Energy is pollution? That is the singularly most stupid, ill-informed thing I have read around here in a long time. And that's saying one hell of a lot...

@krellin
Actually, it's technically true, as I said. I was just pointing out what Draug said was not 100% accurate. "Energy is extremely unlikely to be pollution" would be a better claim.

No, actually it is blatantly, ridiculously false, since the very term "pollution" is a totally subjective term.

Is CO2 pollution? I'm certain the knee-jerk liberal answer will be <with much sputtering and guffawing> YES! YES!!! CO2 is the WORST form of pollution...

...and all the greem plant life will go, "What? Did someone say....DINNER!?!?!!?"

You know that gianorous bright light thingy in the sky? It gives you light....it gives you warmth? I think...yeah, here it is...right in my book...it's called the Son..no...the SUN...

Yeah, that light...that warmth....that's ENERGY...

Enough said.

I must say, all this business about believing or not believe in climate change is MOOT. Liberals and conservatives should agree we must use energy more efficiently, for different reasons. Liberals because they're concerned with the planet in weirdly specific and inconsistent ways, conservatives because it results in self sufficiency and independence from nasty oil exporting countries. (Nasty!) Republicans are too busy greasing palms with oil companies to do this though. One of the reasons I ain't a Republican, though I vote Republican once in a while.

"No, actually it is blatantly, ridiculously false, since the very term "pollution" is a totally subjective term.

Is CO2 pollution? I'm certain the knee-jerk liberal answer will be <with much sputtering and guffawing> YES! YES!!! CO2 is the WORST form of pollution...

...and all the greem plant life will go, "What? Did someone say....DINNER!?!?!!?""

You could use the CO2 in an anti-matter reactor. Hell, you could rip it apart and use the oxygen in a fusion reaction if you feel so inclined. If you feel CO2 is not good enough of a pollutant for you to consider real, let's stick with say, chlorofluorocarbons. Obviously, both of these uses for pollution are quite far fetched, but are technically possible. Additionally, as you said pollution is a subjective term, I could just call everything pollution, but that would be pretty stupid.

"You know that gianorous bright light thingy in the sky? It gives you light....it gives you warmth? I think...yeah, here it is...right in my book...it's called the Son..no...the SUN...

Yeah, that light...that warmth....that's ENERGY...

Enough said."

Did you know it is also mass?

Like, the Earth does orbit it, so it should probably be quite obvious, but you did overlook that part.

@dD_ShockTrooper What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I think the price of tea in China would show a sharp increase if Sun was not massive. Followed by a steady decline as the demand from humans drops as they begin to die out.

Though, perhaps the price of tea would be immeasurable, due to its non-existence, as this hypothetical scenario never had tea in the first place.

So the existence of a sun with mass gives tea a tangible price in China. That's the answer I'll lock in.

@dD_ShockTrooper Yo mama

@tendmote
Tell her I said hi.

Tap water is bad? WTF? the ONLY reason it would be bad is because of the added chlorine and fluoride. Otherwise its great. It even tastes *amazing*, at least here in Canada.

A side story: visited Florida once, turned on the tap, on "cold". Waited 5 minutes, the "cold" water was at room temperature (besides having an odd smell). Silly Floridians, tap water is supposed to freeze your hand.

@DD - now you are being dense. I specifically said carbon based pollution. Spent fissile material is not carbon based. And the fusion mention was an autocorrect for a misspelled fission.

Carbon dioxide, when dissolved in sea water, is deadly to shell-building microorganisms that form an important part of the food chain in some cold ocean regions. The extra CO2 lowers the pH and make the water too acidic for these organisms to build their shells. The observed increase in acidity of 0.1 pH units during the past century due to fossil fuel burning, and expected continued acidification in the coming decades, could cause a massive die off of marine life and collapse of the food chain in these ocean areas.

But yeah, go ahead and argue semantics. It's not like you have any real arguments.

@Draugnar

You should know by now I never have anything valuable to add to these discussions.

DOH!

Draugnar, krellin, and tendmote arguing about global warming is exactly why these discussions always turn to shit on this site.

bo - I'm not arguing about global warming at all, silly boy. Just being your typical knee-jerk reactionary self again, are you? I've *barely* posted on this thread...it's boring. (Of course, it's boring because I haven't posted on it much...but that's another discussion all together...heh heh...)