Dangerous CO2 Poisoning Situation

President Obama says that 400 ppm CO2 causes heart attacks and asthma, but this person is actually forcing 40,000 PPM CO2 into the lungs of the NFL’s 249th draft pick.

ScreenHunter_225 Jun. 01 07.08

The NFL should have never permitted such a vile act of carbon pollution.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Dangerous CO2 Poisoning Situation

  1. Chuck says:

    Good sense of humor! Love not being PC!

  2. gator69 says:

    Real men high five.

  3. emsnews says:

    And this is why you guys are so disliked.

    You can’t help it. Hating gays, hating most women, hating anything ‘liberal’ even if it is very, very healthy or good.

    Knee jerk salivation is killing this site.

    • Scott Scarborough says:

      So you admit that breathing in 40,000 ppm of CO2 is healthy? How about supporting your accusations with any proof at all! OH, I forgot, your a liberal.

    • _Jim says:

      Another post by the village idiot; same old same old. Please, just go away …

    • Joseph says:

      Where did Steve or anyone else say they hated gays?

      • _Jim says:

        ALL liberals think ANYBODY not in their camp HATES THEM.

        A permanent “Look at me, I am victim” mentality. Elliot Rogers (sp?) type thinking.

        A characteristic seen in most all libs …

    • Pointing out the insanity of labeling CO2 as a toxin is anti-gay?

      I can’t fix your disordered thought process. You will have to do that yourself.

    • _Jim says:

      re: emsnews June 1, 2014 at 1:00 pm
      … Knee jerk salivation is killing this site.

      Typical five-minute-memory librul who just a DAY ago (5-31-2014) must have read this:

      Title: If You Don’t Like This Blog …
      Posted on May 31, 2014 by stevengoddard

      … feel free to have endless circular discussions lasting for years over pretend science elsewhere, and leave this blog for the adults.

      – – – – – – – –
      .

      .

    • James Anderson says:

      Liberals will never change. The only free speech is theirs.

    • Jl says:

      So showing a picture that was slashed across newspapers all over the country is “hating gays”? How so? And “most women”? Really? If you like living under the thought police, stay on your side.

    • Bob Johnston says:

      You can’t help it. Hating gays, hating most women, hating anything ‘liberal’ even if it is very, very healthy or good.

      Posting a picture of two guys kissing now means you hate gays? It appears more to me to be a PC picture of people kissing. I think it more likely you’re the hateful person for thinking this was an example of bigotry.

      And can I please get an example of something that is “liberal” and very, very healthy and good”? I have no idea what you’re talking about so an example would be helpful.

    • gator69 says:

      “You can’t help it. Hating gays, hating most women, hating anything ‘liberal’…”

      I believe you mean “progressive”, and not liberal. Real Liberals believe in something called “liberty”, and are the kind of people who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Real Liberals, like me, would never dream of telling you how to live your life, unless you were infringing on the rights of another.

      You are a wolf in sheep’s clothing, just like the original avatar of the Fabian Society, which invented modern Progressivism. You are no liberal.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      And this is why you guys are so disliked.

      You got it wrong. I’m well liked by my Progressive neighbors. They think I am exotic and really cute in my man clothes and boots, uttering something about limited government and not liking busybodies telling me what to do. I’ve overheard one of them at a party saying to a Boulder comrade:

      “One of my neighbors is a conservative but he is not a bad man!”

  4. _Jim says:

    ..
    .
    IS THERE A BIGGER DISINCENTIVE TO WATCHING NFL GAMES?
    .
    .
    If there is, I can’t think of any.
    .
    .

  5. Jeo says:

    Strange…. It’s so vile yet posted over and over here 😉

  6. bobmaginnis says:

    Not about the CO2, but “…Many of the public-health benefits associated with the regulation stem from the fact that the phasing out of older coal-fired plants will cut soot, or fine particulate matter, which is linked to both heart and lung disease.”

    • _Jim says:

      Not about the CO2,

      What do you mean, it’s NOT about the CO2 WHEN the intent is to LIMIT the amount of CO2 …

    • Jeffk says:

      China doesn’t seem to be dying off. Their population and India are still growing.

    • gator69 says:

      Bob needs to throw away the lava lamps and join the 21st Century. We have been working on technology to remove soot for over 90 years now, and have reduced it to near zero.

      “The first electrostatic precipitator (ESP) was introduced in 1923 to reduce soot emissions. This used electrical fields to remove particulate matter from a boiler’s flue gas, much in the way that static electricity causes dust to cling to certain types of materials. During the 1930s, several units were installed on German power plants, reducing emissions by 75-80%. Post-war, in many countries where coal use was significant, it gradually became standard practice to fit ESP systems to power plants. Later, ‘baghouses’ were introduced; these operate like large-scale vacuum cleaners, capturing dust particles in felt or woven fabric bags. Both baghouses and ESPs are capable of capturing 99% or more of the particulates in the flue gas. Today, many coal-burning power plants throughout the world employ one or even both of these devices.”

      http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/site/2010/home/about-information/iea-content-pages/what-are-clean-coal-technologies?

      Maybe if these hippies would venture out if their pot smoke filled vans, they would see how clean our skies have become.

      • tom0mason says:

        And if the coal power station change over to ‘biomas’ then much of the regulations for soot and ash do not apply.
        “The future is hazy, the future is a green smog!”

  7. Jeffk says:

    Another thing, how come climate quacks believe in evolution everywhere else– except when adapting to “climate change”? Surely we can still evolve with changing climate, like in the past? Why don’t they believe that in this particular subject and time?

    • Jl says:

      Yes-Funny how man adapted to worse changes thousands of years ago with limited brain power and zero technology, but now we’re all doomed.

  8. Bob Knows says:

    That kind of disgusting filth has no place on a decent team or competition.

  9. Gamecock says:

    emsnews says:
    June 1, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    Knee jerk salivation is killing this site.

    ===============

    Thanks for the news. I didn’t know the site was dying.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s