Fail for Minnesota

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

She is right in most what she says with the exception of the 3% figure. . . . CO2 is generally pretty harmless. You drink it in sodas and exhale it constantly.

Sure we exhale it constantly -- it's inhaling too much of it that's a problem for us. Just ask a canary in a coal mine.

She didn't say "generally pretty harmless" (or "harmless as long as kept in a proper balance"); she said unequivocally it "is a harmless gas." Again, the canary might beg to differ.

It's the total lack of critical thinking on her part that's astounding.

[Ghostwriter]

Too much of anything could be bad for one. We are no where near the harmful levels of CO2 at any point on the globe. We would need to be many times higher in the atmosphere to be considered unhealthy. (about 3000 ppm vs the current 300 ppm). CO2 as a hazard to human has never been a part of the debate. The real debate is whether increased CO2 causes a blanket effect in the atmosphere preventing heat energy from passing through. I do not believe so.

[MysticCat]

^^^ None of which negates or excuses Rep. Bachman's complete lack of critical thinking or intelligent discourse on the subject.

[Ghostwriter]

^^^
Then you will agree that Al Gores ascertion that there is a 75% chance that the polar ice caps could be ice free within 5-7 years is equally idiotic?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6956783.ece

And he is supposed to be the "expert".

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

^^^
Then you will agree that Al Gores ascertion that there is a 75% chance that the polar ice caps could be ice free within 5-7 years is equally idiotic?

Equally idiotic? No. Backman has set the bar too high on that one.

Uniformed or poorly informed or poorly thought out? Sure.