2022 SCOTUS rulings

[SeattleGriz]

I would have to say too much is a bad thing, but that's the rub, as the datasets we use for public consumption are junk.

So if too much CO2 is produced, more than plants can use, the excess CO2 could be considered a pollutant? We shouldn't be talking in absolutes.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

As CO2 levels have been increasing for a while, I assume there already is too much for plants to use. My issue is that a natural product of human respiration is declared a pollutant. Who declared this and open up all your data and methodology to the masses.

[UNI88]

So if too much CO2 is produced, more than plants can use, the excess CO2 could be considered a pollutant? We shouldn't be talking in absolutes.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

As CO2 levels have been increasing for a while, I assume there already is too much for plants to use. My issue is that a natural product of human respiration is declared a pollutant. Who declared this and open up all your data and methodology to the masses.

We already know that humans are pollutants. Look at the Anacosta River and the wasteland that is DelMarVa.

Why can't excess CO2 be a pollutant? And if we want to limit human breathing then the focus should be on countries with high populations.



Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

As CO2 levels have been increasing for a while, I assume there already is too much for plants to use. My issue is that a natural product of human respiration is declared a pollutant. Who declared this and open up all your data and methodology to the masses.

We already know that humans are pollutants. Look at the Anacosta River and the wasteland that is DelMarVa.

Why can't excess CO2 be a pollutant? And if we want to limit human breathing then the focus should be on countries with high populations.



Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

I think it could be a pollutant at high levels, especially as it also is due to the combustion of fossil fuels, but in my opinion, we have no clue where that limit is.

This goes back to my statement on datasets. Have you seen the crap we use? It's a joke and I'm not confident at all it is even in the ballpark.

To build off what you said. It's the Earth's way of limiting population. Too many mouth breathers raise temperatures and thus kills off mouth breathers. . Voila. Problem solved.

[BDKJMU]

If you believe CO2 is a pollutant, then you are a hypocrite if you don't just kill yourself..

[Pwns]

[AZGrizFan]

Sounds legit.

[SeattleGriz]

If you believe CO2 is a pollutant, then you are a hypocrite if you don't just kill yourself..

Hey. Not liberals, you! Only people like John Kerry get to fly in personal jets. The libs love that stuff.

The fact Leftards aren't up in arms, speaks volumes. Fucking hypocrites.

[SDHornet]

Interesting thread...

I think it is simpler than that. We have a flawed system that allows the minority to rule. A President who lost the overall vote among the People got to nominate Supreme Court Justices. His Party controlled the Senate at the time of each appointment because we have a system in which low population States have just as many Senators ad high population States do. So when he nominated the first two the Republicans had the majority in the Senate even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by a margin of about 8 percentage points. And when he nominated the third one the Republicans had the majority even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by about 10 percentage points.

It happened because we have a system that allows for minority rule.

Cry more, shitlib.

[SDHornet]

I think it is simpler than that. We have a flawed system that allows the minority to rule. A President who lost the overall vote among the People got to nominate Supreme Court Justices. His Party controlled the Senate at the time of each appointment because we have a system in which low population States have just as many Senators ad high population States do. So when he nominated the first two the Republicans had the majority in the Senate even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by a margin of about 8 percentage points. And when he nominated the third one the Republicans had the majority even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by about 10 percentage points.

It happened because we have a system that allows for minority rule.

Cry more.

Damn, you beat me to it.

[SDHornet]

The thing with saying it is OK for the Louisiana legislature to have just one Black majority district is an example. Louisiana is one third Black. That's math. To me, what the Louisiana legislature did in creating a situation in which only 1 of 6 Congressional districts is majority
Black is clearly a violation of the Voting Rights Act. It's really blatant and obvious. But this Supreme Court is going to allow that situation to prevail during the next Congressional election.

No its not. If 2/3 of the population of a state was non black, and 1/3 was black, and they were spread throughout the state, and the districts were drawn randomly without regard to race, you could easily have only one district that was majority black, or even zero.

And what you are proposing is packing more blacks into fewer districts, which actually gets more blacks elected to Congress, but fewer democrats, and more republicans.

When the statistics guru fails a real life statistics question.

[Winterborn]

To add some clarification on Co2 levels since there is some very common misconceptions being thrown around in the last few posts.

First is, no we are not at toxic levels of Co2 for plants yet. Not even close (that is over 1600/1700+ ppm and we are at around 400 ppm in the atmosphere).

Second, as the amount of Co2 increases, plant photosynthesis efficiency also goes up (as does the byproduct, O2 production). For soybeans it works that under high Co2, the plant uses less water, more nitrogen fixation, and more yield.

We are at the very low end of Co2 for photosynthesis efficiency (varies by plant species so this is very general) and there are many vegetable greenhouses (Cannabis growers take note) pump in extra Co2 to increase plant growth and yields.

In the country Co2 levels are around 400pp, large metro (i.e. NY) around 800-900ppm. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, low on the overall reactive list, but most prevalent. That said, it is not the doom and gloom the stories make it out to be. I have seen some grain studies done on what would happen if the average Co2 level doubled (still safe for humans) and the results were that plants just thrived and produced a much higher yield. Now it being a greenhouse type of gas, one has to take into account its warming effect so it is not totally benign.

[BDKJMU]

To add some clarification on Co2 levels since there is some very common misconceptions being thrown around in the last few posts.

First is, no we are not at toxic levels of Co2 for plants yet. Not even close (that is over 1600/1700+ ppm and we are at around 400 ppm in the atmosphere).

Second, as the amount of Co2 increases, plant photosynthesis efficiency also goes up (as does the byproduct, O2 production). For soybeans it works that under high Co2, the plant uses less water, more nitrogen fixation, and more yield.

We are at the very low end of Co2 for photosynthesis efficiency (varies by plant species so this is very general) and there are many vegetable greenhouses (Cannabis growers take note) pump in extra Co2 to increase plant growth and yields.

In the country Co2 levels are around 400pp, large metro (i.e. NY) around 800-900ppm. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, low on the overall reactive list, but most prevalent. That said, it is not the doom and gloom the stories make it out to be. I have seen some grain studies done on what would happen if the average Co2 level doubled (still safe for humans) and the results were that plants just thrived and produced a much higher yield. Now it being a greenhouse type of gas, one has to take into account its warming effect so it is not totally benign.

So the more Co2 emissions the better for plant growth, including pot. So if you care about the environment, and pot, you should be for more Co2 emissions..

[SeattleGriz]

To add some clarification on Co2 levels since there is some very common misconceptions being thrown around in the last few posts.

First is, no we are not at toxic levels of Co2 for plants yet. Not even close (that is over 1600/1700+ ppm and we are at around 400 ppm in the atmosphere).

Second, as the amount of Co2 increases, plant photosynthesis efficiency also goes up (as does the byproduct, O2 production). For soybeans it works that under high Co2, the plant uses less water, more nitrogen fixation, and more yield.

We are at the very low end of Co2 for photosynthesis efficiency (varies by plant species so this is very general) and there are many vegetable greenhouses (Cannabis growers take note) pump in extra Co2 to increase plant growth and yields.

In the country Co2 levels are around 400pp, large metro (i.e. NY) around 800-900ppm. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, low on the overall reactive list, but most prevalent. That said, it is not the doom and gloom the stories make it out to be. I have seen some grain studies done on what would happen if the average Co2 level doubled (still safe for humans) and the results were that plants just thrived and produced a much higher yield. Now it being a greenhouse type of gas, one has to take into account its warming effect so it is not totally benign.

Good post. Thank you for the information.

[houndawg]

Sounds legit.

Oh please, Abraham Lincoln warned us about the dangers of suspending disbelief on the internet.

[houndawg]

I think it is simpler than that. We have a flawed system that allows the minority to rule. A President who lost the overall vote among the People got to nominate Supreme Court Justices. His Party controlled the Senate at the time of each appointment because we have a system in which low population States have just as many Senators ad high population States do. So when he nominated the first two the Republicans had the majority in the Senate even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by a margin of about 8 percentage points. And when he nominated the third one the Republicans had the majority even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by about 10 percentage points.

It happened because we have a system that allows for minority rule.

Cry more, shitlib.

Somebody's feelings are hurt....

[kalm]

Maybe she has a name like Tiller that rhymes with something.

[UNI88]

Maybe she has a name like Tiller that rhymes with something.

How is doxing the Indiana doctor different from protesting near SCOTUS justices (or vice versa). I'm not looking for the argument that trying to influence a SCOTUS justice is illegal, focus on why some think it's ok to attempt to intimidate and bully someone they disagree with but is outraged when there are attempts to intimidate and bully someone they agree with.

"Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle"

[Skjellyfetti]

[BDKJMU]

Maybe she has a name like Tiller that rhymes with something.

How is doxing the Indiana doctor different from protesting near SCOTUS justices (or vice versa). I'm not looking for the argument that trying to influence a SCOTUS justice is illegal, focus on why some think it's ok to attempt to intimidate and bully someone they disagree with but is outraged when there are attempts to intimidate and bully someone they agree with.

"Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle"

Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices, is whole another level (and a violation of fed and state laws) than simply giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen. The SCOTUS justices all have their names and faces on TV screens every day. Did FNC post her address and say go protest at her house? If not, there's no comparison.

[UNI88]

How is doxing the Indiana doctor different from protesting near SCOTUS justices (or vice versa). I'm not looking for the argument that trying to influence a SCOTUS justice is illegal, focus on why some think it's ok to attempt to intimidate and bully someone they disagree with but is outraged when there are attempts to intimidate and bully someone they agree with.

"Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle"

Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices, is whole another level (and a violation of fed and state laws) than simply giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen. The SCOTUS justices all have their names and faces on TV screens every day. Did FNC post her address and say go protest at her house? If not, there's no comparison.

Our attempts to bully and intimidate are different and not as bad.

Defend & deflect.

[BDKJMU]

Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices, is whole another level (and a violation of fed and state laws) than simply giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen. The SCOTUS justices all have their names and faces on TV screens every day. Did FNC post her address and say go protest at her house? If not, there's no comparison.

Our attempts to bully and intimidate are different and not as bad.

Defend & deflect.

Keep

[UNI88]

Our attempts to bully and intimidate are different and not as bad.

Defend & deflect.

Keep

When did we switch the topic to trump's claims that the election was stolen?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[kalm]

How is doxing the Indiana doctor different from protesting near SCOTUS justices (or vice versa). I'm not looking for the argument that trying to influence a SCOTUS justice is illegal, focus on why some think it's ok to attempt to intimidate and bully someone they disagree with but is outraged when there are attempts to intimidate and bully someone they agree with.

"Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle"

Posting someone's address, and protesting at someone's house like the left did with SCOTUS justices, is whole another level (and a violation of fed and state laws) than simply giving the name and showing the picture of someone on a TV screen. The SCOTUS justices all have their names and faces on TV screens every day. Did FNC post her address and say go protest at her house? If not, there's no comparison.

They’re different but both are shitty.

[Baldy]

Maybe she has a name like Tiller that rhymes with something.

Why block it out? It was all public information at the time.

[kalm]

Maybe she has a name like Tiller that rhymes with something.

Why block it out? It was all public information at the time.

Because it’s the ethical thing to do. Why make it easier?