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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (931896)	4/25/2016 1:38:24 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574636

few extra PPM of CO2 is "toxic," Other than you, who's calling it toxic? You know the definition of the word toxic? Here's some information on the greenhouse effect of CO2: aip.org Please do take some time to read it.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (931896)	4/25/2016 3:55:07 PM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By zax Respond to of 1574636

"a few extra PPM of CO2 is "toxic,"" It depends on where you start from. CO2 toxicity levels for humans are 70,000 to 100,000 ppm. On a planetary level, it only has to go from 280 -> 409 ppm to give the planet a fever of 1.5 degrees. "now believe that CO2 is a pollutant" Thanks for being "climate changey folks", Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Bader Ginsburg, and Breyer. Supreme Court: Heat-Trapping Carbon Dioxide is Pollution Rules EPA Has Power to Curb Global Warming Emissions, Repudiates White House Do-Nothing Policy nrdc.org

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (931896)	4/25/2016 7:08:21 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1574636

Try breathing CO2, Tennisshoe. Then, get back to us on it's toxicity.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (931896)	4/25/2016 7:51:29 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1574636

It takes a special kind of stupid to change the definition of "pollutant" so that it doesn't include CO2 for purely partisan reasons. Whether or not it is toxic at these levels sort of depends on what type of organism you are. For humans, no. But for many organisms in the oceans, it is. Not immediately fatal, but it is impacting their ability to survive. And that is only if you consider the direct effects. The more indirect effects, like a warming climate because of it throws a wider net. Yeah, yeah. I know. In the past levels were far higher. But humans and most of the other animals that live now, didn't live then and vice versa. So that is a particularly stupid argument. Shorty seems to like that argument. Which should give you a clue.