What the fuck are you talking about? Did you have a stroke or something? Carbon monoxide leak?


Those are not out of context, they are chronological and taken together.


What? Yeah yeah yeah I've seen the argument he said "peaceful protest" yeah he said it ONE time at around the 18 minute mark. People can go look at the rest of the speech transcript with a simple google search. The ONE time he said the word 'peace' pales in comparison to the rest of the HOUR and twenty minutes of hate rhetoric.

In any case the rest of the speech is some fucking word salad alphabet soup I tell you "AMERICA GREAT AGAIN the democrats are stealing the election I AM THE GREATEST They are stealing it. We won by a lot A LANDSLIDE. Dems don't win by landslides, but the mainstream media, they wont tell you that.

/REPEAT

That better?



He Tweeted that speech, and they attacked while shouting OUR PRESIDENT WANTS US HERE
https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/DPYcNv (printfriendly to get behind paywall NYT) original : https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html

What do you want? Let me know if you've had a brain aneurysm so I can stop talking to you like you're just a dumbass who sold the farm for some magic beans.

Even if they DID make their own desktop sized 3D Laser Printer... it's beside the point. Those machines aren't big enough to create enough carbon monoxide to kill people. The kind that I worked on a Gerber Sabre is fucking MASSIVE. So, it has huge ventilation systems built in for that reason.

I don't think that is what he was saying. My interpretation was that he was citing (a recent slew of misinformation) of media claiming that 3D Printers are harmful and in this case the cause of death ; of which a 3D printer would not be able to cause carbon monoxide poisoning, which is way more likely to have been a laser cutter.... No, he's trying to stick up for 3D Printers, of which may contain lasers (not very likely since it's not very commercial yet) and a completely different production method (additive). Obviously, there are A LOT of people with 3D printers in the Bay Area.

Thanks

There's actually a bit more to the chemistry of smelting than he mentions. It's not only the higher temperatures that are important, carbon monoxide is used to extract the base metal from the ore (which is usually an oxide).

If he's been relying on ancient sources, they may well have not mentioned the chemistry since oxidation and reduction were only really properly described in the 18th century (oxygen was discovered in 1772) and not all historians have a good grounding in chemistry.

And she's turning up the thermostat in your house to the point where your carbon monoxide detectors are singing.

Eh...just take the batteries out of that thing. Just ignore it. You'll be fine, I'm sure.

Actually at the very end they drive to a food competition in Phoenix and sleep in the food truck but a running burner fills the van with carbon monoxide overnight and everyone but the Chef is killed. Despite this he goes on to win the competition that day, whilest navigating around his family the entire day.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

Carbon monoxide poisoning?

People wake up to smells. The point of the fire detector is that you might not be able to detect it at certain levels. It's also why we have carbon monoxide testers too, since we can't smell that period.

Once it reaches the "You wake up because of X", you might be in a room surrounded by flames and unable to escape...that's the point of having a fire detector to screech at you.

Also smoke doesn't just come in full blast, it does it gradually most times. You may not wake up to it if it were very gradual about it's increase until it became overwhelming. Much like with sound you can sleep through rain, but when a huge lightning strike followed up by rolling thunder will wake you up. Breaking glass is also a good example.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@spawnflagger and @bmacs27
This wiki is one of the things I consult often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Common_energy_densities


Regardless of how effective you make burning wood, it will NEVER be as energetic as the same volume of gas or petrol. And if gas/petrol/coal engines are out of reach financially, burning wood for electricity most likely will be as well. Though, spawn pointed out perhaps it supplying a regular stream of electricity of very little energy makes up for the lack of conductivity of poor communities. I don't tend to share that opinion and think that their standard of living will only be greatly improved with access to very large amounts of cheap energy; the difference between starting up a camp fire and an actual power plant. Helping a poor society charge connected devices isn't what catapults counties into the first world, having an infrastructure of energy is.
And ya, they are using a TEGs for electrical generation. It provides the lion share of energy to the fan that is helping aid complete combustion for the smoke reduction. This is why it is such a poor electrical device, TEGs are horrible in the efficiency department. You could get far more electrical output via some type of steam device burning wood than this; which would more than likely benefit an entire town via its considerable electrical output (for the third world). But it should be known before hand that wood burning is dirty business. Even if you engaged in catalytic conversion of carbon monoxide, burning wood on a large scale for electrical generation would have similar effects to the health of a community as a coal fire plant; perhaps worse because it would be located much closer to the population than coal fire plants usually are.
And to be fair to this thing, I think it is pretty cool...but for the first world. Unless they are literally handing these out in the third world, it will do them no benefit, and the money they spend handing these out...they could be installing a power distribution system with an actual power plant and improve their well being by orders of magnitude.


Now this I disagree with. They are right that most third world countries are using wood cooking fires anyway. So simply the smoke and emission savings over that are worthwhile. The electrical generation is a nice side benefit, and many of those countries are seeing the proliferation of small electrical devices, e.g. cell phones and leds. I think it's a device that could greatly improve the lives of people in less developed communities (especially the home stove version).

@spawnflagger and @bmacs27

This wiki is one of the things I consult often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Common_energy_densities

Regardless of how effective you make burning wood, it will NEVER be as energetic as the same volume of gas or petrol. And if gas/petrol/coal engines are out of reach financially, burning wood for electricity most likely will be as well. Though, spawn pointed out perhaps it supplying a regular stream of electricity of very little energy makes up for the lack of conductivity of poor communities. I don't tend to share that opinion and think that their standard of living will only be greatly improved with access to very large amounts of cheap energy; the difference between starting up a camp fire and an actual power plant. Helping a poor society charge connected devices isn't what catapults counties into the first world, having an infrastructure of energy is.

And ya, they are using a TEGs for electrical generation. It provides the lion share of energy to the fan that is helping aid complete combustion for the smoke reduction. This is why it is such a poor electrical device, TEGs are horrible in the efficiency department. You could get far more electrical output via some type of steam device burning wood than this; which would more than likely benefit an entire town via its considerable electrical output (for the third world). But it should be known before hand that wood burning is dirty business. Even if you engaged in catalytic conversion of carbon monoxide, burning wood on a large scale for electrical generation would have similar effects to the health of a community as a coal fire plant; perhaps worse because it would be located much closer to the population than coal fire plants usually are.

And to be fair to this thing, I think it is pretty cool...but for the first world. Unless they are literally handing these out in the third world, it will do them no benefit, and the money they spend handing these out...they could be installing a power distribution system with an actual power plant and improve their well being by orders of magnitude.

>> ^Sagemind:

I think it you miss the point though.
Tobacco used to be just a plant. You smoked the plant. What could be more natural?
The Big Tobacco companies took over. Now it's no longer tobacco plant you are smoking with cigarettes.
Only 50% of what is in a cigarette is tobacco and even that is treated with sugars and chemicals to make it easier for the body to absorb. The rest is chemicals, reclaim and recon which are all there to addict you while it's killing you at the same time.
With marijuana, in most cases it's still just plant, in the same form as it was when it was picked from the plant.
I don't smoke either of them but if I had to choose, I'd pick the one without the additives and addictants. I doubt there is anything "Natural" about smoking any form of grass. It's all a form of carbon monoxide (in my opinion), the grass itself is more natural and I think that counts for something.
One of the horrifying concepts in legalizing marijuana, is that Big Tobacco companies will take over the manufacturing process and will bastardize the product like it has with cigarettes and the health effects will be disastrous.
>> ^Ghostly:
>> ^Sagemind:
I think this is relevant here.
What's inside a US blended cigarette?
http://videosift.com/video/What-s-inside-a-US-blended-cigarette

I suspect if you you compared smoking natural weed to smoking natural dried tobacco the negative effects health effects would be similar. Likewise, if joints were prepared in the same way as commercial cigarettes they'd be just as bad as one another.
I won't presume to know the health effects of the natural products, but I'm all for people being allowed to use them as they see fit. So long as I'm not forced to breath second hand smoke in public places because even if they're not bad for you, personally, I don't care for either.


Nah, I got all that but perhaps failed to express my point clearly. I was trying to point out that it's silly to argue (not saying you were but others do) that pot is "healthier" than tobacco since it is not being compared like to like i.e. either both natural or both with added shit. Either way my personal opinion (admittedly with out anything solid backing it up) is that any type of smoke is going to be worse for your health than clean air. Despite that I'm all for people being free to choose regardless of how good or bad it is, natural or with added shit, so long as I'm not forced to inhale it, I don't care if others want to poison themselves.

I think it you miss the point though.

Tobacco used to be just a plant. You smoked the plant. What could be more natural?
The Big Tobacco companies took over. Now it's no longer tobacco plant you are smoking with cigarettes.

Only 50% of what is in a cigarette is tobacco and even that is treated with sugars and chemicals to make it easier for the body to absorb. The rest is chemicals, reclaim and recon which are all there to addict you while it's killing you at the same time.

With marijuana, in most cases it's still just plant, in the same form as it was when it was picked from the plant.

I don't smoke either of them but if I had to choose, I'd pick the one without the additives and addictants. I doubt there is anything "Natural" about smoking any form of grass. It's all a form of carbon monoxide (in my opinion), the grass itself is more natural and I think that counts for something.

One of the horrifying concepts in legalizing marijuana, is that Big Tobacco companies will take over the manufacturing process and will bastardize the product like it has with cigarettes and the health effects will be disastrous.

>> ^Ghostly:

>> ^Sagemind:
I think this is relevant here.
What's inside a US blended cigarette?
http://videosift.com/video/What-s-inside-a-US-blended-cigarette

I suspect if you you compared smoking natural weed to smoking natural dried tobacco the negative effects health effects would be similar. Likewise, if joints were prepared in the same way as commercial cigarettes they'd be just as bad as one another.
I won't presume to know the health effects of the natural products, but I'm all for people being allowed to use them as they see fit. So long as I'm not forced to breath second hand smoke in public places because even if they're not bad for you, personally, I don't care for either.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You could say there is no good reason to sell carbonated beverage as well, as drinking carbon dioxide is basically poison.


Uh... just to clarify, carbon MONoxide is a poison, carbon DIoxide is the same stuff we breath out every other second of every day of our lives. It's not poisonous, it would kill you due to oxygen starvation long before it ever "poisoned" you.

Sounds like you could use a couple decent labels here or there.