Greenhouse gasses - question re: right winger theory

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

What is the typical 'Rush' style defence against greenhouse gasses?

I overheard this guy today and he was going on about 'carbon dioxide?' 'what we breath out, its a part of nature" stuff. Do these people think there is no such thing as greenhouse gasses, no hole in the ozone, glaciers are not melting? He was saying it was a money and left wing new world order scheme.

Thoughts

Bill

[donco6]

1. CO2 is about as natural as ozone and methane . . .

. . . but they don't always come from natural sources.

CO2 is also generated by coal plants and other manufacturing processes. You might want to have him check Bush's EPA web site for info on greenhouse gases:

Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occuring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases:

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned.

Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic wastes in municipal solid waste landfills, and the raising of livestock.

Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.

Very powerful greenhouse gases that are not naturally occurring include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are generated in a variety of industrial processes.

[Bandit]

2. I guess right-wingers don't consider man a part of nature

I may not understand nature very well but I was under the assumption virtually everything is part of nature. We are now able to have some control on how nature effects our lives and are able to provide us with more comforts but it is still nature. Does anyone think man is seperate from nature?

[texastoast]

3. They Knew Decades Ago

I rode on a long flight with a guy who was consulting with HL&P (now Reliant) back in the early 80s. Our conversation was restricted to lignite. Here is the gist.

The burning of lignite creates more pollution than just CO2, but if it is "cleaned up" with an "expensive" baffle system, the only byproduct is CO2. Apparently, this added CO2 floats up to the outer atmosphere and stays. Sunlight passes down through the layers of atmosphere, hits the Earth, but the heat will not pass back up through and back into space. It comes back to see us that artificial CO2 layer is not permeable. And this is from someone who works for the fossil fuels feeders. They KNOW.

Trees (mainly the rainforest belt) suck up CO2 and give back oxygen. The combination of fossil fuel and forest decimation is putting us in a bind.

The right-wing, profit-in-my-pocket-today-and-fuck-the-future-generations noodles are deep off in denial.

[texastoast]

4. I guess I could respond to your question . . .

Junk science. No proof. Sort of like when we thought the world was flat. Same amount of genius and analytical ability.

[TomNickell]

5. Here's a try.

1. Ozone is a separate issue. And much simpler. Certain chemicals, like the old refrigerant Freon, travel to the upper atmosphere where the destroy ozone by a well-understood chemical reaction. There is no remaining debate on this question and the ban on fluorocarbon use may be reversing the problem of ozone depletion.

2. Green houses are a much more complex problem. We produce excess CO2 by digging up the remains of dead plants (coal and oil) and burning them. CO2 (and other gases we produce) allow visible light from the Sun to pass, but stop infrared radiating back into space. Like a greenhouse. Trouble is, the world's climate system is extremely complex and figuring out the magnitude of the effect reqires complex computer models that can only be understood by a specialist. There now seems to be agreement among these specialists that the climate is, indeed, getting warmer. The large majority agrees that human activity is largely to blame. However, there is still a respectable group of dissenters.

The Limbaugh Right simply takes a No-Nothing approach and treats both issues as nonsense without even tryng to understand the arguments. -That- is nonsense. A rational debate would try to balance the cost of reducing emissions against the potential risks of doing nothing.