Skip to comments.
Laughing Gas Knocks Out CO2
ClimateRealists.com via rightsidenews.com ^
| 02 November 2009
| Doug L. Hoffman
Posted on 11/02/2009 4:07:00 PM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
1
posted on
11/02/2009 4:07:01 PM PST
by
neverdem
To: neverdem; scripter; proud_yank; grey_whiskers; FrPR; enough_idiocy; Desdemona; rdl6989; ...
2
posted on
11/02/2009 4:08:21 PM PST
by
steelyourfaith
(Limit all U.S. politicians to two terms: One in office and one in prison! to s)
To: neverdem
well...Algore IS a joke...
3
posted on
11/02/2009 4:10:39 PM PST
by
bigbob
To: neverdem
There are some good points in here, some overreaching statements, and some things that the layman will misunderstand.
For an example of the second, not all biofuels are bad, just because Bushbama have pushed for bad ones. Some that they have pushed for (e.g., biobutanol, cellulolytic, etc.) are promising, actually.
4
posted on
11/02/2009 4:15:11 PM PST
by
Gondring
(Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
To: neverdem
The scam artists of the world, the controlling twits, will never stop looking for a good excuse to control others' lives.
No matter how silly and stupid they look after hopping from one scare scenario to another.
5
posted on
11/02/2009 4:20:32 PM PST
by
Publius6961
(Â…he's not America, he's an employee who hasn't risen to minimal expectations.)
To: neverdem
Why not just cut to the chase and come out and say it - life is responsible for the destruction of the planet and must be eradicated.
That is what they truly believe, at bottom. Life just isn't stable. Stability being the one true goal of all causative chains, the way to it is clear.
6
posted on
11/02/2009 4:22:20 PM PST
by
JasonC
To: Gondring
The only thing "bad" in any of it are the environmentalist Nazis themselves...
7
posted on
11/02/2009 4:23:16 PM PST
by
JasonC
To: neverdem
Oh Crap. Not this Sh&t again!
8
posted on
11/02/2009 4:24:19 PM PST
by
Dogbert41
To: neverdem
Reddi, set, go!
9
posted on
11/02/2009 4:31:26 PM PST
by
Jeff Chandler
(A trade: Conservative Anglicans for Liberal Catholics and a heretic to be named later.)
To: neverdem
So if I had invested in carbon credits, could I now get my money back?
Should I know invest in... nitrogen credits? How would that work, exactly? No tree planting, gotta be something else.
Like climate, this kind of process is very simple and has few variables, lending itself to inexpensive and highly effective control by legislation and regulation.
11
posted on
11/02/2009 4:40:31 PM PST
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: neverdem
So that’s it then, we’re all going to die.
To: neverdem
Ozone hole much smaller this year over Antartica (info courtesy of the South Georgian Islands website)
13
posted on
11/02/2009 4:44:14 PM PST
by
machogirl
(First they came for my tagline.)
To: machogirl
14
posted on
11/02/2009 4:44:57 PM PST
by
machogirl
(First they came for my tagline.)
To: neverdem
Ozone has a half life of 15 minutes.
Once broken down by wavelengths of sunlight of greater than 280 nm it returns to O2.
Ozone is then recreated by UV “C” wavelengths of 240 - 275 nm and O2.
It is a constant reoccurring process that never ends.
Unless there is no sunlight!
That is why the ozone is thin at the poles.
Little to sunlight for large portions of the year even at 10km.
During the southern winter (MarchSeptember), the South Pole receives no sunlight at all.
No sunlight no 240 nm uv.
No 240 nm uv, no creation of ozone from atmospheric 02.
If it it stayed dark there all year long there would be no ozone at all at the poles.
What a scam!
15
posted on
11/02/2009 5:01:38 PM PST
by
DaveTesla
(You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
To: neverdem
Blame the people! If there weren’t so many people pooping we wouldn’t be laughing the globe into a fever. Or something like that.
16
posted on
11/02/2009 5:25:57 PM PST
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America.)
To: neverdem
N20 or CO2, AlGore’s lunacy is no laughing matter? One of these days the SOB will hurt himself carrying all of that GW money to the bank!!!!!!!
17
posted on
11/02/2009 6:07:30 PM PST
by
eeriegeno
(<p>)
To: eeriegeno
Historically, it was used as an anesthetic in surgery and dentistry. Inhaling the gas can cause euphoric effects, which led to it being named "laughing gas." I thought farts was the "laughing gas" I know more people laugh at farts and algore than they do at the dentist.
18
posted on
11/02/2009 11:09:57 PM PST
by
this_ol_patriot
(I saw manbearpig and all I got was this lousy tagline.)
To: this_ol_patriot
I know more people laugh at farts and algore than they do at the dentist. There is a problem with that statement, you are assuming there is a difference between a fart and Algore.
I don't think that has been established scientifically yet.
19
posted on
11/02/2009 11:19:52 PM PST
by
The Cajun
(Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
To: neverdem
I remember this graph from a number of years ago, and found the size of the error bars quite telling - the thin lines overlaying the graph bars indicate the level of uncertainty in the figure. Note that the "aerosol indirect effect" could be large enough, for all they knew, to completely compensate for the warming effect of CO2 and methane.
20
posted on
11/03/2009 3:03:46 AM PST
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson