This here goddamn country went down hill the moment Erbammy Hussein got inter office. He plans on replacing our bones with some fancy polymer he's been puttin' in the fleride in city drinkin' water, along with that filter for schools to aid in indoctrination of youngin's.
Now, depending on who's got the moderator itch, I do have to throw in some absolutes:
Gnome is one of the worst attempts at stealing Winders for hackers who don't wanna pay shit for shit. It's only a hair worse than KDE, which doesn't got no shit for it that wasn't goin' for that awful mexican girlfriend system with the bouncin' ball. That was almost as bad Beboss thing that's always comin' back, but it still looks like 80's shit. Only IBM ever made a good Windows knock off in that Star Trek thingy, but it wasn't no good compared to what Bill in the buddies cooked up. That Winders is better than Meth!
Now, in case a funny counter-corrects an offtopic, allow me to inform you that all metamoderators have a history of raping their own mothers and burning stray cats. Now a score of 1 is still possible, and anyone who sees that should mark it as overrated.
Normally, when dotters take to correcting a post en mass, there isn't a reason to cover anything; however, the logic of, "We got these things 25-50 years later from a theory, but anything that doesn't contribute this quarter is a waste of money," would be sufficient to kill the theory of economic value versus investment. We got lots of things from the money dumped on the Space Race and the succeeding era, but from a dollar in to dollar out that month, year or even decade perspective, it wouldn't have appeared to be that affordable, even though those technologies, from fuel cells (more than just one type), to photovoltaics, to advanced ceramics and plastics, account for more economic profit today than the most expensive year of the US Independent Space Exploration Era.
I, however, wanted to plug, in a non-spammy way, a couple of places on YouTube that shows current payoff. While it doesn't focus on the LHC, it's a follow up on technologies that are otherwise related to what is being done at the LHC.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BackstageScience?feature=g-all-s#p/u/43/12KaFItjgl0 This is YT Channel BackstageScience, with a feature call for the video titled, "Lap of a Synchotron". In this video (as well as the many in that list), you will find discussion about many of the assists to, primarily, materials science that comes from the many research activities in the beamline branches.
Synchotrons are relatively expensive, and when they were the new thing, they were more expensive to construct, maintain and run than many infrastructure projects; they were the LHC of their time. Now, we have safer planes, improved medicine and more advanced super- and semi-conductors. Intentionally producing nanoparticles has been a relatively new thing for commercial industries, but that new economy is entirely dependent on technology like the synchotron.
BackstageScience has a video titled,:"Muon Man", which is an interview with one of the scientists in general. If you asked someone 25 years ago what practical applications existed for muons, you would have been told they can be used to detect time dilation in accordance to Special relativity or changes in a protons charge field. Today, we use the to detect restricted radio-active materials and peer into the inner workings of large-scale geological activities, which will eventually allows us to detect volcanic eruptions and, quite possibly, earth quakes.
With regard to this specific project, the LHC's job is to understand the fundamental structures of energy at very small scales. The idea it's stuck on the Higgs boson research shows a lot of ignorance, but the kind one might expect from the limited understanding that comes from someone who would say, "[A]nything other than the proton, neutron, electron and photon," is exotic or has never produced any useful technology. E^2=M^2C^4+P^2C^2 has brought us anti-matter, which eventually led to improved medical technologies. The fact is, large projects, like the LHC, are necessary for such advancements, but too expensive for even a single portion of the economic spectrum to manage for the initial time between theory and application. To say it was too expensive because you can't see any advantage in it shows a failure of understanding how doctorates lead to economic and social advantages. Perhaps you should join slashdot with the moniker Lysenko, so, we will all know how ignorant you are about the importance of advancing science through large scale. publicly funded projects.
See, as I look at it, burning petroleum from other planets on this one should make it even more Venusian than burning the pre-solar petroleum under the basaltic plains.
I wonder if we'll see some steam-punk space travel of using our petroleum to get more petroleum elsewhere. Go us!
Due to the idea of showing aggressiveness, out-stripping capability/capacity or the comparative extreme, everything from computing to politics has some extreme language. Explode, nuclear, destroy, execute, shoot-down, assassinate, surgical strike and war, which have been around forever, have found new companions with jihad, terrorism, dirty bomb and shock and awe. Phrases that may eternally be in bad taste have a tendency to pop up, such as holocaust, genocide, nazi (not that the Interweb Tubes have stopped that one), crash a plane into, Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) and Windows 95.
You could extend the point by noting that Theories of Science are the best models of knowledge, and yet, they are always unable to cover all possible aspects. Those Theories are drawn from matching the data extrapolations which are themselves sorted by the Laws of Sciences which have limited practicality relative to their own application. And as Laws are inherently incomplete, the Math which proves them serves limited use beyond the paper or program which creates or uses it. Or, as one person has put it, "Did you know the '[Philosophiæ Naturalis] Principia [Mathematica]' has an error rate?" If you can't know every value of every dimension in the whole Universe, or otherwise, are not Maxwell's Demon, it's impossible to prove bupkis. Even the Doctor of Gallifrey can be suprised, and he knows this history of most civilizations in the Universe from the near beginning to the near end.
Outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes)
That result which stands separate of the naturally continuing and constituting processes, both of biological and non-biological nature, given the scope of the planet
[This is a breaking up of the definition of a pollutant or pollution (as stated), to recall the reason it as been put forward. This break is justified as to define the conditions and boundary before the introduction of a variation.]
It does count
Carbon dioxide (implied from the pronoun's precedent), given when placed within this context, would and is objectively considered
[Now, we return to the definition to see the effects of a variation]
As a deposit
In the form of a definable addition
Which changes the chemistry
An alteration (outside of the conditions/boundary), to the cumulative molecular cycles in thermodynamic equilibrium [the difference between mere laws and actual theories]
Of the surrounding environment
An immediate and identifiable area.
-----
I defined a pollutant that took an aside to include CO2. No context is changed. You can say it over and over again, but in the end. no one who understands debates and the very words and phrases you have been using, would define the context as changed. If you don't understand why the context isn't changed because they merely defined CO2 would show your lack of comprehension of why they chose to do it in the first place. That is logic targeted at people who would say I did change the context to my favor, regardless of whether or not you agree with them in the first place. My total definition neither requires human activity or ignores that something that exists as part of the boundaries before the variation of that definition may also be counted as pollution -- This is why I demonstrated that effect in my first response to you with actual research. Not only can COv2 be increased from natural sources to change the chemistry of an area, but it would be an entirely natural cause, i.e. volcanic fumes, large fires and the thawing of methane hydrate near a continental shelf.
"They very clearly described NATURAL processes. You, on the other hand, approached it from the context of UNnatural (industrial or at least man-caused) processes," directly contradicts your claim of, "I neither missed your point, or inferred as you claim." In that first pair sentences, you did both. Remember how I kept asking for examples of your claim? Well, I was able to give an example that supports my definition and counters your assumptions. That's what people do in debates. But, let us be honest, this hasn't really been a debate. You should have just quoted their logic of defining CO2 as not a pollutant, made your observation, and, quite frankly, probably have done so under your own thread, unless you wanted to know why I didn't waste time on their technique of avoiding an actual definition.
Every time you insist that the context was changed, you're falling for the very reason they did what they did that. They didn't define a pollutant. They can't do so unless they can explicitly include terminology that would insure that nothing that happens naturally can constitute as pollution. I just demonstrated here (and SxOx mentioned in another post) that naturally occurring chemistry, under naturally occurring circumstances, would count within Ecological studies as pollution. And again, that's also a reminder that Ecology, which is the general science under which Climatology, Oceanography, Soil sciences and Global Warming would be studied, is the definition to use. not Materials sciences, not Organic Chemistry, not Medicine, not Social and Cultural Studies, not Electronic and Electrical Engineering, but the definition that could be applied in the Ecological context.
Just because something isn't explicitly stated doesn't mean it isn't part of the context. Science is dependent up
Perhaps, as if by magic, you missed THE WHOLE POINT of my original post. Context wasn't changed. I didn't even "[approach] it from the context of UNnatural...processes." Pollution, within the ecological definition, either of mine here, doesn't require anthropogenic processes to be involved. You inferred that out of your association with COv2. They merely defined COv2, not a pollutant. My providing a definition doesn't change context, as the whole letter is about ecological balances at its very core.
As you are willing to use some basic and common fallacy references, you might want to check on "Masked man fallacy," or "Affirming a disjunct," as well as anything syllogical. In an actual debate between the letter and my original post, I removed the dependence on the fallacy by defining the term within the same context. In scored or competitive debates, that would have been defining the context, or thoroughing; this would not be changing the context. Global warming is an ecological debate. The definition is an ecological definition. The debater used the term in such a way that it could not be removed from the ecological context without defining it; ergo, my defining it within that context does nothing to shift it.
Claiming that defining CO2 creates a "not-a-pollutant" definition involves making an inference that would be readily shot down in an actual debate simply by defining or expanding on any number of things outside of the intended range, which avoids confronting the actual point. If you went in a debate and raised your reductio ad absurdum point, you would have allowed the other side to waste time on expounding on your examples and even claiming you're proving their point for them. THEN, if they really wanted to put you in your place for wasting 2+ minutes of time, they would use non-ecological definitions of pollution and contamination making any number of unsound parallels, i.e. "We have a statute limiting times and volumes for noise, to avoid, 'noise pollution,' but if I hold the loudest rock concert of all time in my backyard (presuming North America, and not above fatal decibel levels), no one in Australia is going to be calling my local police. Noise, like CO2, is something already in the air," yada-yada-yada.
My article was about adding the context the facts are taken from. It's only by stripping away context, just like not actually defining a pollutant, does the logic appear legitimate. The definition I provided, which fits the actual ecological context, fits within the whole concept of providing context. If you were in a competitive debate and wasted time like you had suggested, you wouldn't have been anywhere near as effective. They could, as you attempted, to call it a shift, but a judge would insist that they define a pollutant, or provide evidence the definition was inaccurate. If X != Y, defining X does not define Y.
When you made your initial post, I asked you for example to show the flaw of my definition, because A) it was the only explicit definition, B) you had just quoted it, and C) that is what you actually do in a debate. No one who was in a competitive debate would have chosen to waste time on the "not-a-pollutant' definition, since it wasn't intended to be one. It was merely meant to look like one. You can waste the time getting them to define one in hopes of making them look like they disproved their own point, but they will always be capable of claiming that it's technical, or the fact that you're discussing it shows it's up for debate, which provides the opportunity, should you later define it, to say that your point is the one that's up for debate.
If you think I changed the context, try bringing the letter and my original post to someone who's more familiar with traditional debates; That is, someone whose experience doesn't involve political debates, as, apparently, all of reality is up for debate between politicians. Solipsistically speaking, I don't know why I let them do that, but neither do they.
I remember, back during the tv series (non-animated), Robocop couldn't tell if a politician was lying because he was so used to never really telling the truth with the words he uses everyday. Hilarious excuse for why Murphy couldn't figure out what was going on.
It was immediately followed by the link, or was there somewhere that phrase appears?
As I noticed following the link, it became pretty clear how that line relates to the paragraph regarding not being able to locate where (or more to it, what) the heat not leaving the Earth was doing. Ironically, it ties in with the production of formic acid, which relates to the methane release from warmer oceans that other denialist blogs are trying to claim is a completely unrelated to Global Warming. Formic acid, as you know, must be released through volcanic actions that the geological surveys around the world aren't detecting, and not the breakdown of the methane plumes diffusing through the warmer oceans that released them from their trapped and indirectly frozen states, like the rhythmic patterns of the dancing at a luau.
Spot the ironic statement; hint, it starts with F and ends with U.
Ignoring the definitions of smell and odor, there are a multitude of theoretical causes that allow for smell; so, making such an assumption is presenting a view of ignorance.
Pollutant is a scientifically defined term. They haven't DEFINED, "pollution," or, "pollutant." They defined COv2. That's it. Very simple. No context can be changed if they haven't defined it otherwise.
Otherwise, your logic is anything that isn't exhaled by each of us, isn't a colorless and odorless gas or isn't used by plants, or any combination of your choice, is a pollutant; ergo, diamonds are pollutants. See, I came up with an example. I can do that. You're still welcome to, for the fifth time.
Since they didn't define pollutant (you may re-read it if you hadn't noticed that), I'm left to assume either a recognized definition, or what you're using to define as an apparent contextual definition.
Is this why you said Oxygen and Water!? You thought that was a definition of something that wasn't a pollutant, wasn't it? You came into this with that as your definition of, "not a pollutant!?"
Didn't you know you exhale most of what's in the air and plants can use large number of things? Sulfurous oxides, for example, which are a principle component in acid rain at higher concentrations (anything about three to four times the pre-industrial output, coincidentally, induces an effective level of acidification), are exhaled by you (mostly from oral biofilms), but are a necessary part of providing sulfur to plants when the resultant soil reactions deposit the sulfur in the soil?
I'm interpreting this bizarre definition as what you're using, as it's the only thing that provides any logical point to your own first comment. Again, I provided another pollutant example, because I can do that.
Let's see if I've got this logic worked out over this exchange, because I think I've finally seen it. In chronological order:
2009: The EPA declares CO2 a pollutant (fitting in with 100 years of climatological research) You might note, by the way, a strawman argument would be superficially and artificially structured. This, however, is an actual point, that predates the letter, and that the EPA would be the US authority for defining a pollutant. As the US actually lagged behind other nations, you'll find many other agencies around the world had already included it as a pollutant.
2012:
The letter, instead of defining a pollutant, attempts, instead, to define what CO2 is: "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle."
I, before actually getting there, already knowing where the logic is going next, hammered out a quick definition for pollution/pollutant for comparative purposes before I even reached that specific paragraph (you'll note the paragraph order). I defined it as: "A relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution."
That definition takes into account the collective exhalations, forest fires and even volcanic activities within its parenthetical.
Then you, for some reason, take their definition of CO2 as a definition of what can't be a pollutant, resulting in your first exchange: "You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water."
You had also mention reductio ad absurdum, which, ironically, I demonstrated with my SxOx example.
I, believing you were talking about my example, as, again, it is the only definition for a pollutant thus far, went into detail as to why COv2 is a pollutant. I then went on to say that, had water or oxygen had the same effective harm as COv2, you would notice the scientific community worried about them as well. I invited you to enter some of your research (the first request for any such type of example) to identify why you would make the claim you had. I, feeling it would only be fair to identify the logic that my post was using, included a number of example re
"You argued that the letter's claim that CO2 is not a pollutant is false. But your argument depends entirely on YOU shifting the context away from the one that was obviously being used in the original letter. " Wow! I don't think I would have gotten that from your arguments until that explicit definition. Would you please use your quotes in context and explain how I was supposed to get that?
Are you the author of that letter? I ask only because they write with the same twisted analogies you use. For example, one might say that where the letter explicitly says, "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant," appears to imply the exact opposite of your explanation, "[I] argued that the letter's claim that CO2 is not a pollutant is false." This is made more confusing by the simple fact that, after a THIRD time, you have yet to show the explicitly in context examples for pollutants by the original definition I used that you are basing the ENTIRETY of this exchange on.
I DIDN'T change the context. Not at all. Here's the logical breakdown:
1) The letter explicitly says, "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant." 2) It's legal status states it is a pollutant, period. 3) I said, "A relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment." Something I most recently referred to as the, "press-release," definition.
There is NO CHANGE in context. None. I can't see the change, and since I'm the one with the literary impairment, as made clear by the many misspellings, grammatical errors and word choices, you will have to explain the inferred change of context, as you're not explaining it enough for me.
The whole of the argument begins when you said, "You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water," which was some undefined analogy about poisons that I lack the ability to infer from your terse comment. In another follow up, you went on to say, "In that context, things other than carbon dioxide -- things that in other contexts we might not consider to be pollutants -- can ALSO be considered pollutants," which I, apparently mistakenly, believed meant you could, in fact, supply examples. You'll note, I had been asking for them since before you explicitly maintained a context of pollutants (you can see why someone with limitations may have inferred that; heck, I'm still asking for it for the fourth time).
So, since you can't supply examples, as, apparently, I massively misunderstood your side of the conversation, I refer to my original point, "Would you please use your quotes in context and explain how I was supposed to get that?" However, do so to explain your whole-side of this conversation. I'm sure it wouldn't take you too long, just copy and paste your quotes like a normal discussion, following each point with an explanation, like Eric Raymond does with The Halloween Documents.
You know, if you'd like, I'd be happy to explain how I've been interpreting this conversation thus far. I'm guessing, given your rich skill set in literary and rhetorical comprehension, you might have guessed it. Which is amazing that you haven't been able to explain things in such a way that I could understand it, but I'm sure if you cover how a more apt individual, such as yourself, would have been able to correlate your communiqués thus far with what you had intended to explain, I might be capable of following it in future conversations. Afterall, slashdot has something good almost every day, and therefore, it's not unrealistic that we will both end up the same thread, perhaps even by way of control+F from time to time. If I can understand how it is you intend to be interpreted, I'm sure we can avoid all sorts of strange and bizarre back and forths such as this.
I appreciate how patient you have been with such an intellectually inhibited individual, such as myself. It's just that, from my limited ab
You didn't make an analogy, and you haven't presented pollutants. An analogy involves comparing two things to demonstrate their similarities. Not only did you include nothing to identify some form of pollutants vs poisons analogy in your original comment, as you neither mentioned toxicity effects or any condition that would suggest you were describing oxygen or water as something other than a pollutant, but you didn't give any other relative context for the phrase, "You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water."
My definition of a pollutant is relatively scientific within an ecological context, even though it wouldn't be used beyond a press release; however, if I were to place it in a white paper, it would read something far closer to, "A substance or condition in the form of a deposit, absorption, or adsorption of radioactive material, or of biological or chemical agents on or by structures, areas, personnel, or objects so acting upon, within, around or throughout the air, water, soil, flora or fauna that occur in concentrations which are disruptive, damaging, deteriorating or destructive within the collective factors of the biotic and abiotic vectors that act on part or in total on the collective value of organisms, populations or total ecological communities which, otherwise, sustain a definable and identifiable shared relationship of development within a consistent state of cycles over time."
I had actually spent some time breaking things down, so as not to seem unfairly exclusive. Truth be told, I'm not as happy with it, and normally, such a thing would be passed around for review among peers, but I'm going to consider this sufficiently definitive for our purposes.
I would like to add, if you don't want to talk about yourself, don't. I don't care about how much you don't want to talk about yourself, I just want you to clearly state your argument. I felt I had sufficiently implied that from the beginning, but as you keep inferring a personal attack, I'm telling you now, just don't even feel the need to mention you any further. This logic isn't about the individuals, which you seem to agree with. As for your inferring that you somehow represent anything other than your arguments, I have not intentionally implied it in the slightest. You ARE the collection of your arguments.
So, if I'm incapable of understanding, let me just check, since I must be incompetent of interpreting your literary and rhetorical depth, does, "In that context, things other than carbon dioxide -- things that in other contexts we might not consider to be pollutants -- can ALSO be considered pollutants," mean you have actual examples as pollutants that in either my original, collective or most recently sufficiently defined example (any or all, in the sense of posts not components as you had done in that paragraph) would prove your point, you know, in that context, under those definitions? After all, I apparently lack the ability to follow your metaphors, so, please, indulge me with your explicit and literal examples.
This is now the THIRD time I've asked you explicitly to support your claim. No metaphors, analogy, time wasted on you, just support your claim. I've made that as clear as I can. I have not used any detracting literary devices in this post; so, surely, you must understand that I am clearly stating that you list, "Things other than carbon dioxide -- things that in other contexts we might not consider to be pollutants -- can ALSO be considered pollutants.[...] Using the very context you used, I can define pretty much anything I want to be a pollutant." I honestly feel I've been very clear what constitutes a pollutant, even though, in that quote, you had chosen to include only a small fraction of the definition at that point, but I'm sure if your point is so valid and my whole point/definition was so weak, you must possess the capacity to clearly and explicitly state your pollutants.
Finally, I will append the definitions I have used to save yo
Water dissolves a great many compounds. Oxygen forms oxides and other compounds (in general, the more readily the higher the concentration).
See what you're doing there? You just quoted me saying, "The chemistry of the Earth's natural cycles and environs are identifiably altered under increased carbon dioxide uptake," and skimmed over the point that started it, "Then there's the COv2 is not a pollutant, even though, as a relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution."
All I am saying is that CO2 is a "pollutant" in the sense that water and oxygen are "poisons".
You didn't say that at all; in fact, your changing the context of the claim. What you said was, "You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water." You didn't say anything about poisons here. That was a claim another person under this article has discussed, but you didn't say that; it hasn't been a part of this thread, and it's not relevant to the what qualifies as a pollutant.
Carbon dioxide is rightfully singled out as a pollutant of significant risk. Other pollutants can hold more heat and/or change the chemistry of an environ more radically, but proportional to the actual output and chemical half-life, COv2 is the most dangerous among these pollutants.
You do not know who I am, nor do I care to tell you.
It doesn't matter who you are. I see you as another string of characters on website, an avatar for the logic you present. As I've said recently regarding ad hominem attack on Richard Stallman sometime in the past couple of months on slashdot, it doesn't matter who the person is. That's point of an idea in its purest: Regardless of the philosophy, intelligence, social awareness or persona, an idea is independent. It can be looked at, reviewed, tested and expounded upon.
You did nothing to actually contribute to the conversation. You haven't shown a weakness of logic on my part that didn't require altering the context, and even becoming more blatant about it in your follow up. Whether feeding trolls for entertainment or getting into a real debate (oddly, this seems to be a strange combination of both), I will include references if someone has implied the need for further information. Adding an unrelated context to weak counter-argument (which, as I pointed out, still ignored the point that started this) doesn't really add to a debate, it detracts. When you failed to put any further logic on your claim, you can't expect me to believe you had ANY intent of supporting point.
It was your latest closing statements that makes it clear which of us was in the mindset of a genuine debate. If you felt my response to your apparent incredulity was bragging, you may as well become a seventeenth concerned scientist, and avoid ongoing dialogues.
Have you ever listened to "Science Fridays" on NPR? Often, when a caller wants to throw some anti-established science talking point at a guest (or often, the host), Ira often asks a question along the lines of, "Is there any amount of research or explanation of physics that would allow you to reconsider your opinion?" The responses range from turning the question around (ignoring that the majority of researchers decide their next project based on testing shifts in data, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 ), changing the context (the I-think-that's-more-of-a-[political, philosophical, religious, moral]-question callers), or they often suggest that the information would have to be so over-whelming, it would be the equivalent of making their preferred reality a mere mist drop settling into an ocean.
As you've backed away from the context of the original debate, I guess you think your argument is more of a troll question?
The chemistry of the Earth's natural cycles and environs are identifiably altered under increased carbon dioxide uptake. Carbon dioxide forms acids with constituent components of the atmosphere, soil and water. Water is chemically neutral and oxygen readily balances out to the available reactions, contributing nothing to net chemical cycles on the Earth outside of return carbon that has been out of the cycles for thousands and millions of years (see Cretaceous Period vs the logic of biofuels and green chemistry).
However, I could be fair and ignore science and the world we currently live in, on the off chance your logic needs to be looked at for those circumstances. Actually, we don't have to, as if either of those were a current issue with similar consequences (and some of the conversation regarding the hydrogen economy suggests water could become some class of risk), we actually WOULD be having that conversation. That ISN'T our actual problem right now. Anything that had a similar long term consequence would cause the scientific community the SAME CONCERN.
Unlike you, however, I've actually thrown in some genuine, peer reviewed research. Feel free to add and any ACTUAL research you might have. None of that meta-research by people with readily confirmed biases. After all, my research sources come from a variety of institutions and have been around long enough to go past peer review and enter into the realm of confirmability.
I give all folks the right to quote, in part or in full, as well as deep link to my grammatically awful but informative post in all social and real world media with no costs so required. If they choose to fix up some spelling and grammar and knock off the slashdot meta-references, I'm cool with that too, so long as the useful information remains.
Slashdot Mirror
This here goddamn country went down hill the moment Erbammy Hussein got inter office. He plans on replacing our bones with some fancy polymer he's been puttin' in the fleride in city drinkin' water, along with that filter for schools to aid in indoctrination of youngin's.
Now, depending on who's got the moderator itch, I do have to throw in some absolutes:
Gnome is one of the worst attempts at stealing Winders for hackers who don't wanna pay shit for shit. It's only a hair worse than KDE, which doesn't got no shit for it that wasn't goin' for that awful mexican girlfriend system with the bouncin' ball. That was almost as bad Beboss thing that's always comin' back, but it still looks like 80's shit. Only IBM ever made a good Windows knock off in that Star Trek thingy, but it wasn't no good compared to what Bill in the buddies cooked up. That Winders is better than Meth!
Now, in case a funny counter-corrects an offtopic, allow me to inform you that all metamoderators have a history of raping their own mothers and burning stray cats. Now a score of 1 is still possible, and anyone who sees that should mark it as overrated.
To respond to this so late, but...
Normally, when dotters take to correcting a post en mass, there isn't a reason to cover anything; however, the logic of, "We got these things 25-50 years later from a theory, but anything that doesn't contribute this quarter is a waste of money," would be sufficient to kill the theory of economic value versus investment. We got lots of things from the money dumped on the Space Race and the succeeding era, but from a dollar in to dollar out that month, year or even decade perspective, it wouldn't have appeared to be that affordable, even though those technologies, from fuel cells (more than just one type), to photovoltaics, to advanced ceramics and plastics, account for more economic profit today than the most expensive year of the US Independent Space Exploration Era.
I, however, wanted to plug, in a non-spammy way, a couple of places on YouTube that shows current payoff. While it doesn't focus on the LHC, it's a follow up on technologies that are otherwise related to what is being done at the LHC.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BackstageScience?feature=g-all-s#p/u/43/12KaFItjgl0
This is YT Channel BackstageScience, with a feature call for the video titled, "Lap of a Synchotron". In this video (as well as the many in that list), you will find discussion about many of the assists to, primarily, materials science that comes from the many research activities in the beamline branches.
http://www.youtube.com/user/DiamondLightSource
This is the same facility, but these videos are more on the individual research projects going on at that facility.
Synchotrons are relatively expensive, and when they were the new thing, they were more expensive to construct, maintain and run than many infrastructure projects; they were the LHC of their time. Now, we have safer planes, improved medicine and more advanced super- and semi-conductors. Intentionally producing nanoparticles has been a relatively new thing for commercial industries, but that new economy is entirely dependent on technology like the synchotron.
BackstageScience has a video titled, :"Muon Man", which is an interview with one of the scientists in general. If you asked someone 25 years ago what practical applications existed for muons, you would have been told they can be used to detect time dilation in accordance to Special relativity or changes in a protons charge field. Today, we use the to detect restricted radio-active materials and peer into the inner workings of large-scale geological activities, which will eventually allows us to detect volcanic eruptions and, quite possibly, earth quakes.
With regard to this specific project, the LHC's job is to understand the fundamental structures of energy at very small scales. The idea it's stuck on the Higgs boson research shows a lot of ignorance, but the kind one might expect from the limited understanding that comes from someone who would say, "[A]nything other than the proton, neutron, electron and photon," is exotic or has never produced any useful technology. E^2=M^2C^4+P^2C^2 has brought us anti-matter, which eventually led to improved medical technologies. The fact is, large projects, like the LHC, are necessary for such advancements, but too expensive for even a single portion of the economic spectrum to manage for the initial time between theory and application. To say it was too expensive because you can't see any advantage in it shows a failure of understanding how doctorates lead to economic and social advantages. Perhaps you should join slashdot with the moniker Lysenko, so, we will all know how ignorant you are about the importance of advancing science through large scale. publicly funded projects.
It was technically accurate, and besides, we renamed Uranus to Urectum to get around that stupid joke.
Really?
See, as I look at it, burning petroleum from other planets on this one should make it even more Venusian than burning the pre-solar petroleum under the basaltic plains.
I wonder if we'll see some steam-punk space travel of using our petroleum to get more petroleum elsewhere. Go us!
Due to the idea of showing aggressiveness, out-stripping capability/capacity or the comparative extreme, everything from computing to politics has some extreme language. Explode, nuclear, destroy, execute, shoot-down, assassinate, surgical strike and war, which have been around forever, have found new companions with jihad, terrorism, dirty bomb and shock and awe. Phrases that may eternally be in bad taste have a tendency to pop up, such as holocaust, genocide, nazi (not that the Interweb Tubes have stopped that one), crash a plane into, Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) and Windows 95.
To paraphrase what Pons said to Fleischmann, "Ehh, close enough."
Or does posting as an AnonCow count as a pinch of salt?
In case anyone doubted the use of the term, I present google translate of a financial piece; hover on the article's title for untranslated usage:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/comment-la-finance-fait-exploser-les-inegalites_fr_art_1094_54437.html&ei=49stT6qBNtCztwey0oTzDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDgQ7gEwAQ
You could extend the point by noting that Theories of Science are the best models of knowledge, and yet, they are always unable to cover all possible aspects. Those Theories are drawn from matching the data extrapolations which are themselves sorted by the Laws of Sciences which have limited practicality relative to their own application. And as Laws are inherently incomplete, the Math which proves them serves limited use beyond the paper or program which creates or uses it. Or, as one person has put it, "Did you know the '[Philosophiæ Naturalis] Principia [Mathematica]' has an error rate?" If you can't know every value of every dimension in the whole Universe, or otherwise, are not Maxwell's Demon, it's impossible to prove bupkis. Even the Doctor of Gallifrey can be suprised, and he knows this history of most civilizations in the Universe from the near beginning to the near end.
As a relative output
The result of a process
Outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes)
That result which stands separate of the naturally continuing and constituting processes, both of biological and non-biological nature, given the scope of the planet
[This is a breaking up of the definition of a pollutant or pollution (as stated), to recall the reason it as been put forward. This break is justified as to define the conditions and boundary before the introduction of a variation.]
It does count
Carbon dioxide (implied from the pronoun's precedent), given when placed within this context, would and is objectively considered
[Now, we return to the definition to see the effects of a variation]
As a deposit
In the form of a definable addition
Which changes the chemistry
An alteration (outside of the conditions/boundary), to the cumulative molecular cycles in thermodynamic equilibrium [the difference between mere laws and actual theories]
Of the surrounding environment
An immediate and identifiable area.
-----
I defined a pollutant that took an aside to include CO2. No context is changed. You can say it over and over again, but in the end. no one who understands debates and the very words and phrases you have been using, would define the context as changed. If you don't understand why the context isn't changed because they merely defined CO2 would show your lack of comprehension of why they chose to do it in the first place. That is logic targeted at people who would say I did change the context to my favor, regardless of whether or not you agree with them in the first place. My total definition neither requires human activity or ignores that something that exists as part of the boundaries before the variation of that definition may also be counted as pollution -- This is why I demonstrated that effect in my first response to you with actual research. Not only can COv2 be increased from natural sources to change the chemistry of an area, but it would be an entirely natural cause, i.e. volcanic fumes, large fires and the thawing of methane hydrate near a continental shelf.
"They very clearly described NATURAL processes. You, on the other hand, approached it from the context of UNnatural (industrial or at least man-caused) processes," directly contradicts your claim of, "I neither missed your point, or inferred as you claim." In that first pair sentences, you did both. Remember how I kept asking for examples of your claim? Well, I was able to give an example that supports my definition and counters your assumptions. That's what people do in debates. But, let us be honest, this hasn't really been a debate. You should have just quoted their logic of defining CO2 as not a pollutant, made your observation, and, quite frankly, probably have done so under your own thread, unless you wanted to know why I didn't waste time on their technique of avoiding an actual definition.
Every time you insist that the context was changed, you're falling for the very reason they did what they did that. They didn't define a pollutant. They can't do so unless they can explicitly include terminology that would insure that nothing that happens naturally can constitute as pollution. I just demonstrated here (and SxOx mentioned in another post) that naturally occurring chemistry, under naturally occurring circumstances, would count within Ecological studies as pollution. And again, that's also a reminder that Ecology, which is the general science under which Climatology, Oceanography, Soil sciences and Global Warming would be studied, is the definition to use. not Materials sciences, not Organic Chemistry, not Medicine, not Social and Cultural Studies, not Electronic and Electrical Engineering, but the definition that could be applied in the Ecological context.
Just because something isn't explicitly stated doesn't mean it isn't part of the context. Science is dependent up
Funny, maybe, but that's not interesting. If I had a YT link or something, maybe both, but really, that was just a dump.
Perhaps, as if by magic, you missed THE WHOLE POINT of my original post. Context wasn't changed. I didn't even "[approach] it from the context of UNnatural...processes." Pollution, within the ecological definition, either of mine here, doesn't require anthropogenic processes to be involved. You inferred that out of your association with COv2. They merely defined COv2, not a pollutant. My providing a definition doesn't change context, as the whole letter is about ecological balances at its very core.
As you are willing to use some basic and common fallacy references, you might want to check on "Masked man fallacy," or "Affirming a disjunct," as well as anything syllogical. In an actual debate between the letter and my original post, I removed the dependence on the fallacy by defining the term within the same context. In scored or competitive debates, that would have been defining the context, or thoroughing; this would not be changing the context. Global warming is an ecological debate. The definition is an ecological definition. The debater used the term in such a way that it could not be removed from the ecological context without defining it; ergo, my defining it within that context does nothing to shift it.
Claiming that defining CO2 creates a "not-a-pollutant" definition involves making an inference that would be readily shot down in an actual debate simply by defining or expanding on any number of things outside of the intended range, which avoids confronting the actual point. If you went in a debate and raised your reductio ad absurdum point, you would have allowed the other side to waste time on expounding on your examples and even claiming you're proving their point for them. THEN, if they really wanted to put you in your place for wasting 2+ minutes of time, they would use non-ecological definitions of pollution and contamination making any number of unsound parallels, i.e. "We have a statute limiting times and volumes for noise, to avoid, 'noise pollution,' but if I hold the loudest rock concert of all time in my backyard (presuming North America, and not above fatal decibel levels), no one in Australia is going to be calling my local police. Noise, like CO2, is something already in the air," yada-yada-yada.
My article was about adding the context the facts are taken from. It's only by stripping away context, just like not actually defining a pollutant, does the logic appear legitimate. The definition I provided, which fits the actual ecological context, fits within the whole concept of providing context. If you were in a competitive debate and wasted time like you had suggested, you wouldn't have been anywhere near as effective. They could, as you attempted, to call it a shift, but a judge would insist that they define a pollutant, or provide evidence the definition was inaccurate. If X != Y, defining X does not define Y.
When you made your initial post, I asked you for example to show the flaw of my definition, because A) it was the only explicit definition, B) you had just quoted it, and C) that is what you actually do in a debate. No one who was in a competitive debate would have chosen to waste time on the "not-a-pollutant' definition, since it wasn't intended to be one. It was merely meant to look like one. You can waste the time getting them to define one in hopes of making them look like they disproved their own point, but they will always be capable of claiming that it's technical, or the fact that you're discussing it shows it's up for debate, which provides the opportunity, should you later define it, to say that your point is the one that's up for debate.
If you think I changed the context, try bringing the letter and my original post to someone who's more familiar with traditional debates; That is, someone whose experience doesn't involve political debates, as, apparently, all of reality is up for debate between politicians. Solipsistically speaking, I don't know why I let them do that, but neither do they.
I remember, back during the tv series (non-animated), Robocop couldn't tell if a politician was lying because he was so used to never really telling the truth with the words he uses everyday. Hilarious excuse for why Murphy couldn't figure out what was going on.
It was immediately followed by the link, or was there somewhere that phrase appears?
As I noticed following the link, it became pretty clear how that line relates to the paragraph regarding not being able to locate where (or more to it, what) the heat not leaving the Earth was doing. Ironically, it ties in with the production of formic acid, which relates to the methane release from warmer oceans that other denialist blogs are trying to claim is a completely unrelated to Global Warming. Formic acid, as you know, must be released through volcanic actions that the geological surveys around the world aren't detecting, and not the breakdown of the methane plumes diffusing through the warmer oceans that released them from their trapped and indirectly frozen states, like the rhythmic patterns of the dancing at a luau.
Spot the ironic statement; hint, it starts with F and ends with U.
You have to be more specific, and I will extricate the research you have difficulty locating.
Ignoring the definitions of smell and odor, there are a multitude of theoretical causes that allow for smell; so, making such an assumption is presenting a view of ignorance.
Pollutant is a scientifically defined term. They haven't DEFINED, "pollution," or, "pollutant." They defined COv2. That's it. Very simple. No context can be changed if they haven't defined it otherwise.
Otherwise, your logic is anything that isn't exhaled by each of us, isn't a colorless and odorless gas or isn't used by plants, or any combination of your choice, is a pollutant; ergo, diamonds are pollutants. See, I came up with an example. I can do that. You're still welcome to, for the fifth time.
Since they didn't define pollutant (you may re-read it if you hadn't noticed that), I'm left to assume either a recognized definition, or what you're using to define as an apparent contextual definition.
Is this why you said Oxygen and Water!? You thought that was a definition of something that wasn't a pollutant, wasn't it? You came into this with that as your definition of, "not a pollutant!?"
Didn't you know you exhale most of what's in the air and plants can use large number of things? Sulfurous oxides, for example, which are a principle component in acid rain at higher concentrations (anything about three to four times the pre-industrial output, coincidentally, induces an effective level of acidification), are exhaled by you (mostly from oral biofilms), but are a necessary part of providing sulfur to plants when the resultant soil reactions deposit the sulfur in the soil?
I'm interpreting this bizarre definition as what you're using, as it's the only thing that provides any logical point to your own first comment. Again, I provided another pollutant example, because I can do that.
Let's see if I've got this logic worked out over this exchange, because I think I've finally seen it. In chronological order:
2009:
The EPA declares CO2 a pollutant (fitting in with 100 years of climatological research)
You might note, by the way, a strawman argument would be superficially and artificially structured. This, however, is an actual point, that predates the letter, and that the EPA would be the US authority for defining a pollutant. As the US actually lagged behind other nations, you'll find many other agencies around the world had already included it as a pollutant.
2012:
The letter, instead of defining a pollutant, attempts, instead, to define what CO2 is:
"The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle."
I, before actually getting there, already knowing where the logic is going next, hammered out a quick definition for pollution/pollutant for comparative purposes before I even reached that specific paragraph (you'll note the paragraph order). I defined it as:
"A relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution."
That definition takes into account the collective exhalations, forest fires and even volcanic activities within its parenthetical.
Then you, for some reason, take their definition of CO2 as a definition of what can't be a pollutant, resulting in your first exchange:
"You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water."
You had also mention reductio ad absurdum, which, ironically, I demonstrated with my SxOx example.
I, believing you were talking about my example, as, again, it is the only definition for a pollutant thus far, went into detail as to why COv2 is a pollutant. I then went on to say that, had water or oxygen had the same effective harm as COv2, you would notice the scientific community worried about them as well. I invited you to enter some of your research (the first request for any such type of example) to identify why you would make the claim you had. I, feeling it would only be fair to identify the logic that my post was using, included a number of example re
Sounds like a fair enough ideas.
"You argued that the letter's claim that CO2 is not a pollutant is false. But your argument depends entirely on YOU shifting the context away from the one that was obviously being used in the original letter. " Wow! I don't think I would have gotten that from your arguments until that explicit definition. Would you please use your quotes in context and explain how I was supposed to get that?
Are you the author of that letter? I ask only because they write with the same twisted analogies you use. For example, one might say that where the letter explicitly says, "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant," appears to imply the exact opposite of your explanation, "[I] argued that the letter's claim that CO2 is not a pollutant is false." This is made more confusing by the simple fact that, after a THIRD time, you have yet to show the explicitly in context examples for pollutants by the original definition I used that you are basing the ENTIRETY of this exchange on.
I DIDN'T change the context. Not at all. Here's the logical breakdown:
1) The letter explicitly says, "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant."
2) It's legal status states it is a pollutant, period.
3) I said, "A relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment." Something I most recently referred to as the, "press-release," definition.
There is NO CHANGE in context. None. I can't see the change, and since I'm the one with the literary impairment, as made clear by the many misspellings, grammatical errors and word choices, you will have to explain the inferred change of context, as you're not explaining it enough for me.
The whole of the argument begins when you said, "You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water," which was some undefined analogy about poisons that I lack the ability to infer from your terse comment. In another follow up, you went on to say, "In that context, things other than carbon dioxide -- things that in other contexts we might not consider to be pollutants -- can ALSO be considered pollutants," which I, apparently mistakenly, believed meant you could, in fact, supply examples. You'll note, I had been asking for them since before you explicitly maintained a context of pollutants (you can see why someone with limitations may have inferred that; heck, I'm still asking for it for the fourth time).
So, since you can't supply examples, as, apparently, I massively misunderstood your side of the conversation, I refer to my original point, "Would you please use your quotes in context and explain how I was supposed to get that?" However, do so to explain your whole-side of this conversation. I'm sure it wouldn't take you too long, just copy and paste your quotes like a normal discussion, following each point with an explanation, like Eric Raymond does with The Halloween Documents.
You know, if you'd like, I'd be happy to explain how I've been interpreting this conversation thus far. I'm guessing, given your rich skill set in literary and rhetorical comprehension, you might have guessed it. Which is amazing that you haven't been able to explain things in such a way that I could understand it, but I'm sure if you cover how a more apt individual, such as yourself, would have been able to correlate your communiqués thus far with what you had intended to explain, I might be capable of following it in future conversations. Afterall, slashdot has something good almost every day, and therefore, it's not unrealistic that we will both end up the same thread, perhaps even by way of control+F from time to time. If I can understand how it is you intend to be interpreted, I'm sure we can avoid all sorts of strange and bizarre back and forths such as this.
I appreciate how patient you have been with such an intellectually inhibited individual, such as myself. It's just that, from my limited ab
You didn't make an analogy, and you haven't presented pollutants. An analogy involves comparing two things to demonstrate their similarities. Not only did you include nothing to identify some form of pollutants vs poisons analogy in your original comment, as you neither mentioned toxicity effects or any condition that would suggest you were describing oxygen or water as something other than a pollutant, but you didn't give any other relative context for the phrase, "You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water."
My definition of a pollutant is relatively scientific within an ecological context, even though it wouldn't be used beyond a press release; however, if I were to place it in a white paper, it would read something far closer to, "A substance or condition in the form of a deposit, absorption, or adsorption of radioactive material, or of biological or chemical agents on or by structures, areas, personnel, or objects so acting upon, within, around or throughout the air, water, soil, flora or fauna that occur in concentrations which are disruptive, damaging, deteriorating or destructive within the collective factors of the biotic and abiotic vectors that act on part or in total on the collective value of organisms, populations or total ecological communities which, otherwise, sustain a definable and identifiable shared relationship of development within a consistent state of cycles over time."
I had actually spent some time breaking things down, so as not to seem unfairly exclusive. Truth be told, I'm not as happy with it, and normally, such a thing would be passed around for review among peers, but I'm going to consider this sufficiently definitive for our purposes.
I would like to add, if you don't want to talk about yourself, don't. I don't care about how much you don't want to talk about yourself, I just want you to clearly state your argument. I felt I had sufficiently implied that from the beginning, but as you keep inferring a personal attack, I'm telling you now, just don't even feel the need to mention you any further. This logic isn't about the individuals, which you seem to agree with. As for your inferring that you somehow represent anything other than your arguments, I have not intentionally implied it in the slightest. You ARE the collection of your arguments.
So, if I'm incapable of understanding, let me just check, since I must be incompetent of interpreting your literary and rhetorical depth, does, "In that context, things other than carbon dioxide -- things that in other contexts we might not consider to be pollutants -- can ALSO be considered pollutants," mean you have actual examples as pollutants that in either my original, collective or most recently sufficiently defined example (any or all, in the sense of posts not components as you had done in that paragraph) would prove your point, you know, in that context, under those definitions? After all, I apparently lack the ability to follow your metaphors, so, please, indulge me with your explicit and literal examples.
This is now the THIRD time I've asked you explicitly to support your claim. No metaphors, analogy, time wasted on you, just support your claim. I've made that as clear as I can. I have not used any detracting literary devices in this post; so, surely, you must understand that I am clearly stating that you list, "Things other than carbon dioxide -- things that in other contexts we might not consider to be pollutants -- can ALSO be considered pollutants.[...] Using the very context you used, I can define pretty much anything I want to be a pollutant." I honestly feel I've been very clear what constitutes a pollutant, even though, in that quote, you had chosen to include only a small fraction of the definition at that point, but I'm sure if your point is so valid and my whole point/definition was so weak, you must possess the capacity to clearly and explicitly state your pollutants.
Finally, I will append the definitions I have used to save yo
Water dissolves a great many compounds. Oxygen forms oxides and other compounds (in general, the more readily the higher the concentration).
See what you're doing there? You just quoted me saying, "The chemistry of the Earth's natural cycles and environs are identifiably altered under increased carbon dioxide uptake," and skimmed over the point that started it, "Then there's the COv2 is not a pollutant, even though, as a relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution."
All I am saying is that CO2 is a "pollutant" in the sense that water and oxygen are "poisons".
You didn't say that at all; in fact, your changing the context of the claim. What you said was, "You could say exactly the same, with the same logic and sincerity, about oxygen and water." You didn't say anything about poisons here. That was a claim another person under this article has discussed, but you didn't say that; it hasn't been a part of this thread, and it's not relevant to the what qualifies as a pollutant.
Carbon dioxide is rightfully singled out as a pollutant of significant risk. Other pollutants can hold more heat and/or change the chemistry of an environ more radically, but proportional to the actual output and chemical half-life, COv2 is the most dangerous among these pollutants.
You do not know who I am, nor do I care to tell you.
It doesn't matter who you are. I see you as another string of characters on website, an avatar for the logic you present. As I've said recently regarding ad hominem attack on Richard Stallman sometime in the past couple of months on slashdot, it doesn't matter who the person is. That's point of an idea in its purest: Regardless of the philosophy, intelligence, social awareness or persona, an idea is independent. It can be looked at, reviewed, tested and expounded upon.
You did nothing to actually contribute to the conversation. You haven't shown a weakness of logic on my part that didn't require altering the context, and even becoming more blatant about it in your follow up. Whether feeding trolls for entertainment or getting into a real debate (oddly, this seems to be a strange combination of both), I will include references if someone has implied the need for further information. Adding an unrelated context to weak counter-argument (which, as I pointed out, still ignored the point that started this) doesn't really add to a debate, it detracts. When you failed to put any further logic on your claim, you can't expect me to believe you had ANY intent of supporting point.
It was your latest closing statements that makes it clear which of us was in the mindset of a genuine debate. If you felt my response to your apparent incredulity was bragging, you may as well become a seventeenth concerned scientist, and avoid ongoing dialogues.
Have you ever listened to "Science Fridays" on NPR? Often, when a caller wants to throw some anti-established science talking point at a guest (or often, the host), Ira often asks a question along the lines of, "Is there any amount of research or explanation of physics that would allow you to reconsider your opinion?" The responses range from turning the question around (ignoring that the majority of researchers decide their next project based on testing shifts in data, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 ), changing the context (the I-think-that's-more-of-a-[political, philosophical, religious, moral]-question callers), or they often suggest that the information would have to be so over-whelming, it would be the equivalent of making their preferred reality a mere mist drop settling into an ocean.
As you've backed away from the context of the original debate, I guess you think your argument is more of a troll question?
The chemistry of the Earth's natural cycles and environs are identifiably altered under increased carbon dioxide uptake. Carbon dioxide forms acids with constituent components of the atmosphere, soil and water. Water is chemically neutral and oxygen readily balances out to the available reactions, contributing nothing to net chemical cycles on the Earth outside of return carbon that has been out of the cycles for thousands and millions of years (see Cretaceous Period vs the logic of biofuels and green chemistry).
However, I could be fair and ignore science and the world we currently live in, on the off chance your logic needs to be looked at for those circumstances. Actually, we don't have to, as if either of those were a current issue with similar consequences (and some of the conversation regarding the hydrogen economy suggests water could become some class of risk), we actually WOULD be having that conversation. That ISN'T our actual problem right now. Anything that had a similar long term consequence would cause the scientific community the SAME CONCERN.
Unlike you, however, I've actually thrown in some genuine, peer reviewed research. Feel free to add and any ACTUAL research you might have. None of that meta-research by people with readily confirmed biases. After all, my research sources come from a variety of institutions and have been around long enough to go past peer review and enter into the realm of confirmability.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00164.x/full
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985cca..proc..546B
http://wwwzb.fz-juelich.de/contentenrichment/inhaltsverzeichnisse/bis2009/ISBN-0-471-72017-8.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000GB001278.shtml
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00864.x/full
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/03-5055
ftp://ftp.imarpe.pe/Curso_Modelos/Biblio%20Arnaud%202/MEPS2008-Acidification.pdf%23page=5
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QwPqRGcRzQM5ffhPjAdT/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/3/414.short
But I will accept useful supplements, such as this...for now...muah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
I give all folks the right to quote, in part or in full, as well as deep link to my grammatically awful but informative post in all social and real world media with no costs so required. If they choose to fix up some spelling and grammar and knock off the slashdot meta-references, I'm cool with that too, so long as the useful information remains.
That's the best I can do to avoid obscurity.
F~3 those scientists.
Didn't I just say that?