Jump to content

Michele Bachmann Calls Co2 ‘Harmless,’ ‘Negligible,’ ‘Necessary,’ ‘Natural’

EdwardGlen

By EdwardGlen
in General Conversation

Recommended Posts

EdwardGlen Advanced Member

+EdwardGlen

Posted
Posted

Science seems to be a scary monster to the Tea party GOP and facts confuse their muddled minds.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2009/04/24/172739/bachmann-harmless-co2/

 

On the House floor on Earth Day, April 22, 2009, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) argued that the threat of manmade global warming doesn’t make any sense because “carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of nature”:

 

Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.

 

hnson on Apr 24, 2009 at 10:59 am

 

On the House floor on Earth Day, April 22, 2009, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) argued that the threat of manmade global warming doesn’t make any sense because “carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of nature”:

 

Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.

 

 

 

 

Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR), later in the evening, demolished Bachmann for “making things up on the floor of the House”:

 

My good friend, the gentlelady from Minnesota, doesn’t think there are any problems with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s interesting to listen to her say that something that was naturally occurring simply couldn’t be harmful, ignoring the fact that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 2/3 of a million years.

 

The consensus of the scientific community — not people making things up on the floor of the House — is that this has been profoundly influenced by human activity, starting with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, where we started consuming huge quantities of coal, burning fossil fuels, accelerating that over time. The consensus of the scientific community is that this is in fact a serious problem.

 

Furthermore, attempting to repeat the goofy denier talking point that carbon dioxide makes up only a fraction of the atmospheric content and thus isn’t of concern, Bachmann errs wildly. She claims that carbon dioxide makes up “three percent of the atmosphere,” when in fact it only comprises 0.04% — off by a factor of a hundred. As Blumenauer pointed out, CO2 levels are significantly higher than they’ve been throughout human history. Only a hundred years ago, CO2 concentrations were only 0.03%. Of course, when it comes to the greenhouse effect, only global warming gases are relevant. And carbon dioxide is the predominant greenhouse gas.

 

But Bachmann hasn’t ever been one to let her political rants be constrained by the facts.

 

Transcript:

 

BACHMANN: But people talk about cap and tax and they aren’t sure exactly what we’re talking about. Let’s get back to step one. What is the problem? Why do we have to have this tax in the first place?

 

It’s about carbon dioxide.

 

Well, what is carbon dioxide? Let’s just go to a fundamental question.

 

Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.

 

As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful!

 

But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is part of Earth’s life cycle.

 

And yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occuring in the earth. Well we’re told the crux of this problem is human activity. It’s humans that are creating more carbon dioxide!

 

Is that true, or is that false?

 

Well, carbon dioxide is a natural part of Earth’s atmosphere. The carbon dioxide is perhaps three percent of the total atmosphere that’s in the Earth. So if you take a pie chart, and you have all of Earth’s atmosphere, carbon dioxide is perhaps three percent of that total.

 

What part of human activity creates carbon dioxide? If carbon dioxide is a negligible gas and it’s only three percent of Earth’s atmosphere, what part is human activity?

 

Human activity contributes perhaps three percent of the three percent. In other words, human activity is maybe 3 percent contributing to the 3 percent of carbon dioxide that’s in Earth’s atmosphere. It’s so negligible — it’s a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent — that it can hardly be — be quantified.

 

…

 

BLUMENAUER: My good friend, the gentlelady from Minnesota, doesn’t think there are any problems with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s interesting to listen to her say that something that was naturally occurring simply couldn’t be harmful, ignoring the fact that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 2/3 of a million years.

 

The consensus of the scientific community — not people making things up on the floor of the House — is that this has been profoundly influenced by human activity, starting with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, where we started consuming huge quantities of coal, burning fossil fuels, accelerating that over time. The consensus of the scientific community is that this is in fact a serious problem.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Looking for link to article in which Bachmann calls for the end of the minimum wage saying, 'End minimum-wage and we can cure unemployment over-night by offering jobs at what ever pay level we want to offer"

 

As if any pay scale above $7.75 an hour would be offered by any company not bound by regulation to pay minimum wage.

 

Now, if they would pay a "living wage" of $10.00 an hour minimum, many American's would have a chance to dig themselves out from under the poverty mountain.

 

Sorry Michele...$1.00 an hour won't cut it here in America!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Croppled1 Advanced Member

Croppled1

Posted
Posted

What I love is the experiments where barring two changes of clothes politicians are given the equivilent of min wage jobs and asked to work them and survive for 90 days starting out living at the local shelter ( which many communities do not have ) and with no contact with freinds or family . To bad you can't instil the permanence real people in that situation face nor the mental and physical health problems . This is what faces someone being released from prison or a county jail after a marijuana felony conviction or any other narcotics under criminal penalty . Spilover costs to individuals are horrendus and leave society with desperate individuals whom may of been working and doing reasonabley well .until the system starts penalizing them making things worse .

 

With gasoline above $3 rural america is being driven back into the cities that are begging for infrastructure improvement and jobs to heal their damaged citiaens and those flocking towards areas with mass transportation . Seeing a lady have to hock her wedding ring on reality tv last year to buy a tank of gas to get home from work put it in perspective for me . They can't have enough cash for clunkers programs here we are in recession and everyone needs a car that obtains 40mpg and a new energy efficient heating and cooling system at home to maintain there abillity to survive at minimum wage . How can they make that happen ? I know this Rep came off poorly but a valid point is now isnt the time to put barriers in the way of people obtaining more energy efficient technology . In Europe they sell clean diesal cars that get 70 mpg that isn't a misprint . EPA and saftey guidelines here prevent their sale without considering the economic consequences of not having them . On employment Bachman is plain wrong just like Bouchard on Unions . I am amazed how angry and vocal many people are nowadays against institutions that have historically protected the wage earner from abuse instilling hope and a saftey net to a world that otherwise is survival of the fitest . Min wage is important for not only individual well being but community well being .

 

http://epautos.com/2...s-in-the-woods/

 

 

run down on ciurrent diesal offerings in new vehicles

 

 

http://www.practical...diesel-cars.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrd Advanced Member

mrd

Posted
Posted

Ok this is simple. This is about where the Co2 is coming from. Naturally occouring co2 occours when organic matter decomposes. There might be other examples but that is a big one.

 

That is why when we look at carbon footprint questions you can make bio fuels using plant grown material no matter what the source and the amount of co2 present stays the same. The plants (or algae) take in co2 and it is transformed into fuel. They can only release co2 that they got from the environment hence the carbon neutral aspect.

 

But when we pump out hydrocarbons from deep within the earth we are releasing additional co2 that was not present in our environment. This additional co2 has become a problem because of the quantities that are being released. So this co2 is in addition to that already present. A small amount of co2 expressed as a percentage in our atmosphere (which is a huge amount of oil being burned)seems to have large effects. That is the problem. Michelle Bachman has overlooked these two facts. It is why the oil companies are so adamant against the idea of global warming. I suspect that know that the finger will be pointed at them. This is where they make their money so they are not for alternative and renewable resources because it will put their business as we know them now out of business or will change them in ways they do not think are financially desirable. Hence they are not for them.

 

Okay I know someone is going to say it but if we grew hemp or med mj for that matter we could use the disposable materials to make bio fuels. It may or may not be the best source for this but it would be applicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrd Advanced Member

mrd

Posted
Posted

I agree with the statement about diesels. I am looking for a car and I would really prefer a diesel that got approx 70mpg over a car that got 30mpg but they are no making them here or importing them either. The only diesels besides one vw are very expensive cars exceeding 40k not those diesels Ford Fiestas or vw ponys.

 

I called Ford on this and I was told that they felt there was no makket for them. Uhhuh thats why Hyundi which has quite a few high mpg gasoline vehicles can't get enough cars to sell here. Yep no one wants a car that gets 40 mpg plus..... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wolfgang Advanced Member

+wolfgang

Posted
Posted

Does anyone else think it is kind of spammy to keep posting these copy n paste things without engaging in debate in the thread?

I get it Ed isnt a big fan of the GOP and wants to be sure we know that,but I cant really talk because I've done the same thing with BO(not a big fan,in case you didnt know):)

But Im not a huge fan of the GOP myself,dont really like Bachman too much myself,Im still dreaming of Gary Johnson winning,but like I said before we will be dumb asses and not get behind him,I just know this I will vote for anyone other than BO in 2012 and I'm sure I will have to hold my nose in the booth,and to me that makes me want to vomit,I honestly am beside myself with what will probably be my choices,but I will not throw my vote away to a third party,I cant do that again.........Oh dont I know what I just said isnt going to get someone's goat,bahhhhhh.

."Oh my here we go another loose cannon gone bi-polar,quicksands aint got no sense of humor,I'm still laughing like hell,when you gonna wake up and fight?" It's a song lyric i had to get out,cuz sometimes I really do feel that way

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MightyMightyMezz Advanced Member

MightyMightyMezz

Posted
Posted

I get it Ed isnt a big fan of the GOP and wants to be sure we know that,but I cant really talk because I've done the same thing with BO(not a big fan,in case you didnt know):)

But Im not a huge fan of the GOP myself,dont really like Bachman too much myself,Im still dreaming of Gary Johnson winning,but like I said before we will be dumb asses and not get behind him,I just know this I will vote for anyone other than BO in 2012 and I'm sure I will have to hold my nose in the booth,and to me that makes me want to vomit,I honestly am beside myself with what will probably be my choices,but I will not throw my vote away to a third party,I cant do that again.........Oh dont I know what I just said isnt going to get someone's goat,bahhhhhh.

."Oh my here we go another loose cannon gone bi-polar,quicksands aint got no sense of humor,I'm still laughing like hell,when you gonna wake up and fight?" It's a song lyric i had to get out,cuz sometimes I really do feel that way

 

I don't hold my nose. I write in a vote if I have to. It can be seen as throwing away a vote but I would rather do that than consent to being ruled by the Military/Industrial overlords.

 

Thought this was funny. I don't think that is a photoshop.

 

 

 

Bachmann Rigged Iowa Poll by Buying "At Least" 4000 Votes

 

bachmann%20corndog.jpg

 

Sunday, 14 August 2011 07:42 |

 

Activist Post

 

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is being called the "Queen of the Straw Poll" after her victory at the Iowa straw poll yesterday for the GOP presidential nomination.

 

Bachmann, who finished with 4823 votes, narrowly beat second-place finisher Congressman Ron Paul who collected 4671 votes.

 

The Ames poll, although important because of the early significance of Iowa in the primaries, is nonbinding and unscientific.

 

AFP reported that "It has been criticized as playing too heavily in favor of candidates that are well financed, since their campaigns can buy the $30 tickets for their supporters to attend and presumably vote in their favor."

 

The Ames event was considered to be a Republican fundraiser, yet Bachmann's campaign bought and "handed out at least 4,000 free tickets to supporters."

 

Therefore, Bachmann appears to have rigged the vote at a minimum direct cost of $120,000 to her campaign.

 

Another anomaly with the vote surfaced this morning when it was discovered that 218 votes went unaccounted for. In other words, these votes were in the overall tally but not registered to any of the candidates.

 

One would think the media would attempt to uncover the discrepancy given the razor thin 152-vote margin between Bachmann and Paul. However, so far, they've been content to call her the "queen" of the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wolfgang Advanced Member

+wolfgang

Posted
Posted

hahaI've seen that picture,all I can say is WOW....she is far too right for my liking,she makes some good points on some issues,but she bends too easily for the conservative right for me....I really dont think she stands a chance.I'd like to know why the media is completely ignoring Paul or Johnson,but esp Paul since he was just 1% behind Bachman. Jon Stewart nails it.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/08/jon-stewart-ron-paul/41311/#.Tkp2HURjiTk.facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrd Advanced Member

mrd

Posted
Posted

Look, the Iowa straw pole is a way for the Iowa Republican party to raise funds. They are very forthright and honest about it. Taking it seriously is a waste. As mentioned you can buy votes, best sites for your booth etc. The media needs a story so they pump it up. You have to look at real primary votes and decent polls in order to really find out what people are thinking. Still I like the photo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimbojinx Advanced Member

jimbojinx

Posted
Posted

Below about 110 ppm of CO2, all plant life ends !!!!

 

We are able to feed the plus 7 billion people now living on earth thanks to CO2----Its one hell of a fertilizer !!!

 

To see some REAL science re the fallacy of CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming] go to www.wattsupwiththat.com.

 

Dr. Jinx

 

PS. "Consensus is not science " !!!!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wolfgang Advanced Member

+wolfgang

Posted
Posted

Below about 110 ppm of CO2, all plant life ends !!!!

 

We are able to feed the plus 7 billion people now living on earth thanks to CO2----Its one hell of a fertilizer !!!

 

To see some REAL science re the fallacy of CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming] go to www.wattsupwiththat.com.

 

Dr. Jinx

 

PS. "Consensus is not science " !!!!.

:sword::)):))

http://dailybayonet.com/?p=8877

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...