Mormon Environmental Ethic, Does It Exist?

[emarkp]

Yes, and if CO2 gets to 1000 ppm, the amount of plant growth will be excellent.

[emarkp]

It is so wrong that people do not care about the environment, CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean)

It's pretty wrong when you slander people and lie about chemistry. CO2 is not a pollutant. If you think it is, I recommend you stop breathing, to stop polluting your environment you evil polluter you.

[MormonFreeThinker]

It's pretty wrong when you slander people and lie about chemistry. CO2 is not a pollutant. If you think it is, I recommend you stop breathing, to stop polluting your environment you evil polluter you.

 

The peer-reviewed evidence doesn't agree with you 

 

M. Jacobson "Enhancement of local air pollution by urban CO2 Domes", Environment. Sci. Technol., vol. 44, no. 7, pp.2497 -2502 2010

By the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of Stanford University

 

You can only cite think tanks and blogs. CO2 is a good thing, but too much CO2 is not, ask the planet Venus. Why do you think the planet Venus is hotter than Mercury? 

 

I am tired of talking to people that are not open minded, you are 100% certain of your views, and you are 41 years old, no way you are going to change your mind. 

[ELF1024]

I am tired of talking to people that are not open minded, you are 100% certain of your views, ....

 

Pot, meet Kettle...

[MormonFreeThinker]

Pot, meet Kettle...

 

I could be wrong, but you guys are 100% certain. 

[thesometimesaint]

It's pretty wrong when you slander people and lie about chemistry. CO2 is not a pollutant. If you think it is, I recommend you stop breathing, to stop polluting your environment you evil polluter you.

 

Slander is never a good idea, but it doesn't apply here.

CO2 is a pollutant to animals. We exhale it to rid it out of our bodies. In sufficient quantities we die.

[emarkp]

Slander is never a good idea, but it doesn't apply here.

Yes it does. Look up the definition of slander. Try finding a version with short words so it's easy to read.

 

CO2 is a pollutant to animals. We exhale it to rid it out of our bodies. In sufficient quantities we die.

Still not a pollutant. Oxygen in sufficient quantities will kill you too. Reclassifying CO2 as a pollutant is simply the newspeak effort to brainwash victims like you into believing propaganda. I apologize for not having a 2 hour video to embed here to speak your language.

Current levels of C02 at 400 ppm increase plant growth. Greenhouses routinely concentrate CO2 to 1000 ppm for more rapid growth. Levels of 10,000 ppm would be harmless to humans.

If you want to have your own language with made up definitions of slander and pollution, feel free--but stay away from civilized society.

And don't tell me that I "don't care about the environment" because I won't worship your god of scary invisible harmless gas.

Edited November 27, 2014 by emarkp

[thesometimesaint]

Yes it does. Look up the definition of slander. Try finding a version with short words so it's easy to read.

 

Still not a pollutant. Oxygen in sufficient quantities will kill you too. Reclassifying CO2 as a pollutant is simply the newspeak effort to brainwash victims like you into believing propaganda. I apologize for not having a 2 hour video to embed here to speak your language.

Current levels of C02 at 400 ppm increase plant growth. Greenhouses routinely concentrate CO2 to 1000 ppm for more rapid growth. Levels of 10,000 ppm would be harmless to humans.

If you want to have your own language with made up definitions of slander and pollution, feel free--but stay away from civilized society.

And don't tell me that I "don't care about the environment" because I won't worship your god of scary invisible harmless gas.

 

Slander is the deliberate telling of a known untruth with the intent of discrediting an individual. Disagreeing about something is not slander.

 

CO2 is a pollutant to animals. We exhale it. However it is not directly poisonous at normal concentrations. Say like Carbon Monoxide.

 

Incorrect; We can and do work quite comfortably in pure oxygen environment.

http://www.space.com/14379-apollo1-fire-space-capsule-safety-improvements.html

 

I've never asked you to watch a two hour video on the CO2 effects on the atmosphere. Less than 5 minutes is the norm.

SEE

 

The currant overabundance of CO2 in the atmosphere causes diminished plant growth in many plants.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/why_plants_cant_sequester_excess_co2

 

That last time CO2 concentrations have been 410 ppm man didn't exist.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77

 

Now you are bordering slander. I made no comment on your ability to function in civilized society.

 

CO2 is not harmless, anymore than water is harmless in high enough concentrations.

[pogi]

Incorrect; We can and do work quite comfortably in pure oxygen environment.

 

As an RN and a scuba-diver I can assure you that a pure oxygen environment can and does lead to hyperoxia and oxygen toxicity aka oxygen poisoning.

 

CO2 is a pollutant to animals. We exhale it. However it is not directly poisonous at normal concentrations. Say like Carbon Monoxide.

 

C02 is essential for proper acid-base balance. 

 

In large enough quantities or high enough concentrations, almost anything can be bad for one's body.

 

I would hesitate to call something that is a vital part of cellular survival a pollutant.

Edited November 27, 2014 by pogi

[emarkp]

Disagreeing about something is not slander.

You're so cute when you try to understand basic English! Try again.

 

Incorrect; We can and do work quite comfortably in pure oxygen environment.

Good golly, quoting a situation where everyone died is definitely an example of a safe environment. But barring fire, there are still problems.

And you're no longer worth talking to, since apparently you don't have reading comprehension skills, or evaluate data outside of your expectations.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Try again.

 

You try again, the evidence that I present is strong, and it comes from the scientific peer-reviewed literature. 

 

You only link to blogs and think tanks that ignore some factors and misrepresent the evidence. 

 

 

M. Jacobson "Enhancement of local air pollution by urban CO2 Domes", Environment. Sci. Technol., vol. 44, no. 7, pp.2497 -2502 2010

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of Stanford University

Edited November 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[emarkp]

So you've given up on CO2 itself as pollution? Thanks for the admission.

[MormonFreeThinker]

So you've given up on CO2 itself as pollution? Thanks for the admission.

 

Read the Paper 

 

M. Jacobson "Enhancement of local air pollution by urban CO2 Domes", Environment. Sci. Technol., vol. 44, no. 7, pp.2497 -2502 2010

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of Stanford University

 

"Here, it is found through data-evaluated numerical modeling with telescoping domains from the globe to the U.S., California, and Los Angeles, that local CO2 emissions in isolation may increase local ozone and particulate matter. Although health impacts of such changes are uncertain, they are of concern, and it is estimated that that local CO2 emissions may increase premature mortality by 50−100 and 300−1000/yr in California and the U.S., respectively"

 

So, why is Venus hotter than Mercury? 

Edited November 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

emarkp said in a private message, 

 

 

Yah, the paper addresses a possibility of pollutants correlated with CO2. In other words, CO2 isn't a pollutant. Other things are.

 

Thanks for admitting that CO2 emissions increase ozone, your response doesn't help your case. 

 

Here are more papers, CO2 is clearly a pollutant. 

 

Elevated seawater pCO2 differentially affects branchial acid-base transporters over the course of development in the cephalopod Sepia officinalis

American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative PhysiologyPublished 9 February 2011

 

Elevated CO2 enhances leaf senescence during extreme drought in a temperate forest

Published by Oxford University Press.

 

emarkp said in a private message, 

 

 

have you noticed that Venus doesn't have trace amounts of CO2, but its atmosphere is primarily CO2?

 

That is why Venus is much hotter than the Earth and Mercury, you are helping my arguments, thanks for admitting that CO2 warms the planets.

 

LOL you have no need to insult me, because I will not get offended, you only make me feel smart. 

Edited November 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[LinuxGal]

 

That is why Venus is much hotter than the Earth and Mercury, you are helping my arguments, thanks for admitting that CO2 warms the planets.

 

 

 

Venus lacks the mechanism of plate tectonics whereby the CO2 is taken out of circulation by taking it deep into the crust.  The Earth also has a biosphere which essentially "crystallizes" atmospheric CO2 into cellulose and such.