The Salesmen of the Green New Deal

The Greenhouse Effect is an example of one of those pesky facts that don't change with time, new research or theories. While a fact can be discovered about nature in the course of research, such as in 1896, some of the theories or conclusions surrounding a discovery can be, and often are flawed. Both the greenhouse effect and CO2 is a normal, vital part of life on earth, as are many of the other "greenhouse gases". While CO2 is the exhaust from human life, it is the fuel for nature, and is taken out of the environment by nature. Though it is considered a "greenhouse gas", there has never been any evidence to support the theory that a greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has any appreciable effect on the climate, or on ozone depletion. To whatever extent excess CO2 may be of genuine concern, one of the best answers is in more trees, plants and bushes, and the preservation of Rural America.What you and others on this forum seem to be complaining about is the effect of pollution on human life at ground level, such as in the pictures shown, that sometimes accompanied industry in the past. The possible effects of excess pollution on human health in close quarters is a valid concern, and it stands on its own. It can be solved by balanced legislation, and it indeed was solved, before the Montreal Protocol and with the broad support of Americans from across every sphere of society. It was not, and is not necessary to create new government departments, such as the EPA, come up with a UN treaty or attempt to usher in a "new environmental order" by way of a "comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society". It was not, and is not necessary to lie about the extent of pollution's influence over other areas of life, and to make apocalyptic predictions about the end drawing nigh in order to raise the specter of the argument. Yet this is exactly what the environmental movement of the last 35+ years has done, and much more.Contrary to the hair-splitting that some on this thread have attempted in regard to terms or specific products, CFCs, greenhouse gas emissions and ozone depletion are all wrapped into one concern in the eyes of the environmental movement. Ozone depletion and "global warming" is the alleged problem, and greenhouse emissions, which include CFCs, are the cause. CFCs specifically have not been mentioned recently because they were banned; With one target down, its on to the next, then the next. In the past, the targeting of the Jews for elimination never stopped with just one group of people. It spread to many more like a virus. What was done in the past and to a lesser extent the present with certain groups of people has also been underway in the area of industry. This virus is the product of an atheistic view of the world, which is both antagonistic to normal human endeavor and blind to the harmony and durability of nature. The longer this perspective lives, the more individual, fragmented things in nature are added to a long roster of concerns. Its fruit is almost constant fear and anger, rather than stability and peace; Always agitating, always demonstrating against "the established order", rather than true joy or affinity for nature and taking effective local steps to preserve it. It eats away at the country and will eat away at your soul, because it is a lie. Atheism and its green gestapo is not worthy of your defense or support, and the day you choose to turn from it and begin to serve the Creator, rather than the created, will be the day that both your life and the life of the country will change permanently for the better.

Utter ignorant word salad.Pathetic.

Jar, amongst others, crapping on the chessboard.Any responses to this message should go to General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')Adminnemooseus

Evidently you are free to hurl fact free insults and no one is allowed to react with the derision you deserve. Fuck it. Moose can suspend me. Not true, but as you are a liar for Jesus facts are irrelevant to you.
Here is one of the simpler explanations why you are wrong.How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming? – State of the Planet
If you want anyone to believe your unevidenced claims, how about posting evidence or at least an actual scientist that agrees with you. It has already been pointed out to you that the EPA was formed before any major concerns about ozone or global warning. Message 90 Therefore, you either are stupid, ignorant or just a liar. Take your pick. Let us know Source for quotes please. What do you claim to know about Agenda 21? What a maroon. Your utter lack of selfawareness is stunning. Show us the atheists driving this agenda. How many climate scientists are athesists? How many people creating and enforcing environmentally laws are atheists?Lol. Are you this guy?
The Salesmen of The Green New Deal - Hernando Sun
The Salesmen of the Green New Deal, Part III - Hernando Sun
There does not seem to be a part 2, but they did publish other crap from this person.
Certainly someone that should be listened to.

quote:

---

Alex Doss is a musician and piano technician in Spring Hill and also has other areas of interest and knowledge.

---

Seemingly a classic Florida Man.

I am *not* going to post my comments on moderation to a thread with the subtitle "The Whine List." My comment on moderation appeared in Message 40 in reply to your Message 34. USA 1776 is stating baseless claim after baseless claim, making many mistakes, ignoring all feedback, and then merely repeating them again, while at the time not posting a single supporting reference or link, nor quoting anything he is responding to. As long as this is permitted to continue you are unlikely to have any order in this thread.Jar's comment is actually the most appropriate to Message 106. I intend a response that addresses the points made, but it will be a wasted effort, as have been almost all responses to USA 1776.--Percy

CO2 does not stop being a greenhouse gas just because plants use it to synthesize sugars. The calculations were first done in 1896. That's part of the evidence. We already have a rough estimate of how much warming there should be for a given increase in CO2. It's based on solid chemistry and physics, none of which you have challenged in any meaningful way.Further modeling of the climate has shown that nearly all of the warming over the last century is human caused.
Causes of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPAThe blue region is the model where human activity is factored in. The green region is where human activity is taken out of the model. As you can see, the model where human activity is included (i.e. increasing CO2 in the atmosphere) matches the actual temperatures. If not for humans, temperatures would be where they were in the early 1900's.We have the evidence. It is certainly valid to criticize policies that are meant to solve the problems caused by human activities. However, it isn't valid to deny that the problems exist. Not liking the Green New Deal is not a justification for denying the science that evidences global climate change. So we should start making asbestos oven mitts because the Holocaust was immoral? If we ban asbestos, surely the Jews are next. It seems you are blind to the fragility of nature. What do you think happened to the passenger pigeon, or the dodo?Added in edit:It is also worth pointing out how much CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere.Natural levels of CO2 bounce between about 180 and 300 ppm. The graph above is a bit out of date because we are currently at 422 ppm. That's about a 40% increase over natural levels. We also know that this increase is due to burning fossil fuels. When plants use CO2 to make sugars they favor the lighter isotope of carbon, 12C. Consequently, fossil fuels are lower in 13C, the heavier carbon isotope. What have we seen during this rapid rise in atmospheric CO2? A drop in 13C.

Challenge accepted. While USA 1776 may be too far down the culture war rabbit hole to be saved, there still might be visitors who will find value in some of these posts.

This is broadly untrue. Science is never static, and the reality of the greenhouse effect has become more and more firmly established over time as more data is gathered and our understanding improves.Board moderation should be requiring you to support statements like this with evidence and argument that are in turn supported by references, preferably ones that are available online. You're being permitted to repeat the same fallacies over and over, responding to all challenges with more repetition. This excerpt from Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia is a brief overview of what we know about the greenhouse effect:

quote:

---

The greenhouse effect occurs when greenhouse gases in a planet's atmosphere insulate the planet from losing heat to space, raising its surface temperature. Surface heating can happen from an internal heat source as in the case of Jupiter, or from its host star as in the case of the Earth.
...
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be about −18 °C (−0.4 °F), which is less than Earth's 20th century average of about 14 °C (57 °F), or a more recent average of about 15 °C (59 °F).
...
All objects with a temperature above absolute zero emit thermal radiation. The wavelengths of thermal radiation emitted by the Sun and Earth differ because their surface temperatures are different. The Sun has a surface temperature of 5,500 °C (9,900 °F), so it emits most of its energy as shortwave radiation in near-infrared and visible wavelengths (as sunlight). In contrast, Earth's surface has a much lower temperature, so it emits longwave radiation at mid- and far-infrared wavelengths. A gas is a greenhouse gas if it absorbs longwave radiation. Earth's atmosphere absorbs only 23% of incoming shortwave radiation, but absorbs 90% of the longwave radiation emitted by the surface, thus accumulating energy and warming the Earth's surface.

---

Now that that information is in place, let's examine what you say next: The burning of carbon based fuels has added significant amounts of CO₂ to the atmosphere, far more than plant life can remove. Here are a couple helpful graphs showing how atmospheric CO₂ levels began rising with the beginning of the industrial revolution and have accelerated rapidly since. The first graph is since 1960, and the second graph is longer term and is since 800 AD. Moving on: You continue to be confused about CO₂ and ozone depletion. They are at best only very loosely linked.You are also incorrect about the evidence for CO₂'s influence on the greenhouse effect. There are two lines of evidence. One is that CO₂ is a gas that absorbs longwave radiation, and its presence in the atmosphere absorbs such radiation from the planet's surface and transmits the heat back to the atmosphere, thereby heating the planet. This was understood well over a century ago.The other line of evidence is direct satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation. At How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? you will find this:

quote:

---

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

​

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs & Harries 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen et al. 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO₂ bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO₂ is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.

---

Moving on: More plants would help to only a minor extent. We're swamping the atmosphere with excess CO₂. Do you understand nothing? We provided that history to help you see that environmental concerns long predate discovery of the expanding ozone hole. Even your Green New Deal Salesmen doppelganger that Theodoric found understood this. The pollution problem's been solved? Good to know. The banning of leaded gasoline is one of many things that improved the environment and contributed to human health for which the EPA is responsible. I assume you're referring to the Montreal Protocol, which reversed the thinning of the ozone layer which, had it continued, would have contributed significantly to human health problems and also impacted animal and plant life. Apparently Congress felt the same way. Many of the rest of us would like government to take human influences on climate seriously. There are no lies in The Green New Deal. If you think there are, find them and quote them. Everything we see online says that your characterizations are wrong. CFC's are an extremely minimal greenhouse emission at this point, having been banned some time ago. The emissions are not zero because some applications are still permitted and some older devices are still in operation. They were never a significant contributor to global warming because they break down in the upper atmosphere to leave behind free chlorine, which is what wreaks havoc with the ozone layer. I wonder how many accusations of idiocy Adminnemooseus is going to tolerate while allowing you to continue this rampage of error. Thinning ozone and climate change are correlated only very loosely at best, and they are separate problems. Thinning ozone with the accompanying increased intensity of UV rays at the most harmful frequencies is a direct threat to life. Climate change is a threat to the environment, which then in turn is a threat to life. They are not on some continuum of threat. They are different types of threat, just as pollution is a different type of threat. Aren't you just the font of tolerance!Atheists are a tiny fraction of the world population. They are not responsible for religious prejudice, or racism or bigotry, either.What does this have to do with your misconceptions about the environmental movement and its history? Why are you still mixing science and religion, and now sociology as well. Yes, yes, find a group to hate and then blame everything on them! Bigots of the world unite against the atheistic menace! You could start by requiring them to stitch a big yellow "A" on their clothing.--Percy

Let me address just this and from the perspective of a Cradle Creedal Christian raised in a multi generational Christian family, educated in a Christian School, Sunday School teacher at both preteen and adult levels and one of the founders of a new Christian Mission (before parish standing).It is only a reflection of the perversion that is Christian Cult of Ignorance and much of Fundamental Evangelical Christianity that holds such feelings or has the perverted idea that THEY should determine the behavior and beliefs of others that do not hurt the CCoI member in any way. It is the perversions called Right to Life and the perversion of opposition to gender choices of others or of non-violent sexual preferences of others or marriages of others or the demonic and irrational willful ignorance of the CCoI. The rational part of US and World Wide citizenry recognize and understand that we pissed in the paradise and we made the mess and that we need to acknowledge or sins of commitment and attempt to make amends.Throw the god and Christianity you've been sold away and try to learn how to think beyond the third grade level.

Message 106Fucking brain rot.That's all I see from you. Others have done the bit of correcting your factual errors all of which you ignore and then repeat in your responses. Apparently you are not engaged with evidenced reality.Why are you here? What are you trying to do?Are you pro-Oil? Do you want to restore subsidies for coal, shale oil and fracking? Are you republican? Trumpette?Are you trying to be a priest thumping your bible in the name of god? Which god?If you think the Climate Change issue is bogus then who is pushing the false narrative, and more tellingly, why?Just how seriously brain dead are you?

Regarding Halon 1301:Theodoric:
"Types Of Halon Fire Extinguisher
Halon 1211 is used only in portable extinguishers and is a streaming agent. A halon fire extinguisher extinguisher has a limited range, usually 4 to 6 feet.
Halon 1301 is used only in fixed extinguisher installations and is a total flooding agent. This type of extinguisher is commonly found in computer server rooms and clean rooms."Tanypteryx: "So what happens to people in a room flooded with halon?"nwr "They die. They will suffocate because there's no oxygen.
USA 1776 was spewing bullshit."This is wrong.Halon has been used in military applications of all kinds and fire departments. It is colorless, odorless, it is not harmful to other equipment and can be used even in tightly enclosed spaces without posing any harm or threat to human life. It can put out fires in less than a quarter of a second and can suppress an explosion in progress. The logistics or strategy as to the best way to approach those buildings, both inside and outside, after having been struck, would probably be an interesting discussion to have with the fire dept. Whether all the fires could be successfully be extinguished, or whether the buildings' collapse could have been prevented entirely is not relevant. The underlying moral reality of having ruled out the best means by far of dealing with the situation remains the same.
It is not necessary nor desirable to try and prevent the buildings' collapse entirely, because they would need to come down anyway after being made unusable. The idea is the ability to create as much time as possible for the most rescued as possible.

Do you ever even read what you quote mine?Tight closed space. Put fire out in 30 seconds.Think. Try to learn to think.When the planes hit the twin tower there were NO enclosed spaces. Windows were gone. Walls were gone. Floors were ruptured. And while humans can hold their breath for 30second or maybe even minutes, they cannot breathe halon and live.Halon has no known harmful effect on humans as long as fires out and fresh air in or humans out before they suffocate.But it is great for protecting expensive machinery.It also has absolutely nothing to do with the big bold fact that human activity is driving Global Warming.

So you ignored my questions again and made more assertions with no source. How would halon have been used on 9/11 or in HI?
Maybe you should crawl back under your rock.

You are misrepresenting what was just said.
-It is not 30 seconds; It is a quarter of a second.
-It can be used in tightly enclosed spaces without harming people, which means that it is safe for all other more open spaces.-Its importance indeed has nothing to do with the myth of man-made global warming, because its existence as the most effective means ever devised for protecting human life is real and proven, and the other is not.

Think.how big was the immediate damage to the building when the planes struck?How big an area would have to be addressed?It does not mean that it's safe or even effective in open spaces.Really. Try to think.And your last paragraph is not even sophompric