« For the Breck Girl, Charity Begins at Home | Main | Teaching Palestinian Children to Be Vicious »
August 13, 2007
Now We're Supposed to Be Afraid of Nitrogen
Sooner or later people are going to figure out that CO2 is a natural component of our atmosphere and not a deadly toxin. But greenies need not worry, because the next pseudo-toxin is already waiting in the wings. ContraCostaTimes reports that "nitrogen pollution" is already killing our butterflies by causing rye grass to grow.
Agricultural activity and burning fossil fuels are alleged to release 125 million metric tons of nitrogen per year. In keeping with current fads, nitrogen stands accused of causing global warming. Also, it makes plants grow faster, which is unconvincingly spun as a bad thing.
Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen. If bureaucrats can figure out a way to tax it all, there's virtually no limit to the social engineering they'll be able to finance.
On a tip from Mike.
Posted by Van Helsing at August 13, 2007 5:29 PM
Comments
Im starting my own NITROGEN CREDITS company.
Do YOU know your NITROGEN FOOTPRINT? Heres the formula:
Multiply your weight times in pounds X height in milimeters X 4400 then divide the total by 0.666.
The result will be the number of Nitrogen Credits you need to buy to be AOK with Gaia aka Mother Earth. Each unit costs $19.99.
Send CASH to:
For Al Gore 2008 Campaign Action Committee Account
PO BOX 666
Jericho, Kansas 66666
Posted by: Anonymous at August 13, 2007 5:51 PM
Surely this is a joke...please tell me it's a joke. Lie, if necessary.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 13, 2007 9:01 PM
Rye whiskey, rye whiskey, I cried.
If I don't have rye whiskey, I surely will die..
Useless ********, anyway
Posted by: Glenn at August 13, 2007 11:14 PM
Anarchists in London are planning on sabotaging Heathrow Airport, including making bomb threats.
Posted by: Panday at August 14, 2007 1:55 AM
Posted by: V the K at August 14, 2007 4:50 AM
okay, without plantlife we'd have no oxygen - HAS ANYBODY TOLD THESE PEOPLE?
DEAR LORD, WHERE DOES THE IDIOCY END?
Posted by: nanc at August 14, 2007 4:58 AM
OK, I'm confused:
If rye grass is growing bigger and faster, then it will need more CO2 to grow. Isn't removing more CO2 from the atmosphere supposed to be a good thing? And isn't that the mindset behind "carbon sinks", i.e. planting more plants so they can soak up the "excess" CO2?
Pick a Chicken Little talking point and stick with it, treehuggers.
Posted by: Crush Liberalism at August 14, 2007 6:13 AM
Uh, assuming for the moment that this isn't a joke, someone needs to tell the brain trust that nitrogen doesn't (and can't, by symmetry) have either a permanent or a transition electric dipole moment, and so doesn't absorb IR or microwave radiation.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 14, 2007 9:49 AM
Your not supposed to ask intelligent questions you just believe it! After all, its SCIENTIFIC.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 14, 2007 10:30 AM
I remember 23 years ago when "V" was on TV and this guy had his hand caught in liquid nitrogen and he banged it against a railing and it like freaking EXPLODED into a thousand tiny chunks. Ill bet once it thawed out the guys stump hurt like a mother! OUCH!!! of course you never saw him after than because the reptilian aliens started packing people into their spaceships like sides of beef and stealing our water.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 14, 2007 10:58 AM
oh no!
*;[
Posted by: nanc at August 14, 2007 12:14 PM
Jay G. has it right. If we're talking oxides of nitrogen, then we have something that arguably is a greenhouse gas, but in such very low quantities in the atmosphere (much less than CO2) that its greenhouse effect is neglible (unless you're a Gaia cultist belonging to the First Church of the Global Warming, Tennessee Mansion Synod). Nitrogen, on the other hand, is just nitrogen -- no spectrum absorption, period. Duh. When will be rid of these alarmist empty-headed dolts.
Posted by: monsoon at August 14, 2007 12:40 PM
According to these enviromoonbats,anything done by human beings that increases the general welfare is bad for the environment. In reality, increases in energy efficiency produce less pollution, and are better for both the envirionment and for people. Consider the difference between cleaning up the exhaust from a 100 hp automobile and the exhaust of 100 horses.
Posted by: James F McEnanly at August 16, 2007 7:05 PM
