The Downside to the Recovery of the Ozone Hole (Debunking climate change fraud)

The Downside to the Recovery of the Ozone Hole (With a breakdown debunking this climate change nonsense)

news.yahoo.com

While the hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer is slowly healing, its recovery might have a downside, scientists say: Climate change could change wind patterns and send ozone from high in the atmosphere down to the surface, where it is a major component of smog.

The discovery of a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica was announced by a team of British scientists in 1985. The cause of the hole was attributed to ozone-depleting chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were primarily used in cooling units and propellants. When CFCs reach the ozone layer, they release chlorin

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 2-7-2010 by filosophia]

While the hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer is slowly healing, its recovery might have a downside, scientists say

Which Scientists?

(scientists say): Climate change could change wind patterns and send ozone from high in the atmosphere down to the surface, where it is a major component of smog.

Smog is a portmanteau of smoke, from cars, and smog

(wikipedia)smog:Modern smog is a type of air pollution derived from vehicular emission from internal combustion engines and industrial fumes that react in the atmosphere with sunlight to form secondary pollutants that also combine with the primary emissions to form photochemical smog.

SO IF SUNLIGHT IS THE CAUSE OF THIS OZONE-SMOG, THEN A HEALTHY OZONE UPPER LAYER WOULD PREVENT SUNLIGHT, AND THEREFORE PREVENT SMOG FROM FORMING, THUS BEGGING THE QUESTION: HOW IS IT A BAD THING THAT THE OZONE LAYER IS HEALING?

The discovery of a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica was announced by a team of British scientists in 1985.

(Joesph Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin)

The cause of the hole was attributed to ozone-depleting chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were primarily used in cooling units and propellants. When CFCs reach the ozone layer, they release chlorine atoms that rip ozone apart and peel away layers of Earth's natural sunscreen.

NATURAL SUNSCREEN, MEANING IT WOULD PREVENT SUNLIGHT FROM PENETRATING, JUST LIKE SUNSCREEN DOES, AND THEREFORE PREVENT SMOG, NOT BUILD IT UP. WHILE FOG IS NATURAL, CAR EXHAUST MAKES IT “UN”-NATURAL OR A POLLUTANT, BUT A HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER WOULD MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE. AS ONE POSTER PUT IT:

(from a yahoo blogger):For years all we heard about was how we needed to fix the ozone layer and how we are horrible people for using products that destroyed it, and now it's horrible that it is getting better. SHUT UP ALREADY, just shut up. All of these stupid @#$% experts are always saying things that contradict each other. JUST SHUT THE $%^& UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While I don't necessarily agree with his use of profanity, I agree wholeheartedly with his point

Simulations of life without the ozone layer, which is located in the Earth's stratosphere, are not pretty. The stratosphere (the second layer of the Earth's atmosphere, just above the one in which we dwell, the troposphere) contains 90 percent of the Earth's ozone at altitudes between 6 and 31 miles (9.6 and 50 kilometers) above us, where it traps most of the sun's harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays before they can reach the Earth's surface.

TRUE, WHICH INCIDENTALLY CONTRADICTS THE FALSE STATEMENT THAT A HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER WILL SOMEHOW BE A BAD THING.

Without this shield, we'd be sunburned within 5 minutes of exposure, according to NASA's Earth Observatory.

Well, not that I ever trust NASA, but the statement is true enough, again contradicting whatever nonsense the article is saying



[edit on 2-7-2010 by filosophia]

The Antarctic ozone hole is the closest real-life glimpse at a world without UV protection. Since its discovery in the 1980s, it has spread over parts of Australia, New Zealand, Chile and South Africa where the threats of skin cancer, cataracts, and damage to have raised concerns.
Major efforts have been initiated to speed up the ozone hole's recovery, including the 1987 Montreal Protocol and the phasing out of CFCs. Even so, a study by Guang Zeng and her colleagues from New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research shows that that the recovery, in concert with climate change, may do harm as well as good.

The spin:

The study, detailed in the May edition of Geophysical Research Letters, revealed that variations in atmospheric circulation due to climate change will cause a 43-percent increase in gas exchange between the stratosphere and the troposphere, the layer of Earth's air at the surface and our air supply. As more and more ozone is replenished in the stratosphere it will also have more opportunities to seep into the air we breathe.

SO, CLIMATE CHANGE, MEANING CARBON, WHICH WE BREATH, WILL SEEP INTO THE AIR WE BREATH (OBVIOUSLY) AND SOMEHOW CAUSE MORE OZONE TO SEEP INTO THE AIR WE BREATH, WHICH IT ALREADY DOES, AS THE ARTICLE POINTS OUT, THERE ARE TWO LEVELS OF OZONE, THE UPPER LEVEL THAT BLOCKS THE SUN, AND THE LOWER LEVEL THAT CAUSES FOG. SO, THIS IS JUST A BLATANT SCARE TACTIC TO MAKE US THINK THAT OZONE WILL GET INTO THE AIR WE BREATH, WHICH IS ALREADY A NATURAL PHENOMENON.

Some ozone is currently present in the troposphere,

My point exactly.

though mostly as smog from car emissions and other pollutants.

Again, fog is natural, smoke is man made. smoke contains carbon MON oxide, not carbon dioxide.

It can be harmful to human respiratory systems and the environment.

FAIRLY OBVIOUS IF YOU’VE EVER HEARD OF CALIFORNIA SMOG (A WARM AND THEREFORE SUNNY PLACE, MEANING MORE FOG).
(I’M SENSING ANOTHER SPIN COMING UP):

If carbon dioxide

THE AIR WE BREATH, NOT CARBON MONOXIDE WHICH IS EMITTED FROM BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.

(if carbon dioxide) levels in the atmosphere increase as expected from unabated emission,

UNABATED EMISSION? LIKE HUMANS AND ANIMALS? REMEMBER, CARBON MONOXIDE COMES FROM CARS, CARBON DIOXIDE COMES FROM PEOPLE, THEY ARE TRYING TO PULL A BAIT AND SWITCH HERE. EPIC FAIL AP.

Zeng said the ozone layer will cool off, blurring the temperature boundary that separates it from the troposphere. Within the next century, more ozone than ever before will surge into our air, her computer model study predicts.

HER COMPUTER MODEL, THAT REGISTERS CARBON DIOXIDE AS A DANGEROUS AND UNNATURAL POISON, IT’S SAFE TO SAY HER COMPUTER MODEL IS UNSCIENTIFIC AND UNFOUNDED.

Zeng hopes that future studies of the impacts of climate change will account for the atmospheric composition of both the stratosphere and troposphere, as well as the movement of ozone between the two, to paint a better, more accurate picture of the Earth's environmental future.

WE’RE SORRY, WE REGRET TO INFORM YOU, ZENG, THAT YOUR FUNDING HAS BEEN TERMINATED AS THE PEOPLE HAVE REVOLTED AGAINST YOUR THEORY AND THE CARBON TAX YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO ADMINISTER UPON THE WORLD. MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL.





In summation, this Associated Press nonsense article starts with the ridiculous premise that a healthy and healed ozone layer is now a bad thing, because of an already naturally forming phenomenon called the lower ozone layer. The article then ends with a fifth grade level error of mistaking carbon monoxide for carbon dioxide, and a computer model that suspiciously predicts more ozone than ever will be emitted into the air, caused by man made climate change, which is simply carbon. So they are trying to wage a war on carbon in order to tax carbon, so they can tax even the air we breath.



[edit on 2-7-2010 by filosophia]

You may have a hard time finding this article, because while it was on yahoo home page as the top story, it is now no where to be found. I'm guessing they tested the waters to see how many negative comments would be generated. There were a lot.



[edit on 2-7-2010 by filosophia]

I'm confused...

You're saying that carbon dioxide doesn't come from combustion of fuel in cars?

The article then ends with a fifth grade level error of mistaking carbon monoxide for carbon dioxide.

I'm not sure they made schoolboy errors here.

SO, CLIMATE CHANGE, MEANING CARBON, WHICH WE BREATH, WILL SEEP INTO THE AIR WE BREATH (OBVIOUSLY) AND SOMEHOW CAUSE MORE OZONE TO SEEP INTO THE AIR WE BREATH, WHICH IT ALREADY DOES, AS THE ARTICLE POINTS OUT, THERE ARE TWO LEVELS OF OZONE, THE UPPER LEVEL THAT BLOCKS THE SUN, AND THE LOWER LEVEL THAT CAUSES FOG. SO, THIS IS JUST A BLATANT SCARE TACTIC TO MAKE US THINK THAT OZONE WILL GET INTO THE AIR WE BREATH, WHICH IS ALREADY A NATURAL PHENOMENON.

I don't get your problem here, it's a study that suggests more ozone could well enter the troposphere from the stratosphere - it may or may not, probably need more studies to make a clear inference.

You seem to suggest that even if this did occur, then that's fine because it's a natural phenomenon? Lets rewind...

Originally posted by filosophia

Some ozone is currently present in the troposphere,

My point exactly.

though mostly as smog from car emissions and other pollutants.

Again, fog is natural, smoke is man made. smoke contains carbon MON oxide, not carbon dioxide.

It can be harmful to human respiratory systems and the environment.

FAIRLY OBVIOUS IF YOU’VE EVER HEARD OF CALIFORNIA SMOG (A WARM AND THEREFORE SUNNY PLACE, MEANING MORE FOG).
(I’M SENSING ANOTHER SPIN COMING UP):

Ozone is a component of smog, being a product of the photochemical reactions between various emissions from cars (and other human activities). Try the wikipedia entry for tropospheric ozone:

en.wikipedia.org...

If carbon dioxide

THE AIR WE BREATH, NOT CARBON MONOXIDE WHICH IS EMITTED FROM BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.

(if carbon dioxide) levels in the atmosphere increase as expected from unabated emission,

UNABATED EMISSION? LIKE HUMANS AND ANIMALS? REMEMBER, CARBON MONOXIDE COMES FROM CARS, CARBON DIOXIDE COMES FROM PEOPLE, THEY ARE TRYING TO PULL A BAIT AND SWITCH HERE. EPIC FAIL AP.

I think the Epic fail is all yours. Cars emit carbon dioxide, lol. It's a major product of combustion of the hydrocarbon fuel in cars.

Try the wikipedia entry for combustion:

en.wikipedia.org...

They also emit carbon monooxide (from incomplete combustion).

[edit on 2-7-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


If you start a car in a closed garage, I guarantee you won't die from the carbon dioxide, but the carbon monoxide And please tell me how a hole in the ozone is now supposed to be a good thing? I hope you enjoy getting taxed for the air you breath.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by filosophia]

Originally posted by filosophia
If you start a car in a closed garage, I guarantee you won't die from the carbon dioxide, but the carbon monoxide

Sure. Totally irrelevant, of course.

And please tell me how a hole in the ozone is now supposed to be a good thing? I hope you enjoy getting taxed for the air you breath.

Never said a hole in the ozone was a good thing. And I very much doubt I have much to fear from some imaginary breathing tax.

Perhaps a forum posting tax would be helpful, though.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

If you start a car in a closed garage, I guarantee you won't die from the carbon dioxide, but the carbon monoxide

Sure. Totally irrelevant, of course.

It proves that carbon monoxide is released more so than carbon dioxide. Try putting a muffler exhaust near some plants and see if the carbon dioxide that is expelled will keep the plants alive. The article states that unabated emissions of carbon dioxide, meaning you, are the cause of ozone, which is somehow worse because the ozone layer is healing. The article is 100 percent nonsense, and so are you if you can't understand that.

And please tell me how a hole in the ozone is now supposed to be a good thing? I hope you enjoy getting taxed for the air you breath.

Never said a hole in the ozone was a good thing.

So why are you defending the article?

And I very much doubt I have much to fear from some imaginary breathing tax.

Taxes are never imaginary.

Perhaps a forum posting tax would be helpful, though.

you'd probably like that seeing as you defend government tax programs.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by filosophia]

Originally posted by filosophia

If you start a car in a closed garage, I guarantee you won't die from the carbon dioxide, but the carbon monoxide

Originally posted by melatonin
Sure. Totally irrelevant, of course.

It proves that carbon monoxide is released more so than carbon dioxide.

No, it doesn't.

It proves that carbon monoxide will kill you very effectively. You can find some information on the composition of car emissions here.

Which shows:

Table 9.1: Average exhaust gas composition of an otto engine
___________________________________________________
N2 74 % (vol. %)
CO2 12 %
H2O 10 %
CO 2 %
NOx 0.5 %
CHx 0.1 %
SO2 60 ppm (0.006 %)
H2 0.4 %
Pb, P, Si traces
O2 1.0 %

So ca. 12% of emissions are CO2 and 2% CO. CO is from incomplete combustion - I'm sure one aim is to maximise complete combustion.

So why are you defending the article?

Because you are making a dog's-dinner of interpreting it.

Taxes are never imaginary.

you'd probably like that seeing as you defend government tax programs.

:rolleyes:

[edit on 2-7-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


plants breath carbon dioxide, meaning it doesn't matter how much carbon dioxide comes out of cars, it will not destroy the world (but carbon monoxide could be dangerous). So either way, the carbon dioxide is not dangerous, unlike what you and the other climate changers believe. You are a fool if you believe carbon is a dangerous poison, like the EPA believes. So, are you an idiot or a government employee or both? You talk about imaginary taxes, how about imaginary global warming? LOL


[edit on 2-7-2010 by filosophia]

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by melatonin

 

plants breath carbon dioxide, meaning it doesn't matter how much carbon dioxide comes out of cars, it will not destroy the world (but carbon monoxide could be dangerous). So either way, the carbon dioxide is not dangerous, unlike what you and the other climate changers believe.

Although they don't 'breathe' CO2 fast enough.

This is pretty obviously shown by the fact that CO2 levels are now over 100ppm higher (i.e., over 30%) than they were pre-industrial, and it just keeps on rising. About 50% of what we emit each year in taken up by land and ocean sinks. The rest results in increases in atmospheric concentration.

Sorry, dude, I'm not sure you have a clue. The paper makes a clear enough statement:

As climate change progresses, we might well see greater transfer of ozone across the stratosphere into the troposphere. I would think observational studies will be required to support the models - but the study at least directs attention towards a potential problem. High levels of ozone in the troposphere is generally not a good thing (they suggest a potential for up to 20% increases over the current levels of surface level ozone).

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by melatonin

 

plants breath carbon dioxide, meaning it doesn't matter how much carbon dioxide comes out of cars, it will not destroy the world (but carbon monoxide could be dangerous). So either way, the carbon dioxide is not dangerous, unlike what you and the other climate changers believe.

Although they don't 'breathe' CO2 fast enough.

This is pretty obviously shown by the fact that CO2 levels are now over 100ppm higher (i.e., over 30%) than they were pre-industrial, and it just keeps on rising. About 50% of what we emit each year in taken up by land and ocean sinks. The rest results in increases in atmospheric concentration.

Sorry, dude, I'm not sure you have a clue. The paper makes a clear enough statement:

As climate change progresses, we might well see greater transfer of ozone across the stratosphere into the troposphere. I would think observational studies will be required to support the models - but the study at least directs attention towards a potential problem. High levels of ozone in the troposphere is generally not a good thing (they suggest a potential for up to 20% increases over the current levels of surface level ozone).

and no where does it prove that these increased levels of carbon are man made and not naturally forming. It merely assumes that since levels are higher since the industrial revolution that is to be blamed, but that is one correlation. Volcanoes let off more carbon than all the world's industries

www.climatechangefraud.com...

Climate change fraud also believes the sun has no impact on the climate.

news.bbc.co.uk...

And finally, as the article headline suggests, they also think the recovering ozone layer is a bad thing, even though it would prevent deadly ozone from reaching the lower level near the earth. So, the article is completely ridiculous.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by filosophia]

Originally posted by filosophia
and no where does it prove that these increased levels of carbon are man made and not naturally forming.

lol, that wasn't the aim of the study. It was to examine the interaction between climate change, the stratosphere, and surface level ozone.

Those sort of studies are well-established (done in the 1950s, IIRC). Simple maths supports the fact the increases are man-made, along with isotopic studies.

We release almost 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. You might be surprised to know it doesn't magically disappear. The carbon from fossil fuels was locked up underground out of the carbon cycle for millions of years. You burn it, the CO2 collects in the atmosphere - it's not rocket surgery.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by filosophia
and no where does it prove that these increased levels of carbon are man made and not naturally forming.

lol, that wasn't the aim of the study. It was to examine the interaction between climate change and surface level ozone.

Those sort of studies are well-established. Simple maths supports the fact the increases are man-made, along with isotopic studies.

We release almost 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. You might be surprised to know it doesn't magically disappear. The carbon from fossil fuels was locked up underground out of the carbon cycle for millions of years. You burn it, the CO2 collects in the atmosphere - it's not rocket surgery.

while carbon dioxide does not magically disappear, it does become used by plants, so you trying to prove that carbon dioxide is bad is unscientific, not to mention that carbon is an essential element of life. So, you are once again wrong.

If the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 is an accurate number, so what? The world is not dying, nor is it even heating up as it is actually getting colder, which is why they renamed it climate change instead of global warming.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by filosophia]

Originally posted by filosophia
while carbon dioxide does not magically disappear, it does become used by plants, so you trying to prove that carbon dioxide is bad is unscientific, not to mention that carbon is an essential element of life. So, you are once again wrong.

I answered this earlier:

Although they don't 'breathe' CO2 fast enough.

This is pretty obviously shown by the fact that CO2 levels are now over 100ppm higher (i.e., over 30%) than they were pre-industrial, and it just keeps on rising. About 50% of what we emit each year in taken up by land and ocean sinks. The rest results in increases in atmospheric concentration.

So is potassium, but don't try injecting a large dose of potassium chloride!

ABE: your edit...

f the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 is an accurate number, so what?

So it is at levels at which the biosphere cannot handle and leads to increasing concentration in the atmosphere.

The world is not dying, nor is it even heating up as it is actually getting colder, which is why they renamed it climate change instead of global warming.

Didn't say the world was dying. I'm sure the earth will be fine, warming of several degrees won't bother it too much - can't say the same for us. And it isn't getting colder.

data.giss.nasa.gov...

You're boring me now.


[edit on 2-7-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by filosophia
while carbon dioxide does not magically disappear, it does become used by plants, so you trying to prove that carbon dioxide is bad is unscientific, not to mention that carbon is an essential element of life. So, you are once again wrong.

I answered this earlier:

Although they don't 'breathe' CO2 fast enough.

This is pretty obviously shown by the fact that CO2 levels are now over 100ppm higher (i.e., over 30%) than they were pre-industrial, and it just keeps on rising. About 50% of what we emit each year in taken up by land and ocean sinks. The rest results in increases in atmospheric concentration.

So is potassium, but don't try injecting a large dose of potassium chloride!

Let's put this in perspective, because quite honestly your science is not the same as my science, because your common sense is not my common sense. So, you believe that carbon dioxide is dangerous, as it is higher ppm than ever before, and, as a result of this thinking, carbon taxes are to be implemented to tax carbon, meaning a tax on industries, cars, the air you breath, so why don't you pay the carbon tax because you believe in climate change science, and I'll go on breathing as much as I want.

A major issue regarding the IPCC approach to linking climate and CO2 is the assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the level of atmospheric CO2 was in an equilibrium state of about 280 ppm, around which little or no variation occurred. This presumption of constancy and equilibrium is based upon a critical review of the older literature on atmospheric CO2 content by Callendar and Keeling. (See Table 1). Between 1800 and 1961, more than 380 technical papers that were published on air gas analysis contained data on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Callendar [16, 20, 24] Keeling and the IPCC did not provide a thorough evaluation of these papers and the standard chemical methods that they deployed. Rather, they discredited these techniques and data, and rejected most as faulty or highly inaccurate [20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27]. Though they acknowledge the concept of an 'unpolluted background level' for CO2, these authors only examined about 10% of the available literature, asserting from that that only 1% of all previous data could be viewed as accurate (Muentz [28, 29, 30], Reiset [31], Buch [32]).

www.freerepublic.com...

You are claiming that carbon dioxide levels have increased, and your source is the IPCC, a discredited institution, and somehow or another I'm supposed to connect the dots for you and believe that carbon dioxide is dangerous and therefore we must tax it?

Okay, you keep dancing back and forth, you are good only for a laugh.

Can you tell me anything solid at all that would possibly persuade me to not view Al Gore as a lying manipulative carbon credit salesman? Please, I'll be open minded for the moment. Give me some actual scientific data that is not completely discredited and unscientific.

Originally posted by filosophia
Let's put this in perspective, because quite honestly your science is not the same as my science, because your common sense is not my common sense. So, you believe that carbon dioxide is dangerous, as it is higher ppm than ever before, and, as a result of this thinking, carbon taxes are to be implemented to tax carbon, meaning a tax on industries, cars, the air you breath, so why don't you pay the carbon tax because you believe in climate change science, and I'll go on breathing as much as I want.

What I've said has little reference to taxes etc, and the same goes for the original study you made a dog's dinner of.

I can see you've got the same backwards logic of most deniers, though.

You are claiming that carbon dioxide levels have increased, and your source is the IPCC, a discredited institution, and somehow or another I'm supposed to connect the dots for you and believe that carbon dioxide is dangerous and therefore we must tax it?

No, my source is decades of scientific research. The freeper article is BS (based on Beck's work, lol). No need to depend on absolute constancy of CO2 levels - no-one suggests that there was 'little to no variation'. They are at higher levels than we have seen for over 600,000 years - through a number of ice-age cycles.

Even the 'sceptics' accept that human activity has caused the increases in CO2 we've seen. You're in the twilight zone of wackiness.

Okay, you keep dancing back and forth, you are good only for a laugh.

lol, a nice bit of projection there.

Can you tell me anything solid at all that would possibly persuade me to not view Al Gore as a lying manipulative carbon credit salesman? Please, I'll be open minded for the moment. Give me some actual scientific data that is not completely discredited and unscientific.

From what I've seen in this thread you're beyond help, dude. You'd need to lose the ideological blinkers first and get some edumacation, methinks.

Catch ya later. Perhaps start with wikipedia before making yourself looks a bit silly with the schoolboy errors.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by filosophia
Let's put this in perspective, because quite honestly your science is not the same as my science, because your common sense is not my common sense. So, you believe that carbon dioxide is dangerous, as it is higher ppm than ever before, and, as a result of this thinking, carbon taxes are to be implemented to tax carbon, meaning a tax on industries, cars, the air you breath, so why don't you pay the carbon tax because you believe in climate change science, and I'll go on breathing as much as I want.

What I've said has little reference to taxes etc, and the same goes for the original study you made a dog's dinner of.

I can see you've got the same backwards logic of most deniers, though.

You are claiming that carbon dioxide levels have increased, and your source is the IPCC, a discredited institution, and somehow or another I'm supposed to connect the dots for you and believe that carbon dioxide is dangerous and therefore we must tax it?

No, my source is decades of scientific research. The freeper article is BS (based on Beck's work, lol). No need to depend on absolute constancy of CO2 levels - no-one suggests that there was 'little to no variation'. They are at higher levels than we have seen for over 600,000 years - through a number of ice-age cycles.

Even the 'sceptics' accept that human activity has caused the increases in CO2 we've seen. You're in the twilight zone of wackiness.

Okay, you keep dancing back and forth, you are good only for a laugh.

lol, a nice bit of projection there.

Can you tell me anything solid at all that would possibly persuade me to not view Al Gore as a lying manipulative carbon credit salesman? Please, I'll be open minded for the moment. Give me some actual scientific data that is not completely discredited and unscientific.

From what I've seen in this thread you're beyond help, dude. You'd need to lose the ideological blinkers first and get some edumacation, methinks.

Catch ya later. Perhaps start with wikipedia before making yourself looks a bit silly with the schoolboy errors.

no amount of research can prove that carbon is anything but an essential element of life.

ever hear of the "hockey-stick graph?" It's a discredited institution along with east anglia, i have no political ideology, while al gore has ties to the carbon tax schemes.

You are the denier because you deny the sun has any affect on climate change.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by filosophia]

Originally posted by filosophia
no amount of research can prove that carbon is anything but an essential element of life.

Oh my.

Breaking News!
Objects have been found to have more than one characteristic leading to an outbreak of lulz-worthy phenomena.

A large number of gasts were flabbered when carbon was found to have uses in writing objects, lubricants, pigments, and for making bicycles. Many others fainted when they became aware the carbon has been found to cause injury to lifeforms when humans suffered ill-health from inhaling carbon soot.

However, most concern was shown when a user on a conspiracy website imploded from his own self-contradiction when he incoherently babbled that "If you start a car in a closed garage, I guarantee you won't die from the carbon dioxide, but the carbon monoxide", but then later spouted "no amount of research can prove that carbon is anything but an essential element of life". Other users laughed out loud. Doctors have strongly suggested that education and a degree of self-awareness and -consistency would alleviate what has been called 'blow-hard' syndrome.

Night.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by filosophia
no amount of research can prove that carbon is anything but an essential element of life.

Oh my.

Breaking News!
Objects have been found to have more than one characteristic leading to an outbreak of lulz-worthy phenomena.

A large number of gasts were flabbered when carbon was found to have uses in writing objects, lubricants, pigments, and for making bicycles. Many others fainted when they became aware the carbon has been found to cause injury to lifeforms when humans suffered ill-health from inhaling carbon soot.

However, most concern was shown when a user on a conspiracy website imploded from his own self-contradiction when he incoherently babbled that "If you start a car in a closed garage, I guarantee you won't die from the carbon dioxide, but the carbon monoxide", but then later spouted "no amount of research can prove that carbon is anything but an essential element of life". Other users laughed out loud. Doctors have strongly suggested that education and a degree of self-awareness and -consistency would alleviate what has been called 'blow-hard' syndrome.

Night.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by melatonin]

carbon is one of the essential building blocks of life, and just because carbon monoxide can kill a human does not mean that carbon will kill all humans, otherwise we would be dead by now. The reason this does not happen is because carbon dioxide is diffused by plants. You are saying that since carbon monoxide can kill you, carbon is not an essential element, and that this is somehow a contradiction? Water can kill you through drowning, does this mean it is not an essential element? I'm sure you'll come up with some cute response to that as well. Keep dancing.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by filosophia]