Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 18, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

WE CALL IT....WELL, WHAT DO WE CALL IT?....From deep very deep within the bowels of the "WTF" files come two ads from the Competitive Enterprise Institute arguing that carbon dioxide is....wait for it....

Good for us. The ads, "airing in 14 U.S. cities from May 18 to May 28, 2006," don't merely say that global warming isn't a big deal though they say that too they seriously say that carbon dioxide is great stuff. "We breathe it out, plants breathe it in."

Well, there's no arguing with that, especially when it's accompanied by pictures of old growth forests and sweet little girls using their CO2-enhanced breath to blow on dandelions.

There's not much point in actually arguing with stuff like this, of course, so I propose a joke contest instead. You can probably figure out the theme without my having to tell you. Comments are open.

Via Grist.

Kevin Drum 2:06 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (211)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

We call it flatulence.

Speaking of the devil, where is that little shitbird?

Posted by: American Eagle on May 18, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

We call it a tax credit.

Posted by: Aaron S. Veenstra on May 18, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

"Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible" CEI must have hired the same P.R. firm.


Posted by: DanF on May 18, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Without carbon dioxide, the earth's ecosystems would collapse. After oxygen and nitrogen, it's the most important element in the atmosphere. It's very odd that liberals are opposed to something so life sustaining. It reminds me of how some high school kids got liberals to sign a petition trying to ban dihydrogenmonoxide a few years back. The fault is probably with teacher's unions; the scientific ignorance of the left is an artifact of low scientific teaching quality, which can be traced directly to the inability to fire poor teachers.

Posted by: American Hawk on May 18, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

"We call it flatulence."

Nope. That's methane.

Posted by: DanF on May 18, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

N20, we call it a party!

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Thank God for coal plants and a billion cars burning gasoline. Wthout them, all life as we know it would cease to exist.

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

I don't breathe at all. I absorb oxygen directly through my skin. And my farts smell like flowers.

Posted by: NTodd on May 18, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

See, American Hawk just out-gassed methane.

Posted by: DanF on May 18, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

C02: Hey, at least it's not CO !

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

It's very odd that liberals are opposed to something so life sustaining.

Yes, we're also against water because it destroyed NOLA.

Posted by: NTodd on May 18, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

+Better living through Carbon Dioxide.

+The warmer things get, the less need we have to burn energy to keep warm - its a win-win.

+CO-2: If its good enough for Venus, its good enough for Earth.

Posted by: Bubbles on May 18, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

and AH's comments show just who the target audience for these commercials will be....

Ever watch a program on Venus? Just google it and look what the atmosphere is made of, loads of good old CO2. No life there yet according to the ad Venus should be prime for it.

Too much of anything is bad, too much oxygen, too much nitrogen, you get the idea. Sadly we are going in the too much route.

Posted by: Dreggas on May 18, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

"C02, All the O2 with the C you need!"

Posted by: DanF on May 18, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

[picture of a champagne glass]
C02: Add more sparkle to your life!

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

The same argument could be made for human excrement.

I'm sure AH will have no objection if I dump a load of life-giving human excrement on his front lawn.

Posted by: hack on May 18, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

I guess we can get rid of all the waste treatment plants. Feces - We excrete them. They're part of life.

Posted by: nameless bob on May 18, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

CO-2: Blow if you want to live.

Posted by: Ripley on May 18, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Radiation, some call it a health risk, but the Sun emits radiation- radiation is the source of life sustaining systems.
They call radiation risky: we call it Life.

Posted by: eli on May 18, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

These ads are obviously directed at those who contend global warming is a threat. See my tongue-in-cheek visual depiction of "Al Gore: The Rapture Wrecker"...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by: Daniel DiRito on May 18, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

That little girl better not be outgassing near my yard. I'm at war with the Dandelion King.

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

CO2: For the County Of Orange !

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk, at least the left acknowledges the validity of science itself. The right alternately denies it and pimps it for dishonest purposes. A pathetic lot, you are.

Posted by: Dan-o on May 18, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

C02: Better living through scientific ignorance!

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

By this evening the line will be peddled on every single AM radio show, every right-wing blog, every Fox show, Scarborough, and by every member of tonight's Hardball panel.

Posted by: Jim J on May 18, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

And Asthma is fun!

Posted by: ellroon on May 18, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

CO2 - Life giving Oxygen with the sparkle of diamonds!

CO2 - Your ticket to a better place! (Offer void in states outlawing Dr. Kevorkian or any form of assisted suicide).

COO - Even the name is soothing.

Posted by: Tripp on May 18, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

It's very odd that liberals are opposed to something so life sustaining.

Ah, there you are, you gassy little chickenhawk. Everytime I come around here, it's the same plume of sour, decaying, mindless talking points.

I'll eat anything, but I think I'm gonna be sick.

Posted by: American Eagle on May 18, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Am I really the first to point out that AH called carbon dioxide an element? I thought it was one of the parodies until I got to the end and saw who posted it.

Posted by: JBL on May 18, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

More CO2! - because Argon needs a competitor

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

CO2 - All the goodness of CO but now with MORE oxygen!

Posted by: Tripp on May 18, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

A world without CO2 is a world where all the beer is flat.

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Water: We Call It Life

[Insert Picture of Katrina Victims]

Posted by: clone12 on May 18, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Well, that certainly runs counter to what Ronald Reagan had to say:

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

"Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources."

Reagan also said that "facts are stupid things." Apparently reality is fungible to these yahoos.

Posted by: puppethead on May 18, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

CO2: We call it life.
No, really, go ahead -- put that plastic bag over your head.

Posted by: derPlau on May 18, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

After oxygen and nitrogen, it's the most important element in the atmosphere.

How odd, my (doubtless liberal) school told me CO2 was a compound and not an element! (rimshot)

Posted by: jimBOB on May 18, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

"They cal it flooding. We call it water."

"They call it nuclear armagedon. We call it the lots of little sun-like activity."

Posted by: theCoach on May 18, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

CO2: We call it life.
No, really, go ahead -- put that plastic bag over your head.

And We have a winner!

Posted by: DanF on May 18, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe the ad campaing could be part of a series.

For instance:

"CO2: We Call it Life"

"War: We Call it Peace"

"Tyranny: We Call it Freedom"

"The Constitution: We Call it An Anachronism"

Posted by: moderleft on May 18, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

I say we enclose Texas in a giant glass bubble and ship every winger - and every extremist, for that matter - off to the bubble then pump it full of CO2.

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

CO2 oxygen and so much more!

Posted by: mudwall jackson on May 18, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

facts are living turned inside out

CO2: You can't see it, smell it, or taste it. Know why? Because it's an anti-American liberal lie. That's why.

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

"They call him a miserable failure. We call him the Decider."

Posted by: theCoach on May 18, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

CO2: It's just dehydrated sugar! Sweet!

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Without my bootylicious lip-smacking farts, the earth's ecosystems would collapse. After oxycontin and nicotine, my farts are the most important element in the atmosphere. It's very odd that liberals are opposed to something so life sustaining.

Posted by: American Hawk's Mirror Image on May 18, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

- "Carbon Dioxide: they call it pollution... we call it a meal ticket."

- "Manure: We Call it Life."

- "CEI - we're all about whose Gore is getting Oxed."

Posted by: Osprey on May 18, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

They tried this a few years ago. Same lobbies set up an astroturf group called "The Greening Earth Society" with exactly the same message.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on May 18, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

"CO2 : It's What Tax Cuts(tm) are Made Of"

Posted by: eckersley on May 18, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

I volunteer American Hawk to put a plastic bag over his head and breathe CO2 for a while...no, keep going...breathe deep!...now, no cheating..keep going!

One more problem solved.

Posted by: CFShep on May 18, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

"CO2 is good for us" is the same argument these folks have been using since the beginning of the greenhouse debate. The problem for industry shills like CEI is that the scientific debate has moved way beyond this line of argument. These ads and this line of argument is easily refuted with scientific and anecdotal evidence and will backfire. It only serves to point out they're absurd and radically wrong viewpoint.

Posted by: C.L on May 18, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

After oxygen and nitrogen, it's the most important element in the atmosphere.

Standard Dry Air Composition By Volume

Nitrogen - 78.08%
Oxygen - 20.95%
Argon - 0.93%
Carbon Dioxide (which isn't an element) - 0.038%

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk was one of those kids who used to stand behind an idling car in the driveway, sticking his face into the exhaust fumes, breathing it in and coming out with a strange smile.

Posted by: Gramma Millie on May 18, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

can I just say how much I'm digging American Hawk ?
I hope he's at the Farmers Market...

Posted by: Tim on May 18, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

CO2: It's the other thing we blow

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

I can't help but think of Dan Akroyd's character, Irwin Mainway, of Mainway Toys, pitching some of his company's toys, such as "Bag 'O' Glass" or "General Tron's Secret Police Confession Kit" to a horrified Jane Curtin.

Posted by: PGE on May 18, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Hypercapnia - SCUBA Divers call it carbon dioxide poisoning. We call it a Freedom Convulsion.


Seriously, excessive carbon dioxide was known to be extremely serious long before we were even aware of Global Warming. Is anyone going to fall for this?

Posted by: keptsimple on May 18, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

AH: After oxygen and nitrogen, it's the most important element in the atmosphere.

Standard Dry Air Composition By Volume

Nitrogen - 78.08%
Oxygen - 20.95%
Argon - 0.93%
Carbon Dioxide (which isn't an element) - 0.038%

To be anal about it, both N and O are present in their molecular forms, not elemental. And importance differs from relative quantity. Argon is inert. Duh.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Greedy lobbyists call CO2 "life" while scientists call it an asphyxiant and irritant.

They call it life, OSHA calls it a "Simple Asphyxiant"

Who are you going to belive, propaganda or that acidic taste in your mouth when the level is too high? (aka Choke damp when inhaled in concentrations greater than 5% by volume)

Carbon dioxide is a colourless gas which, when inhaled at high concentrations (a dangerous activity because of the associated asphyxiation risk), produces a sour taste in the mouth and a stinging sensation in the nose and throat. These effects result from the gas dissolving in the mucous membranes and saliva, forming a weak solution of carbonic acid.... Carbon dioxide content in fresh air is approximately 0.04%, and in exhaled air approximately 4.5%. When inhaled in high concentrations (about 5% by volume), it is toxic to humans and other animals. This is sometimes known as choke damp, an old mining industry term, and was the cause of death at Lake Nyos in Cameroon, where an upwelling of CO2-laden lake water in 1986 covered a wide area in a blanket of the gas, killing nearly 2000.

Hemoglobin, the main oxygen-carrying molecule in red blood cells, can carry both oxygen and carbon dioxide, although in quite different ways. The decreased binding to oxygen in the blood due to increased carbon dioxide levels is known as the Haldane Effect, and is important in the transport of carbon dioxide from the tissues to the lungs. Conversely, a rise in the partial pressure of CO2 or a lower pH will cause offloading of oxygen from hemoglobin. This is known as the Bohr Effect....
OSHA limits carbon dioxide concentration in the workplace to 0.5% for prolonged periods. The U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safey and Health limits brief exposures (up to ten minutes) to 3% and considers concentrations exceeding 4% as "immediately dangerous to life and health." People who breathe 5% carbon dioxide for more than half an hour show signs of acute hypercapnia, while breathing 7%10% carbon dioxide can produce unconsciousness in only a few minutes. Carbon dioxide, either as a gas or as dry ice, should be handled only in well-ventilated areas.

They call it issue advertising, I call it lies.

Posted by: Catch22 on May 18, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK


The 30% increase in Co2 levels has probably increased crop yields in dry areas: plants respire less and use less water. This helps keep poppy yields up in Afghanistan.

Posted by: gcochran on May 18, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

So many of us rushing forward with the generous offer of a nice non-degradeable plastic bag for American Hawk...honestly, the server gets behind.

Posted by: CFShep on May 18, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

We call it American Hawk is the biggest idiot in the room.

No, wait, that's not it:

CO2: We call it: the check cashed.

Posted by: The Tim on May 18, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Catch22 - I remember this feeling well from days growing up in Southern California when we'd have stage 2 smog alerts. If I close my eyes, thirty years later I can still feel the cough, taste the flem and feel the burn.

Posted by: DanF on May 18, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

The oil industry does have a point.

If we don't expel the human excrement, we will die, or at least be full of shit.

Shit is essential for our survival.

Osama hates our shit.

Posted by: nut on May 18, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Bad formatting. Again.

CO2: We call it the check cashed.

Posted by: The Tim on May 18, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

CONTEST WINNER: No, really, go ahead -- put that plastic bag over your head.

Reminds me of a high school chemistry teacher who once told us all (paraphrase), "If you don't believe that steam contains more energy than boiling water, here's what to do--go home and fill a deep pot with water. Bring the water to a good, rolling boil. Then, hitch up your sleeve, plunge your arm down into the boiling water, and count to ten. When you remove your arm, the burn pattern will show you quite clearly that steam contains more energy."

Posted by: &y on May 18, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Toxic sludge is GOOD for you!

Posted by: anonymous on May 18, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

CO2: It makes brocolli possible.

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

We call it flatulence.

Nope, it's just American Chickenhawk opening his yap again.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on May 18, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Chuck Norris snorts carbon dioxide off models' asses.

Posted by: Chuck Norris is God on May 18, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, man.

Who are you going to believe: the National Academy of Sciences, or "American Hawk."

Well, duh . . . "American Hawk," of course. He's got a PhD in everything, and even if he doesn't, he knows he can make up his own truth. Up is down, black is white, and global warming is good for us.

Posted by: chuck on May 18, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

CEI -- or more accurately, the fossil fuel corporations that they shill for -- is obviously terrified of Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth which opens nationwide next Wednesday May 24.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on May 18, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

You know that "carbon dating" you godless heathens believe shows that fossils are, like, millions of years old? Well, what do you think makes carbon dating possible, smartypants? CO2, that's what. Um, that is, you know, if carbon dating weren't a lie, since we know the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Posted by: James Dobson on May 18, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Catch22: Great find. Who needs jokes when you can so easily show the whole thing is a joke?

For further hilarity, check out the script for the ad, where they _footnote_ every four-word sentence in the ad.

Posted by: Noumenon on May 18, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

In fact, I've updated the graphic for the next ad:

https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/adpeters1/web/CO2.jpg

Posted by: derPlau on May 18, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

To be anal about it, both N and O are present in their molecular forms, not elemental.

True.

And importance differs from relative quantity.

Haha. Slicing that one thin, aren't we? You think he was making value judgments by using the term "important"? If so, is he stating that Nitrogen is more important than CO2?

I think you read into the troll's "mind" too deeply.

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/adpeters1/web/CO2.jpg
Ha!

Posted by: DanF on May 18, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

They call it life, OSHA calls it a "Simple Asphyxiant"......They call it issue advertising, I call it lies.

I call it a stupid post. Nitrogen and Argon and Helium are all also "Simple Asphyxiants" which means it is a gas which can asphyxiate you if it displaces Oxygen.

100% Oxygen is posionous, which is why it is used as a disinfectant. Breath it at pressure in scuba and you will die.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: chuck on May 18, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, but George W. Bush was a C student and now he's The Decider(TM) while PhDs have to listen to him...

Posted by: gq on May 18, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

CO2 - We call it record profits while you gasp for breath!

CO2 - Helping reduce the risk of forest fires.

Some say "global warming," we say "global comfort!"

CO2 - Warm summers and mild winters.

Posted by: Tripp on May 18, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Haha. Slicing that one thin, aren't we? You think he was making value judgments by using the term "important"? If so, is he stating that Nitrogen is more important than CO2?

In deep sea diving, they use Helium breathed in high quantities, as a filler gas to keep partial pressures right for the "important gas" of Oxygen. Argon is inert = unimportant.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

To be anal about it, both N and O are present in their molecular forms, not elemental. And importance differs from relative quantity. Argon is inert. Duh.

You probably meant atomic, not elemental. At the conditions we have around here, nitrogen exists as molecular nitrogen and oxygen exists at molecular oxygen. That doesn't mean they aren't elements.

CO2, though, is a compound. Period.

And what does the chemical reactivity of argon have to do with anything?

Posted by: P. C. on May 18, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

We call it The Onion.

Posted by: Andrew on May 18, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Gosh, Red State Mike -- y'mean there's some optimal amount of oxygen in the atmosphere -- and too much might actually be bad for you?

Think the same might be true of, I dunno, CO2? Naaah, I'm sure the CEI thought of that.

Posted by: derPlau on May 18, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Noumenon,

Oh my God they cite Wikipedia.

Posted by: Tripp on May 18, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

100% Oxygen is posionous

As evidenced by all the dead astronauts.

Argon is inert = unimportant.

You can restate it however you want. Either it was meant to be ordered in relative quantity, or it was a value judgment - which is inherently subjective.

You can hang your fortunes on Al, I mean, Don, I mean, GOP, I mean, American Hawk all you want.

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, I wish our atmosphere could be 100% CO2!

Posted by: Al nails it on May 18, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

derPlau
Gosh, Red State Mike -- y'mean there's some optimal amount of oxygen in the atmosphere -- and too much might actually be bad for you?

The wee little light bulb comes on, dim though it may be...

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

One of the very general rules of thumb is that we're looking at a ~1% increase in temps. 1%. Such a little number. That's also been used like the "CO2 is good" gag. "Ooh. Just 1%. How bad can it be?" Of course, it's 1% from absolute zero so, it's around 2.7C of an increase in temps on top of what we've already experienced. (Between .15 Celsius and .3 Celsius)

Think of the fun. Let's lowball the actual change we've experienced and call it .15 Celsius that we've gone through so far due to human activity. Just look around at the increase in storms, droughts, floods, glacier and permafrost melt. And let's not forget the spread of tropical diseases.

It's useful to remember that half the CO2 we've put into the atmosphere has been put there only since 1970. The Indian and Chinese economies have only been roaring along for ~10 years now. Have we got some dandelion blowing fun in store or what!?

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on May 18, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Argon is unimportant. Now let me turn off the lights and reboot my computer.

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Mike-

Way to ignore the second paragraph (and therefore the sarcasm in my whole post)

Posted by: derPlau on May 18, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Either it was meant to be ordered in relative quantity, or it was a value judgment - which is inherently subjective.

OK, so you think Argon is somehow more "important" than CO2 because there is more of it? And that's not subjective?

I think the ad was stupid. About half of the responses here are too.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK
100% Oxygen is posionous,

No, oxygen at too high a partial pressure is poisonous.


Posted by: cmdicely on May 18, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

Video of a guy coming home from work after a horrible day. Kids are screaming. Wife is nagging. Guy goes out to the garage, hooks up a hose to the exhaust and into the car window, and climbs into the driver's seat. Just as he's turning the ignition key, a soothing voice-over says, "Relax. Get some rest. Tomorrow will be better." Then as the guy "gets to sleep a little before dinner" words on the screen say, "CO2. Life without drugs. A better way."

Posted by: Emily on May 18, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK
...the ad was stupid. About half of the responses here are too.

I dunno about "about half", but certainly plenty are: e.g., yours, American Hawk's.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 18, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

MTBE: without it in your ground water, water is just H2O!

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on May 18, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

100% Oxygen is posionous,

No, oxygen at too high a partial pressure is poisonous.

Cherry picking. Read the entire post before commenting.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

I don't get it. If fossil fuel burning plants are so great, why are they all located in poor neighborhoods, as far away from the republicans as possible?

shouldn't they be smack dab in the middle of their neighborhoods? maybe next to the churches?

Posted by: northzax on May 18, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Argon is unimportant. Now let me turn off the lights and reboot my computer.

Heh. Slave to technology. How did we ever evolve without lights and computers?

If everyone here would just stop respiring, I could use my Hummer to commute to work and not affect the CO2 balance.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

You can almost hear the creative typos coming up with parodies of this. Reminds me of the people against DiHydrogen Oxide...

Posted by: Robert on May 18, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

It must be that the Oil companies are secretly pro-science and want to do something about Global Warming; The only other explanation if they actually think these ads work is that they are incredibly, mind blowingly, impossible to believe of Fortune 50 companies, stupid.

Posted by: eric on May 18, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

CO2. We call it life. Because we don't have one.

Posted by: JJ on May 18, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

CO2: it's what salad has for lunch!

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

OK, so you think Argon is somehow more "important" than CO2 because there is more of it? And that's not subjective?

Wow, you're still going with this?

Al/American Hawk/etc is a troll. What he said is nonsense - intended to provoke. I don't take it seriously. Now you're hung up on the issue of which gas is more "important" than another? Dude - get a life. Talk about a fruitless debate.

"Hey man! Oxygen is WAY more important than nitrogen. Like, it's 425 times as important."
"No way, man! It's only a little more important, but CO2 is like way more important than argon. I know that much, dude."

Again, he either meant it in terms of relative concentration (and got the order of oxygen and nitrogen wrong and didn't know about argon) or he meant it the way you're saying, in which case he "thinks" oxygen and nitrogen are more important than CO2.

Take your pick.

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Heh. Slave to technology. How did we ever evolve without lights and computers?

Uh, no. That went over your head, didn't it?

Argon is the gas in incandescent lightbulbs and it's the atmosphere used for growing a lot of semiconductors. Some people would consider light bulbs and semiconductors to be important, as opposed to "not important", as you assert Argon to be.

If everyone here would just stop respiring, I could use my Hummer to commute to work and not affect the CO2 balance.

Warming is caused by net additions to the atmosphere, not closed loop sources. Duh.

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

CO2: There really can be too much of a good thing.

Posted by: Off Colfax on May 18, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

There's spiders crawling up my arm. Get them off!

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

You can't have too much of a good thing. Ask any drowning victim -- they won't deny it.

Posted by: Benson on May 18, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe we should run Johnson's classic 1964 "Daisy Ad" right after this new dandelion ad.

Posted by: Simon on May 18, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Shit. We poop it out. Few things are as satisfying as a good bowel-movement. Millions of life forms thrive on shit, and we in turn thrive on them. Yet, liberals don't want us shitting in the street, or in our lakes and rivers, or in restaurants. Why do they hate America?

Posted by: Scott Herbst on May 18, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

I think they took the commercial from Naked Gun 2 1/2.

Posted by: Chris on May 18, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

learning to live beneath the ocean will be a thrilling challenge for the entire eastern seaboard!

Posted by: benjoya on May 18, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

mmmm...poisony...

Posted by: pete in austin on May 18, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK


"Feces. Every living animal produces it. Plants use it to grow. Some people would call sewage pollution. We call it life."

Posted by: theorajones on May 18, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Without carbon dioxide, the earth's ecosystems would collapse. After oxygen and nitrogen, it's the most important element in the atmosphere. It's very odd that liberals are opposed to something so life sustaining. It reminds me of how some high school kids got liberals to sign a petition trying to ban dihydrogenmonoxide a few years back. The fault is probably with teacher's unions; the scientific ignorance of the left is an artifact of low scientific teaching quality, which can be traced directly to the inability to fire poor teachers.

Posted by: American Hawk"

Is that you Stephen Colbert? Because if it isn't I can sure imagine him saying it.

Posted by: Nathan on May 18, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Patients exposed to high levels of CO2 in the environment, on the other hand, may experience immediate hypoxia or anoxia in response to the displacement of ambient oxygen. At any given temperature and pressure, a liter of air can contain only a certain number of particles. In this case, the sublimation of dry ice to CO2 gas displaced the other components of ambient air, the most important of which was oxygen.

The displacement of breathable oxygen by another gas produces asphyxiation, impaired pulmonary gas exchange culminating in hypoxemia. Asphyxiation may be caused by a physical mechanism, such as choking, or by the reduction of the oxygen content in breathable air. A person who has suffocated in a plastic bag, for example, has actually asphyxiated from the selective depletion of oxygen caused by rebreathing into the bag. Fire may deplete ambient oxygen and produce asphyxiation independently of the effects of smoke inhalation or carbon monoxide poisoning.

http://www.emedmag.com/html/pre/tox/0500.asp

Posted by: clb72 on May 18, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone live in DC with axis to some lots of CO2 gas? Pump it into the Competitive Enterprise Institutes offices overnight...

Posted by: Robert on May 18, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

The image reminds me of the ad LBJ ran against Goldwater

Posted by: Texan on May 18, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Next thing you know, the liberals will be bitching about H20 and 007.

Posted by: biosparite on May 18, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder who will show this ad. Because we all know that the networks and local stations won't because they won't show anything "controversial." I mean, they wouldn't show that United Church of Christ ad for tolerance because it is too "controversial." So I don't expect to see it anywhere, and if I do, I hope the UCC sues really fast.

Posted by: David in NY on May 18, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, no. That went over your head, didn't it?

Argon is the gas in incandescent lightbulbs and it's the atmosphere used for growing a lot of semiconductors. Some people would consider light bulbs and semiconductors to be important, as opposed to "not important", as you assert Argon to be.

Yes, once we've replaced our human forms with robots implementing our personalities as software, then Argon will be Truly Important.

I guess the reason rising levels of CO2 is important is because it lowers the total amount of Argon in the air, it being more important and all.

You wonder where they got the name "saffron rice" since saffron makes up .000001% of the ingredients. It must be unimportant.


If everyone here would just stop respiring, I could use my Hummer to commute to work and not affect the CO2 balance.

Warming is caused by net additions to the atmosphere, not closed loop sources. Duh.

I left off the part where you bury yourselves.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Theorajones:
"Feces. Every living animal produces it. Plants use it to grow. Some people would call sewage pollution. We call it life."

Good one! You're only the tenth person to think it up.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Mommy used say mean things to me. But I showed her! I'd scream off the last word and run away.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

When Reagan was governor of California, he cracked people up by claiming that the redwoods caused pollution. Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide -- what's the difference? And we all know that kept him from being elected president. The earth has been getting flatter ever since.

Posted by: Kenji on May 18, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Without global warming we would never have a biofuels industry!

Posted by: Matt on May 18, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Give me a name

i dub thee, "Troll"

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Good one! You're only the tenth person to think it up.

C'mon, Red Ass Mike, you come on here to defend the most idiotic of posts, yet you criticize someone who didn't bother to read through the entire thread before posting?

Maybe you need to get a life.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on May 18, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

I imagine that bullets don't kill people either - just the rapid lead poisoning.

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on May 18, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

The real joke is that every so-called environmentalist in the US produces, on average, 10X the amount of CO2 than the average world citizen produces. And yet your average environmentalist actually believe that their part of the solution. Isnt this sick?

No, it's twisted logic. The amount that people consume and pollute is almost entriely dependent on the systems of their own country. Like you, I was born into an auto-dependent, high-energy-use culture. No matter what I do, if the assumption that my share of that is equal to everyone else's, then of course it's more than most of the rest of the world.

Can anyone give me the name of an environmentalist that doesnt consume the Earths resources at a rate the self same environmentalist believes will destroy the environment?

It all depends on how you assign resource consumption to an individual. Are you assigning social shares or specifically focusing on personally-controllable consumption? If the latter, then there's plenty of people who live sustainably. If the former, you're only making an argument in support of environmentalism, since it's the systems which are primarily at fault, not individual choice.

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Shit: We call it crap, dogs call it food. It comes out of our asses so it good for us all.

Posted by: Kel B on May 18, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe you need to get a life.

Heh, it's pretty much iumpossible to make that accusation and not have it go both ways.

Maybe I like wasting time jerking your chain during code recompiles.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

"The real joke is that every so-called environmentalist in the US produces, on average, 10X the amount of CO2 than the average world citizen produces. And yet your average environmentalist actually believe that their part of the solution. Isnt this sick?"

Yes, it's just horrible -- I mean, hilarious. And therefore nothing can be done about global warming, so we're all going to give up now. But there's a more burning question: can the average environmentalist spell?

Posted by: Kenji on May 18, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Mark: 'give me a name'

"And yet your average environmentalist actually believe that their part of the solution."

I nominate 'illiterate'. It's 'they're' as in 'they are' not 'their' which is a possessive.

Posted by: CFShep on May 18, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

It goes both ways! Brawwwwwk!

Posted by: Red State Parrot on May 18, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Urine: It's Water Plus!


---

Soylent Green: It's People Like You And Me...

Posted by: Schwag of Tulsa on May 18, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

RSM is an idiot. He was taken to task on some of the nonsense he posted above but had to resort to playground tactics in his subsequent responses.
He doesn't even comprehend a simple case of two things being important; while one may be more or less important than the other....OY

Posted by: GOD on May 18, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Popular 70s poster:

Big fat, Elmer Fudd-lookin' guy, with a balding pate, moustache, sitting at a dinner table with a napkin tucked into his neck and a big smile on his face.

In front of him is a big plate of what looks like dog turds. He's holding one up impaled on his fork. The caption:

EAT SHIT. After all, 427 billion flies *can't be wrong*!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on May 18, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Put me down and walk away from me.

Posted by: Red State Mike's fifth beer on May 18, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

He doesn't even comprehend a simple case of two things being important; while one may be more or less important than the other....OY

Huh? What? Voices in your head again?

Mooorrrronnnn

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

When people don't give a shit about the fate of our planet, it's pretty much useless to engage them on any "micro" levels. Guys like this will be trying to score smart-ass points even as they sink into the methane quicksand. So don't bother to bring extra rope.

Posted by: Kenji on May 18, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

every so-called environmentalist in the US produces, on average, 10X the amount of CO2 than the average world citizen produces

And just so you know, US per capita emissions of CO2 are about 5 times the world average, not 10.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1cco2.xls

Environmentalists are going to pollute less than the average American, so it will be less than 5 times.

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Voices in your head! Brawwwwwwkk!!

Can I have a cracker now?

Posted by: Red State Parrot on May 18, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Who's the moron here? Posters here are laughing at you cos of your consistently idiotic post and they bash you in the head, but you keep coming back.

Of course, you'll claim you have a life but I doubt it! It's possible you suffered from and an accident that resulted in a head injury and maybe a little bit of child abuse. That would explain why you keep coming back for more beating here as well as your ability to afford a computer from your liability claims.

Posted by: GOD on May 18, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe I like wasting time jerking your chain during code recompiles.

You could actually be learning about climate change during code recompiles:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://www.heatisonline.org/main.cfm

But I suspect logical thinking that's not in your own interest would probably be asking too much.

Posted by: JJ on May 18, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

It's been at least three posts since some liberal made the shit/CO2 analogy. The joke that just keeps getting funnier and funnier with repeating. What's keepin' you?

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

The videos on the cei site are pure propaganda. The Glacier one, for instance, says that "some" science studies refute the idea that glaciers are melting, and then shows 2 articles from Science with titles suggesting thickening of ice sheets in the interior of Greenland and Antarctica, with the obvious assumption that the glaciers can't be melting since we are seeing thickening.

Both quoted studies show thickening in the interior resulting from increased precipitation (rain/snowfall) SECONDARY to global warming and melting of coastal glaciers. These trends are exactly as predicted by global warming and increasing sea levels.

The authors say this in the actual articles, as well as reminding us that the relative increases in interior ice sheets does not offset the worldwide melting phenomenon and the overall rise in sea level.

Posted by: Nads on May 18, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

This is "Thank You For Smoking"-esque. Except way way way stupider.

Posted by: Steve on May 18, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

But I suspect logical thinking that's not in your own interest would probably be asking too much.

He sniffs with a head toss and a look of smug satisfaction.

Actually, moron, I thought the ad was stupid and said so. But I also thought the responses were pretty stupid, and said so. And I've read all of the climate change literature, and you weren't such a newbie around these parts, you'd know my opinion and know your wrong in your oh so precious presumptiousness.

GOD, you're Advocate For God in disguise aren't you?

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

How do you "know your wrong", anyway? Is that some kind of new-age speak?

Posted by: Kenji on May 18, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Your wrong! Brawwwwwk!

Posted by: Red State Parrot on May 18, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

you'd know my opinion and know your wrong in your oh so precious presumptiousness.
Posted by: Red State Mike

while we're correcting this dipshits grammar, shouldn't "oh so precious" be hyphenated ("oh-so-precious"), or is that optional?

Posted by: Nads on May 18, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

You guys are being mean. I'm taking my ball and going home.

Nads and Kenji, thanks for being grammar checkers/dingleberry pickers.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

How do you "know your wrong", anyway?

heh.

get in touch with your Inner Wrong. identify it. catalogue it. explore it. there, doesn't that feel good ?

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Please call this toll free number at the bottom of your screen to order your new, improved home CO2 monitor today! Only $19.95 if you use your Exxon credit card!

1-800-OIL-GOOD

Posted by: pj in jesusland on May 18, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Mother Nature: We're Going to Blow It Away

Posted by: S Ra on May 18, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Nads and Kenji, thanks for being grammar checkers/dingleberry pickers.
Posted by: Red State Mike

why is that an insult ... wouldn't YOU remove a dingleberry from your ass if you found one?

I'm pretty sure its in some scripture somewhere ... "if a dingleberry offends thee, pluck it out. Verily."

Posted by: Nads on May 18, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

A great set of posters here:
http://kirktoons.com/busheviks/busheviks.html#
One is especially relevant to the post: "Our energy policy warms the planet"

Posted by: anatol on May 18, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Bye, guys. It looks like Mike's hauling me out of here.

Posted by: Red State Mike's sixth beer on May 18, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK
Cherry picking.

Yeah, whatever.

Read the entire post before commenting.

I did. Just because I didn't blockquote it doesn't mean I didn't read it. If you want the long version of the quote, and the long response:

100% Oxygen is posionous, which is why it is used as a disinfectant. Breath it at pressure in scuba and you will die.

No, too high of a partial pressure of oxygen is poisonous. You don't need to breathe 100% oxygen at pressure in scuba too die, oxygen at the same percentage it is in the atmosphere will kill you if you breathe it under enough pressure (whether you are using a self-contained underwater breathing apparatus or not) -- did I mention that the problem is partial pressure, not concentration (likewise, in a low pressure environment, 100% oxygen isn't toxic -- again, its the partial pressure that matters.)

If you are going to try to distract the substantive discussion with irrelevancies, at least try to be accurate.

Satisfied?

Posted by: cmdicely on May 18, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK
Nads and Kenji, thanks for being grammar checkers/dingleberry pickers.

Well, that's a pretty good analogy, seeing as how your posts seem to come from the same place as dingleberries.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 18, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

From a footnote to the script, provided by Noumenon above at 2:57.

"By the end of the nineteenth century human labor made up 95 percent of all industrial work in the US. Today, it constitutes only 8 percent. If we think for a moment of the energy we use in terms of "servants"," each with the same work power as a human being, each person in Western Europe has access to 150 servants, in the US about 300, and even in India each person has 15 servants to help along. It is indeed unpleasant to imagine what it would be like to live without these helpers."

Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p 118-119

CO2: We call it The Good Life, suckers!

Though, truth to tell, I'd like to see more of my 300 servants cleaning my house and fewer moving my family to and from the Mall.

Posted by: PTate in MN on May 18, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Well, this degenerated rather quickly. I honestly thought American Hawk was a joke, some sort of parody - I'm still convinced it may be, since anyone can use the handle and most trolls wouldn't be content to let the indefensible go undefended. RSM stepped up, but in to infantile a fashion to be interesting, sadly.

As for 'important', well, important is subjective by definition. Further, something may be important but you still don't want too much of it; too much Dihydrogen Oxide can kill you, after all (have you seen Poseidon yet?).

This reminds me of the old joke by sophomoric chemists - "Want some Sodium Chloride on your food?" This inevitably produced the desired response on the ill informed, liberal and conservative, as did "Your epidermis is showing." I don't think any of these lines of highly recycled jokes demonstrate much about teaching or environmentalism, just the power of new knowledge gained over those slightly behind in the curriculum.

Now, I think we need to concede the point - sometimes people use inane arguments about 'chemicals' and use scientific names to make things scarier as they are. However, CO2 is a product of nature, but too much of it is clearly a bad thing, and the scientific evidence that it plays a significant role in potentially devastating climate change is substantial. That's the serious issue that this ad is burying, and burying stupidly, which is why it's a joke all by itself.

No further additions are really necessary.

Posted by: Fides on May 18, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

He sniffs with a head toss and a look of smug satisfaction.

Actually, there's tons of things in life that I'm not so sure about.

But I am sure that with all the science that's been done for the past few decades, the people that sound like the trolls on this blog either A.) haven't read up on the subject at all, or B.) think that the scientific establishment has been corrupted by the Bavarian Illuminati, and that's why out of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in the last 10 years, none of them challenged the scientific consensus. That's why the first sentence of the NAS White House-commissioned climate change report reads, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."

So yes, you're probably hearing a bit of contempt. But that's because there's a lot of people out there who sound so cocksure of what they're talking about. And if they did any homework at all, they wouldn't be. But come to think about it, there are some people who get paid to sound cocksure. Like the people at the American Enterprise Institute. And they do do some homework, but it's homework on how to sound cocksure in ad campaigns, not on their science. Science is for those pathetic liberal science types. They're immediately suspect as soon as they turn down a corporate paycheck.

Posted by: JJ on May 18, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

If everyone here would just stop respiring, I could use my Hummer to commute to work and not affect the CO2 balance.

You spelled "Chevette" wrong, RSM.

Posted by: NSA Mole on May 18, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Like the people at the American Enterprise Institute.

Or the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whatever the heck place that is. Whatever it is, they don't do science.

Posted by: JJ on May 18, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike said:

"Maybe I like wasting time jerking your chain during code recompiles."

Wow, you're either using a 386 for coding or you're recompiling the source code for the SS Administration systems. My recompiles only take a few seconds.

Posted by: OhNoNotAgain on May 18, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Give me a name..
You cant.

Me, for one. Lots of people like me out there.

Do you have OCD such that you need to repeat what you already said?

If everyone on the planet consumed the Earths resources at the rate that Al Gore does, the planet would be lifeless. I guess thats why to liberal elites hes the worlds leading environmentalist.

I see. So how much does Dubya consume? Are you some kind of commie that believes we should all consume the same amount, no matter the demands of our work?

Run along now, child. Mother will be home soon.

Posted by: BB on May 18, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Eventually open bodies of water will become carbonated! Then we can sip soda water out of ponds, and motorboating and water-skiing will be fun with all that fizz.

Posted by: Neil' on May 18, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, you're either using a 386 for coding or you're recompiling the source code for the SS Administration systems. My recompiles only take a few seconds.

Nah, Mike got the NSA wiretapping contract. Good gig. Database that size takes a little computing power though.

Juuuuuuust kidding, Mike. I know you can kill a man twelve ways with your hands and two just by looking at him. Friendly jibe is all. Good-natured ribbing. Probably hard to recognize given the signal to noise ratio here.

Posted by: Windhorse on May 18, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

mark,

That's got to be the most idiotic argument I've ever heard.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on May 18, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

C02 - whata lousy sequel! I much preferred the original film CO. It had better car chases. Too bad they couldn't get Tom Cruise back to do the second one.

Posted by: biggerbox on May 18, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, my pecker is tiny. Why do you ask?

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

your average environmentalist actually believes that theyre part of the solution.

Well, when you buy a gallon of milk you're part of the problem. The truck that brought you the milk used deisel, which you're consuming in effect, when you buy the milk. The truck produces CO2.

What we need are leaders that can actually recognize the problem and deal with it. Maybe carbon sequestration can do it. If so, someone ought to get busy. Maybe the truck that brought you the milk can run on something other than deisel. Someone's going to have to figure that out.

Who cares whose fault it is. If a Republican figures this out, great. But the CO2 level in the atmosphere isn't going to go down just because it says to itself "You know, those people down there are living as the Creator intended, with good little free markets. So some of us little CO2 molecules are going to go away." (Maybe George Bush thinks this, but some of us living in the 21st century would prefer to be grownups.)

Posted by: JJ on May 18, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

100% Oxygen is posionous--Red State Mike

As evidenced by all the dead astronauts.--BB

While it is true that astronauts breathe 100% oxygen, their system is pressurized to only .3 bar (30% of earth sea-level pressure), so the amount of oxygen they breathe is about the same as a person on earth at 3000 feet.

Because their suits are lower than one bar, while a scuba tank and attached human lung system at depth are at higher than one bar, astronauts have to go through decompression before going outside, whereas divers have to go through decompression on the way back up.

Breathing 100% oxygen at sea level pressures would cause oxygen poisoning, for which Google finds 2.1 million hits.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question493.htm says in humans the symptoms are:

--Pulmonary edema (intensive-care patients on breathing machines at 30 hours or more exposure)

--Decreases in the rate of gas exchange across the alveoli (intensive-care patients on breathing machines at 30 hours of exposure)

--Chest pains that were worse during deep breathing (volunteers with 24 hours of exposure)
--Decrease in the total volume of exchangeable air in the lung (vital capacity) by 17 percent (volunteers with 24 hours of exposure)

--Local areas of collapsed alveoli when plugged by mucus, a condition called atelectasis (patients, volunteers). The oxygen entrapped in the plugged alveolus gets absorbed into the blood, no gas is left to keep the plugged alveolus inflated and it collapses. Mucus plugs happen normally but are cleared by coughing. Also, if alveoli become plugged during air breathing, the nitrogen entrapped in the alveoli keeps them inflated.

--Blindness caused by inadequate development of the capillaries in the lens and retina of the eye (premature infants). Reducing the oxygen to 40 percent can prevent this blindness.

Posted by: anandine on May 18, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

I make no claim to being an "environmentalist", but me and mine are not contributing to CO2 increase at all. None. How is this possible? I pay a business, run for profit, to sequester CO2 for me, to balance out the amount that my vehicles and other energy use produce.

It isn't even that expensive.

Other people call it impossible, I call it something I've done already.

Posted by: Doctor Jay on May 18, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Let's hear it for Dingleberry Mike -- his arguments are always hanging by a thread!

Posted by: Kenji on May 18, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum is quite right that "there's not much point in actually arguing with stuff like this"

But as I ruminate on their script I was struck by this: "There's something in these pictures you can't see. It's essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in"

They are totally right, of course. The problem isn't CO2. The problem is that we have too many people breathing out, and too few plants breathing in.

So, plant trees. Hold your breath.

Posted by: PTate in MN on May 18, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

caption contest:
I'm practicing to give Bill Clinton a blow job!

I hate my neighbors, they need more weeds in their lawns.

Posted by: Fakest Al on May 18, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

The problem is that we have too many people breathing out, and too few plants breathing in.

It's not the people. If you sat down and did the chemistry on how much CO2 a car produces when it runs, it's a lot more than a person. Cars, factories, other industrial processes, all produce lots of CO2. Nature worked a long time to pull that CO2 out of the atmosphere (hence the name "fossil fuels"). We're putting the CO2 back in a very short period of time.

Posted by: JJ on May 18, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Just passing by...yes, huge recompiles and then running of test suites takes time. OhNoNotAgain, congrats on compiling your first "Hello World" program.

100% Oxygen is posionous--Red State Mike

As evidenced by all the dead astronauts.--BB

I've got a couple of thousand hours breathing 100% O2, whilest flying in my taxpayer-provided (I remembered the hyphen!) plane. It not poison, it good...in moderation. You get some weird side effects after using it for hours straight.

I believe the globe is warming, I'm still gathering data on whether humans cause it. But the correlation is there. Causation?

There were 10 posts on the thread about Al Jazeera and democracy, and 100+ in this one that came afterward. This thread was *begging* for me and my Straight Talk Express to come rolling through here like a steamroller, leaving ruptured ad hominems, splattered non sequiturs, bitch-slapped slippery slopes, and a whole horde of hasty generalizations crushed beneath the clarity of my overwhelming logic.

Your welcome!

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike wrote: I believe the globe is warming, I'm still gathering data on whether humans cause it. But the correlation is there. Causation?

You are of course welcome to "believe" whatever you like.

Look, science has identified the specific biochemical mechanisms by which consituents of tobacco smoke cause carcinogenic changes in lung tissue. Science has also demonstrated an epidemiological correlation between tobacco smoking and lung cancer.

Nonetheless, it is impossible to "prove" that any given case of lung cancer was "caused" by tobacco smoking. After all, some people smoke tobacco all their lives and don't get lung cancer, while some people (like Christopher Reeves' widow, recently) who have never smoked tobacco get lung cancer.

The physical mechanism by which anthropogenic increases in the concentration of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases", primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, cause the earth to warm is basic physics, well-established science, and beyond serious question.

The actual increase in the levels of atmospheric CO2 is an observed fact -- NOAA measures it and reports it every year. This increase is a direct result of human activity.

The actual warming of the Earth as a result of its increased retention of heat from the increased concentration of greenhouse gases is also an observed fact.

The correlation between the observed warming and the observed anthropogenic increases in CO2 concentration, which closely corresponds to the predictions of computer models of the effects of anthropogenic increases in CO2, is also an observed fact.

Also, there is no other cause of the observed warming that has been proposed, let alone observed, that can explain it, nor is any other explanation needed, since the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases is sufficient to explain it.

There is no serious basis to question that the observed anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 are the cause of the observed warming.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on May 18, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

RSM--

You're still "gathering data" on global warming? I sure hope you're getting paid for that. It's pretty tough work, what with all the simulations and everything you'd have to set up on your PC. How do you find the time?

On the bright side, maybe we'll run out of fossil fuels before we totally destroy the climate. And if not, well, who the hell wants to live in Florida or Bangladesh anyway?

Posted by: kokblok on May 18, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

I believe the globe is warming, I'm still gathering data on whether humans cause it. But the correlation is there. Causation?
Posted by: Red State Mike

RSM: what makes you think you are in any way qualified to collect and analyze data on global warming? your posts here, including the moronic O2 stuff, shows a lack of any appreciable scientific literacy.

Do you think reading cei propaganda because you lack the ability to read/interpret primary scientific sources counts as "gathering data"? ... dipshit.

Posted by: Nads on May 18, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK
This thread was *begging* for me and my Straight Talk Express to come rolling through here like a steamroller, leaving ruptured ad hominems, splattered non sequiturs, bitch-slapped slippery slopes, and a whole horde of hasty generalizations crushed beneath the clarity of my overwhelming logic.

To be an accurate picture of your posting style, you need to delete "bitch-slapped slippery slopes," put a full stop after "generalizations", and delete all that follows that point.

Having covered your main substance error, there, I'll leave it to others to deal with your grammar errors.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 18, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

This thread is conclusive proof that liberals are funnier than conservatives.

Posted by: obscure on May 18, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

We call it flatulence.

I meant to say poof.

Posted by: obscure on May 18, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

I meant to say poof.
Posted by: obscure

please ... no more PUNishment.

... sorry ... (shamefacedly walking away)

Posted by: Nads on May 18, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

We should counter with cuts from Das Boot where they are stuck on the bottom of the ocean and the CO2 levels are rising to toxic levels.

Posted by: Freder Frederson on May 18, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

CO2: They call it pollution.
CEI: They call us desperate.

Posted by: haverchuck187 on May 18, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

CO2: We Call it a Constitutional Amendment Banning Abortion

Posted by: Calling All Toasters on May 18, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

kokblok
You're still "gathering data" on global warming? I sure hope you're getting paid for that.

Actually it's called "reading". Though I do get paid to attend conferences where it comes up. Got to hear Lonnie Thompson speak in person and answer questions.

Nads
RSM: what makes you think you are in any way qualified to collect and analyze data on global warming?

A PhD in the study of nonlinear dynamic systems, of which the atmosphere is a fine example.

your posts here, including the moronic O2 stuff, shows a lack of any appreciable scientific literacy.

Actually it shows a mimimum of effort spent to troll morons such as yourself.

I can read and understand the literature far better than you, most likely. There are dissenters to the anthropogenic argument with good arguments. Unlike you, I listen to both sides before making up my mind. I also believe the globe is warming, we won't be reversing it, we need to deal with it whether it is anthropogenic or not, and we need to wean off fossil fuels anyway for lots of additional good reasons.

Do you think reading cei propaganda because you lack the ability to read/interpret primary scientific sources counts as "gathering data"? ... dipshit.

Hey dumbass moron, I didn't bother to read the cei "propaganda" because I read the journals, and I've read the realclimate site, and talked with the climatologists at our meteorology department. So go pick someone else's dingleberries.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

Red state Mike:

Drink your quicksilver before it gets cold.

Posted by: fishbane on May 18, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

Without carbon dioxide, the earth's ecosystems would collapse. After oxygen and nitrogen, it's the most important element in the atmosphere. It's very odd that liberals are opposed to something so life sustaining.

So true. And without trolls, the blogosphere would collapse into a smelly bunch of hippies singing annoying songs and fornicating away the grand inheritance that Dow and Exxon have left us. That is, if they didn't tax it first.

Posted by: fishbane on May 18, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

you have a PhD in nonlinear dynamics and you have doubts that humans have made some contribution to global warming? humans affecting global warming is essentially a paradigm of nonlinearity. are you sure you've graduated?

I'm curious whether others in this and various climateology-type fields are as uncertain about the relatively clear data ... or if this is another instance of ideology trumping science, even in the mind of someone who (presumably) knows better.

Posted by: Nads on May 18, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

You know, if you stick a carrot up your ass, it's really really hard to pull back out.

My friend told me that.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

Blowjobs - good for you... good for the planet!
Ask a Republican for a blowjob, today!

Posted by: bushwahd on May 18, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

"looks like i picked the wrong month to stop sniffing glue."

Posted by: gravity on May 18, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

It's very odd that liberals are opposed to something so life sustaining.... The fault is probably with teacher's unions; the scientific ignorance of the left is an artifact of low scientific teaching quality, which can be traced directly to the inability to fire poor teachers

Hmmm, well water is certainly life sustaining, but as some CIA torture detainees are discovering too much ain't necessarily a good thing (e.g. waterboarding).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Fides, above, is worth rereading.

Posted by: um no on May 18, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

Nads
you have a PhD in nonlinear dynamics and you have doubts that humans have made some contribution to global warming? humans affecting global warming is essentially a paradigm of nonlinearity. are you sure you've graduated?

Oh, I be sure. And I don't get the "humans affecting global warming is essentially a paradigm of nonlinearity" part at all. The earth's been heating and cooling for...it's entire life without our input.

I spend my days modeling complex nonlinear phenomena, coding it into computer models, verifying it, attempting to validate it (or bounding its certainty), and then using it to make inferences and decisions. The tricky parts with models are ensuring you've modeled *everything* important, and then finding data to validate. In my stuff we can do flight tests and in water runs, etc. Even then, there's a whole slew of cases where billion dollar efforts resulted in models that were critically wrong, and decisions that were disastrous.

But how to validate climate models? You can try to hindcast, but it's tough to validate a model with incomplete data. There wasn't exactly a global grid of sensors in the past.

There's a good chance they are right. But the models need improving, and they need to be questioned, not blindly followed. There are phenomena poorly understand and modeled even now. More data. Better models.

...relatively clear data...
A critical point. The data says the globe is warming. The data says CO2 is increasing. The models are what draw the causal link between the two, and that link is only as good as the models it is based on. When they predict things that don't occur, or not predict things that do...in raises questions as to their validity. And both cases still are occurring. So in short, the issue involves more than the data.

Posted by: Red State Mike on May 18, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

Another data point for the models:

Strongest May cyclone on record rocks China

By Clifford Coonan in Beijing
Published: 19 May 2006

Typhoon Chanchu reached southern China at more than 100 miles an hour, killing 11 people and forcing more than a million to flee as the storm swept through coastal regions.

Chanchu is the strongest tropical cyclone on record to enter the South China Sea during May, when the typhoon season starts in the region.


Posted by: Windhorse on May 18, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

CO2 - it's whats for dinner.

*cue "Bolero"*

It's cute how stupid energy execs are.

Posted by: Pocket Rocket on May 18, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

The models are what draw the causal link between the two, and that link is only as good as the models it is based on.

"Skeptics" like to pick on the models. It makes them sound smart and informed. But there's plenty of data points for anthropogenic warming not based on models:

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=full

This is why the language coming out of the NAS and the IPCC is so categorical. No one who's good enough to have published on the subject questions that anthropogenic warming is happening (except for Michael Lindzen, and even he's conceding that humans are having an effect).

The only "debate" going on is among the politicians and political hacks, not the scientists.

Posted by: JJ on May 19, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

I wrote a counter-ad :::[Carbon dioxide ad - they call it a spot, we call it a stain.] If you think it's any good, it would be great if you could post a link if anyone has a blog.

Posted by: Wadard on May 19, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

Lets just call the CO2 argument what it is: junk science self-servingly promoted by the same folks who brought you "our studies find no link between smoking and cancer."

Posted by: Advoate for God on May 19, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

CO2 is life. Suck a tailpipe today!

Posted by: carolyn on May 19, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike wrote: There are dissenters to the anthropogenic argument with good arguments.

No, there are not.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on May 19, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

The hegemony of Nitrogen (78%) and Oxygen (21%) in the atmosphere must be ended! CO2 must regain its rightful place in the atmosphere as the dominant gas as it has done on Venus! Molecules of the Earth Unite!

Posted by: Robert on May 19, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Suggestion for variation of an above tagline (apologies if someone else posted this):

"They call it the Constitution; We call it toilet paper."

Posted by: John on May 19, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike wrote: There are dissenters to the anthropogenic argument with good arguments.

Even assuming that is true, there are lots and lots more dissenters to the argument that invading Iraq was the right thing to do (much less than 50% of the public now believes this was the right call) and that Bush is doing a fabulous job there, and they have very, very good arguments, but I don't see you changing your opinion on either score.

Posted by: Advocate for God on May 19, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

American Chickenhawk: Without carbon dioxide, the earth's ecosystems would collapse.

Without oxygen (or methane for that matter), the earth's ecosystems would also collapse.

Doesn't mean a 99% oxygen (or methane) atmosphere would be better for us.

You are yet another fine example of conservative one-dimensional thinking.

Posted by: Advocate for God on May 19, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Carbon Dioxide, hot chicks dig it

Posted by: Sir Oolius on May 19, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Got CO2?

Posted by: Steve Goulet on May 21, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly