3 ms·

I don't think the IIB post is partisan. This author says, "they emit almost completely clean CO2 (note that bar global warming, CO2 isn’t considered harmful)"

I don't think the IIB post is partisan. This author says, "they emit almost completely clean CO2 (note that bar global warming, CO2 isn’t considered harmful)" ... To my ears, that's a major understatement ("bar global warming"). I'm almost inclined to think it's more partisan than the original post, to be so dismissive of climate change. But beyond that, the point that seems most incongruous is the suggestion that because volcanos emit a more explicitly toxic gas (S02) that we shouldn't have an awareness of our own emissions and their effect on the environment. By comparing it to a volcano's emissions, I am simply impressed by the scale. I think you really have to read into this to derive a moral/political statement. Nobody is trying to hide the effects of S02.

wdewind 16y ago
I don't think it's intentionally partisan, I think it's simply under thought (like, at this point, the vast majority of IIB's stuff). It's not that you don't get a comparison, it's that the comparison doesn't really mean anything. When you are comparing these numbers you want to understand the impact they have, not just the numbers themselves. As the OP said, it's simply misleading to portray this relationship as meaningful: it's not. The only value of these numbers, as you have said, is to have an awareness of their relative effect on the environment. That's not what's being presented here.