Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (62923)

11/17/2014 9:55:10 PM

From: Greg or e

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300

The admission is that the "definition" of CO2 as a pollutant is unscientific. Thanks

"Whether or not it is a pollutant like lead is hardly an issue!"

Oh? I'd say it IS the issue. It's only defined as a pollutant for non-scientific political reasons. Like not classifying Obama-care as a tax when it was indeed a tax. It's nothing but dishonest politics.

"It cause global warning!! DUH!!"

Hahahaha!!! You are pissed to the gills, AGAIN. Do yourself a favor and go sober up before you make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

"Nobody disputes this!"

Actually genius, that is what the "dispute" is all about.


CO2 is not a pollutant "Definitions are man made." That definition is a political lie, like calling a fetus a parasite, it's not scientifically true.

"Global warming has Nothing to do with the abortion dialogue. And wtf is that comment about liberals??"

Now don't get yourself all in a drunken slobber. The same M.O. of unscientific redefinition for political purposes is used by the same group of people (namely Liberals), to allow them to do what they otherwise could not. In the one case, it's to legally kill innocent human beings and in the other case, to legally restrict and regulate a substance that is not actually a pollutant as if it was.