I agree with you ANL, but combustion engines also emit CO2 and other molecules. Not only that, but CO is a non octet atom, that means the Oxygen combined with the Carbon isn't complete in the outer shell of this molecule. SO, it needs an atom to share it's bond with and that atom is usually Ozygen becasue it makes the octect rule complete. That's why CO is so harmful;, it will bond with the oxygen in our blood streams and deplete the Oxygen in our bodies; people die from this lack of ozygen when this bond occurs. I think it's called "free radicals" or something, but it's been years since I've studdied it.
Gore is no expert....
by Bryan 47 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
dawg
No way,,, someone must answer my ramblings.
-
ANewLeif
My understanding was that CO left an electron deficit on the carbon side of the equation, according to Valence Bond notation. Which is why CO bonds to Fe in hemoglobin, forming a much stronger bond with the hemoglobin than hemoglobin creates with oxygen. The bond is roughly 200 times as strong, if memory serves.
I was not aware that CO is classed as a free radical.
ANL
-
dawg
Anf, you may be totally right, that's why I said I think that; i haven't studdied this crap for over 8 years. But the most important point is that one of the by products of the internal combustion engine is CO2-period! And, that the internal combustion engine is one of many man made products that IS FOR A FACT, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There has been a coorelation between these gases and the amount of warming that this planet has felt, and this CAN FOR A FACT be measured in ice that is thousands of years old and which has stored the PPM of this atmospheric gases in ice obtained in the polar ice caps. This is the argumant, and its really that simple. YOu'll never get this crap off the Rush Limbaugh show becasue he don't know what the hell he's talking about,,, someone please tell me why so many don't understand this simple concept? Could it be they have a preconcieved notion of what they think is true and they've gotten their ideas direct from Rush himself?
-
ANewLeif
I do not believe humans can turn Earth into a gas giant. We will kill ourselves before we damage the planet beyond its ability to self-correct and continue to sustain life.
It is not the earth we are protecting, it is not the wildlife, it is humans. Claiming that CO2 is a pollutant is strange when we know CO2 will not damage the earth. Claiming to protect the earth by reducing CO2 is strange. Claiming that protecting our coastal cities is somehow good for the earth is strange. Claiming that protection of a clear overpopulation of the human species is good for the earth is strange. CO2 is not a pollutant just because it is not conducive to long-term perpetuation of current human enterprise.
ANL
-
dawg
You may be right, us humans seem to headed out the door and the earth will be glad for our exit. My point is/was that humans have increased CO2 and that there is a mesureable link between these gases and global warming. Humans have introduced many inventions that run on hydrocarbons and the byproduct of their combustion is CO2; and that there's a proven link in the rise in these "greenhouse gasses" and the rise in the earth's tempature. This is my only point, as to the fate of humans...I have no opinion.
-
dilaceratus
ANewLeif: "I do not believe humans can turn Earth into a gas giant."
Gaiagirl specifically stated that she was speaking of a worst case scenario (which no one is suggesting is in any way likely, or that humans would have any way of knowing about, should it occur), of a critical climatic spiral in part triggered by human activity.
ANewLeif: "CO2 is not a pollutant just because it is not conducive to long-term perpetuation of current human enterprise."
While your considerations are fairly thoughtful, they seem to rely on overly rigid and literal definitions. Earth is a term that can be construed in numerous scalable, but still meaningful ways, as is the word pollutant. That tens of thousands of climate scientists (and the U.S. Supreme Court) are able to parse these ideas enough to move forward without becoming trapped in fruitless quibbling over philosophical semantics suggests that a consensus on the meaning intended is clear.
That some creatures would adapt and thrive as a result of new energy sources and limited competition from any unprecedented physical change to the earth's environment is not only theoretically true, but borne out by the history of the planet, yet it is a trivial and needlessly fatalistic argument in the face of a profound reduction in complex species as a result of controllable, elective human activity.
Whether or not humanity deserves to survive, having over-populated and built up beachfront properties, is just as irrelevant a question. The desire to survive is hardly species-specific. The ability to control carbon emissions enough to attempt to evade a foreseeable trouble, in this instance, is.
-
ANewLeif
I only state that the exercise is explained as an attempt to save the environment and to save the earth while the fact is the exercise is for the salvation of our species. Whether or not this self-interest is species-specific, as far as I know pretending that the actual objective is something other than special survival is unique to humanity. I am unaware of any other species developing the ability of self-deceit. This degree of sophistication is unique to humans.
That tens of thousands of scientists can agree to anything related to this issue in significant numbers may indicate they are humans first and scientists second.
ANL
-
-
dilaceratus
ANewLeif: "I only state that the exercise is explained as an attempt to save the environment and to save the earth while the fact is the exercise is for the salvation of our species."
Once again, your overly limited definitions are used to artificially bifurcate ideas which share a more complicated interconnection. Which parts of the environment and earth are superfluous to a continuation of humanity? While your core argument is certainly true (that humanity is not necessary to the continuation of earth), you seem to believe that, by choice, humans could take up some other support system. What genuine difference is there, then, between attempting to continue the species, and its Maslow list?
As far as the broader effects, do you suspect that drastic climate change would be something akin to the loss of television, of interest only to one particular, self-selecting group?
ANewLeif: "That tens of thousands of scientists can agree to anything related to this issue in significant numbers may indicate they are humans first and scientists second."
This is just a silly (and again, trivial) sloganeering, unless you are prepared to demonstrate how the scientific method has been independently dropped in favor of sentimentalism by these tens of thousands of individual scientists, their oversight groups, their peer associations, and their respective governments.