>> ^notarobot:
Methane is natural too, but that doesn't mean I want to smell your farts all day, lady.


methane is odorless......fail

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The same level of cognative dissonance takes place when you drill down to exactness with any argument. I wish her citations were more precise but only because her central posit is reinforced by the facts. Her fundamental premise is correct.
Were all these psuedo-intellectual, fact-hungry, critics as quick to condemn Al Gore for his made-up crap-facts about C02? Of course not. They totally excused his terrible 'data' because they were more concerned about the important of his overall message.
A person gets all upset about Bachmann's accuracy, but at the same time excuses Gore's lack of accuracy. Biased hypocrite alert! I see the reactions here as a symptom of the close-minded, zombie-like, lock-stop neo-lib groupthink of the Sifters more than anything else.


Actually, I'm not a liberal. It just so happens that I'm not stupid enough to be a neo-con, either.

>> ^my15minutes:
vitamin C is also completely natural and necessary for life, ma'am.
and too much of it will also kill you..


ha. so is water.

Is carbon dioxide in the Bible? No? Then it must be a harmless figment of our imagination.

You're correct. She isn't necessarily dumb. She does it by choice.

>> ^nach0s:
I don't know this person, but she isn't necessarily dumb. She's clearly arguing against a tax on companies that produce CO2 above a certain level. She wouldn't be the first politician to exaggerate and/or obfuscate an issue for political purposes. It's pretty common--you don't have to get the facts right, you just have to strike a chord.

Your video, Michele Bachmann (R-MN): Carbon Dioxide Not A Harmful Gas, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

carbon dioxide is also what kills you after you stop breathing.
stupid bitch.

Not only does she draw the wrong conclusion, but she starts with the wrong information. Carbon Dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere... that's 1/75th of what she states. At 1% it causes drowsiness. At 2-3% blood pressure increases, hearing is effected and narcosis sets in. At 5% we have trouble breathing, becoming confused and dizzy. At 8% eyesight degrades, muscles tremor and, after a few minutes, we pass out. OSHA recommends that average exposure during an 8-hour work day for a healthy adult should not exceed 0.5%.

But that's not what really bothers me about her speech. What really annoyed me was phrases such as

"...a natural byproduct of nature."

"...so if you take a pie chart, carbon dioxide is perhaps 3%..."
         - And if you don't take a pie chart, how much is it then?

"human activity contributes, perhaps, 3% of the 3%. In other words human activity is maybe 3% contributing to the 3%"
         - Funny, those don't sound like other words; they sound like the same words in a different order.

There is this:
http://lcv.org/scorecard/

It scores congressmen by their votes on environmental issues. It wouldn't surprise me if something existed for generic scientific issues. If you find one, let me know.

In reply to this comment by ObsidianStorm:
We're getting to the point that we really need to have congress members and candidates tested on their knowledge of and/or ability to understand science. These people shape our policy and impact the trajectory of society as a whole and to have individuals that wouldn't understand a seventh grade science quiz (let alone pass it) in these positions is as irresponsible as it is misguided.

I certainly would be in favor of some sort of science-savvy rating for congressional members (all public officials frankly) to help guide decision-making come election time.

Is there such a thing already?

>> ^ObsidianStorm:
We're getting to the point that we really need to have congress members and candidates tested on their knowledge of and/or ability to understand science. These people shape our policy and impact the trajectory of society as a whole and to have individuals that wouldn't understand a seventh grade science quiz (let alone pass it) in these positions is as irresponsible as it is misguided.
I certainly would be in favor of some sort of science-savvy rating for congressional members (all public officials frankly) to help guide decision-making come election time.
Is there such a thing already?


Not an unreasonable idea really, actually a really good one. Most if not all individuals that run for office already have to take the "are they a christian" test. Why not a little science quiz while they're at it?

Things the GOP doesn't believe in: volcanoes, bee diseases, and carbon dioxide poisioning. Fun!

Right-wing prejudice against greenies? Get real. A full THIRD of all federal regulations are environmental regs. We're not talking about a few recycling bins here but the systematic destruction of the free market, which has protected resources through private property ownership way better than some bureaucrat deciding you can't cut down a tree on your own property.

When green fanatics announce that "all GW debate is over", compare their opponents to "Holocaust deniers" and rush to pass still more wealth and freedom-destroying legislation before it can be debated, what else can "man-made" GW be but a hoax?...a hoax perpetrated by government force. TIME IS RUNNING OUT is the mantra of the used car salesman.

It's embarrassing that so many otherwise 'rational' people would suddenly link millions of years of natural global warming and cooling cycles to a few centuries of industry, as if THE SUN plays no role in earth not being a ball of ice. (measuring by the cycles we're LONG overdue for another ice age).

Now greenvangelicals are trying to declare water vapor and carbon dioxide TOXIC and in need of regulation. There's no end to these power grabs and no limits to the human lust for power and other emotional defects from which the atheist naively declares immunity.

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite."

-- Dwight Eisenhower speech, 1961

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

>> ^Zor:
I thought trees and plants breathed carbon dioxide. There must be something else mixed in, or it killed the roots.


During the day plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen while using the energy of sunlight to create sugars from the carbon dioxide, through Photosynthesis.

However at night, when there is no sunlight, they take in oxygen and release carbon dioxide.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^jwray:
Methane doesn't last long in the atmosphere because of the excess oxygen. It's not a major long-term threat because of it's effective half-life of 8 years.

It is short-lived, but a given amount of methane also produces about 25x the warming as the same amount of carbon dioxide over a span of 100 years (I think it's 72x for 20 years).
Methane also tends to oxidize into carbon dioxide.

It may not be an issue, but it definitely could be. A period of 8 years is more than enough time to warm the planet enough to release more methane, further warming the earth and continuing the cycle.
I'm certainly not an expert in the field, but I have found enough info about it to be concerned.


Sudden warming events have happened many times in geological history without causing positive feedback that leads to any runaway warming effect. That's not to say it's impossible, but you're certainly overlooking forms of negative feedback.