( I admit that I had not carefully read your diatribe to the end of it where you say this:)
It is very noteworthy that you posted this comment AFTER I had posted a reply showing you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you couldn’t keep your story straight. While I would admit that at the time I used that it was late, I was tired, and truthfully just didn't care much about you that I had poorly chosen to lay some bait in a simple trap, I had figured you had seen it for what it was and ignored it. Most of your type don’t understand the differences in the types of carbon, and since you at least understand that much I get to take the thwack for this. It would seem though, that since you can’t admit you were wrong, you decided to take it after all. Although, admitting you don’t read things carefully undercuts your claims that you know a lot about this, and if my one post was a diatribe, what would that make your, now THREE replies to my post lol.
( Had read this more carefully, I never would have taken the time to comment to anything that someone who is so lacking in common knowledge and so ignorant of basic facts to believe that running a vehicle in a close area will kill them because of CO₂.)
I admit, I chose this poorly, and worded it even more so, but even then it does show the issue with your claims. While it’s possible to die from co2, due to the co2 displacing enough o2 to cause asphyxiation, in this example it’s true the CO would kill you first. It’s also true that in cars the CO is reduced from about 30,000 ppm to 1,000 ppm in the catalytic convertor by being combined with o2. The whole issue here is the amount of carbon being released in the atmosphere, which combines with o2 to become co2. Your issues with our industry being forced to reduce carbon, would result in a reduction of C, to prevent that from being combined with o2 to create co2. As for being ignorant of basic facts, you are the one who has claimed that the atmosphere has no effect or warming, and that water vapor in the atmosphere has an effect on warming, statements which contradict themselves.
( You are a good representative of the alarmist crowd who obviously know nothing about global warming because they haven’t got off of their dead asses long enough to study it but think that they can tell someone who has studied it that they are mistaken about something they know zero about.)
This from the dumbass who couldn’t even read the whole post before shooting off two post, in which he contradicts himself more than once and then avoided cause he was shown to have no understanding at all of the issue.
(two citiations that show commonly known information)
And is co2 reaches about 1/10 of breathed air it would be fatal.
( Incidental, and because you are not bright enough to ever look it up for yourself, it is carbon MONOXIDE, CO, that kills people and I’ll not inform you of why.)
Yep. Your kind is rarely able to understand there are different kinds of carbon, focusing only on co2, and ignoring both C and CO. Given that you contradict yourself repeatedly in your other 2 post it is probably good that you don’t try to explain anything. I understand why you ran away from that conversation and focused only on this part. It’s ok that you can’t defend your own poorly chosen examples and poorly worded post. I at least own up to my poorly chosen, worded and executed example and admitted I should have done better.
( Maybe you can ask a ten year old kid to fill you in on that, what has to one of many, total mysteries that you unsuccessfully try to cope with.)
Most 10 year olds have a better understanding of how the atmosphere works than your other two replies. They also have the ability to read through something completely before replying unlike you.
( Years ago my brother was killed because a faulty heater; so, don’t try to tell me anything about this.)
You don’t seem to care enough about that to worry about the sheer amount of carbon being released. “ CO₂ does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?” Especially since it is not just CO2 being released, but C and CO, both of which are also part of the discussion, unless you don’t understand what CO2 means…
Nice dodge. Three replies to one post which you admit you didn’t even read most of, and what we have learned is
- You don’t read things all the way through.
- You don’t read things carefully.
- You contradict yourself and your positions without understanding why.
- You reply with long post without knowing what you are replying to since you did not read all the way through or carefully to begin with.
- You have no ability to counter a comprehensive reply, and will avoid it. The post this is a reply to is the proof of that.
- You have no understanding of context, since the whole point since the beginning is about a scientific advisory board. But it was noticed that the information you like to use would not pass a scientific board which would explain your avoidance of that topic.
So we end here. You were wrong, I was able to prove that, and you were too afraid or ignorant to reply to that, so you focused on the weakest point and example I had, though by understanding that CO is not good, you still stand by your defense of our industry releasing tons of Carbon, which include more than CO2. I am not convinced that you understand that CO can become CO2 though. By choosing to focus only on this, after you were shown to be both wrong, and contradictory proved my points correct. For that, I thank you. Have a Nice Day.