02 created by humans tip the natural scale to far to one side. If more is created than cane be taken out naturally then you have a problem.
Aaron518 1 year ago
@Aaron518 You're trying to argue climate sensitivity to CO2 concentrations where no evidence of it exists. Try again.
Willaev 1 year ago