Posted on 04/17/2011 5:23:47 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
As with most of the EPA, they do not have no clue of what they’re talking about.
Idiots all!
I don’t understand. All animals need CO2 to breath. Trees need CO1 to live and turn it back into CO2.
I’m in favor of limiting greenhouse gases if all environmentalists agree to stop breathing air every other day.
Problem fixed in a short time, and not very expensive.
Thanks for the ping!
Actually animals, including us, need O2 (oxygen) to survive,
plants need CO2 (carbon dioxide). They take in the CO2 and turn it into O2, then we take in the O2 and exhale CO2.
Pretty little circle there that has worked for a long time and something that I learned in elementary school. Probably not taught anymore though since it violates the AGW crowd’s drivel.
“violates the AGW crowd’s drivel.”
Truth hurts when it does not fit the liberal agenda.
“When Stanislaus says that “we can’t wait until we have all the conclusive interpretive science to make a decision,” I agree with him, but that’s not the precautionary principle, that’s just a willingness to regulate under uncertainty, which has been a bedrock of environmental law.”
“However, the precautionary principle is something different and much more insidious. It’s not “regulate in spite of uncertainty” – it’s “regulate because of uncertainty.” It seems to stem from an almost Luddite fear of new technology and, as Sunstein points out, a philosophical view that nature is good and man-made is bad.”
http://www.lawandenvironment.com/tags/mathy-stanislaus/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.