Best Trumpian argument for pollution ever!

[billvon 2,396]

On Facebook, during a discussion on why there were power shutoffs in the forests of California:

Someone pointed out that those safety shutoffs happened due to fire risks, and that the risk of fire was going up due to the warming climate.  One of the more vocal people on the thread said that was happening, but not because of climate change - but because the air was getting cleaner due to short sighted liberal environmental programs.  "Clean air burns forests faster," he claimed.

So there you have it.  Clean air causes bigger forest fires.  Perhaps we could send out the Gazpacho Police to rake the forests as a temporary measure, until we can get enough particulates, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide back into the air to make things safe.

[CygnusX-1 42]

You can't argue with his facts, though. If you replace 30% of the oxygen molecules with carbon dioxide molecules or even CO, fires are less likely to start due to the reduced oxygen in the atmosphere. That is a fact!

[billvon 2,396]

31 minutes ago, CygnusX-1 said:

You can't argue with his facts, though. If you replace 30% of the oxygen molecules with carbon dioxide molecules or even CO

Carbon monoxide is actually flammable, believe it or not.  It burns in oxygen to become (not suprisingly) CO2.  If you replace ALL the oxygen with carbon monoxide, of course, there's no fire risk.

[kallend 1,623]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Carbon monoxide is actually flammable, believe it or not.  It burns in oxygen to become (not suprisingly) CO2.  If you replace ALL the oxygen with carbon monoxide, of course, there's no fire risk.

As I recall from high school chemistry (1961) it burns with "a lambent blue flame".  Only time I ever remember the adjective "lambent" being used

[gowlerk 1,910]

42 minutes ago, kallend said:

As I recall from high school chemistry (1961) it burns with "a lambent blue flame".  Only time I ever remember the adjective "lambent" being used

Thank you. A very poetic word I just learned.