SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | Politics of Energy


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (29852)2/22/2012 6:29:02 PM
From: sm1th
   of 59028
 
we're now about 7 billion people .....in 1960 we were 3 billion

So is your solution to go back to a population of 3 billion? That would certainly cut emissions.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (29872)2/22/2012 7:02:41 PM
From: teevee
2 Recommendations   of 59028
 
JF Sheppard,

You don't believe the CO2 data but can't add anything that disputes it.....you know what that makes you, of course.

We all know C02 is going up but so what. C02 is not a significant factor in change in global temperatures, which happen to be headed down while C02 levels are increasing. I suggest you get a medical to check the oxygen levels in your blood as it appears your brain is undergoing oxygen depravation.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Eric who wrote (29866)2/22/2012 7:12:17 PM
From: teevee
3 Recommendations   of 59028
 
We are losing land based plants at an historic rate. Where do your numbers come from?

Try doing some of your own homework instead of reading (and posting) tabloid eco-ranting about the end of the world.

For your edification:

Phytoplankton account for half of all photosynthetic activity on Earth. Thus phytoplankton are responsible for much of the oxygen present in the Earth's atmosphere – half of the total amount produced by all plant life. Their cumulative energy fixation in carbon compounds ( primary production) is the basis for the vast majority of oceanic and also many freshwater food webs ( chemosynthesis is a notable exception).

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Eric who wrote (29866)2/22/2012 7:14:18 PM
From: i-node
2 Recommendations   of 59028
 
>> We are losing land based plants at an historic rate. Where do your numbers come from?

Respectfully, as with global warming and energy in general, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Certainly, in the US (which has close to 10% of the world's trees), there are more trees around than there were 100 years ago.

100 years ago, a stand of timber would be clear cut and that was that. Today, we cut it, we plant it properly and with new trees that best meet our objectives, we thin it on schedule, we protect it from destruction by fire and disease, and the result is we have more trees than we did 100 years ago.

We do this on timberland we own and pretty much everyone around us does the same. Not because the government tells us to, but because that will maximize the returns on our investments. Large timber growers like Plum Creek and Deltic are extremely aware of the value their timber investments represent and they don't waste it. In my experience, most small timber growers are cognizant of the same need to use their land wisely. It is money.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (29872)2/22/2012 7:18:47 PM
From: i-node
2 Recommendations   of 59028
 
>> You don't believe the CO2 data but can't add anything that disputes it...

I really don't know to what extent, if any, it is a problem. As I tried to point out in the earlier post, I don't know what the evidence is that emission of more CO2 is creating a real problem. I know CO2 levels are supposedly going up, but I don't know whether people caused it or something else did. And I don't know whether it matters in any meaningful way.

The bottom line is that today's hysteria is totally unwarranted.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: i-node who wrote (29878)2/22/2012 9:33:02 PM
From: J_F_Shepard
   of 59028
 
"The bottom line is that today's hysteria is totally unwarranted."

And how do you arrive at that bottom line, you have any numbers or just a bias.... Do you think there is a giant conspiracy among the thousands of scientists in the world and the hundreds of nations???

"CO2 levels are supposedly going up, but I don't know whether people caused it or something else did"

And what would that something else be???? What would be the most likely source of CO2, ...your local beverage distributor? CO2 has a higher thermal resistance than air....would be the effect of that on temperature if it's concentration increased....

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: teevee who wrote (29875)2/22/2012 9:35:28 PM
From: J_F_Shepard
   of 59028
 
" global temperatures, which happen to be headed down while C02 levels are increasing."

You've mentioned that twice.....what's your source????? Everything I've seen is the opposite.....

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: i-node who wrote (29877)2/22/2012 10:00:42 PM
From: J_F_Shepard
   of 59028
 
Are you trying to say CO2 concentrations observe national boundries????

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: i-node who wrote (29773)2/22/2012 10:12:36 PM
From: J_F_Shepard
   of 59028
 
"Southwestern announced their 500K acres contains 30 billion bbls of oil."

If that's true it would essentially double the reserves of the USA........you standing by that statement?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (29879)2/22/2012 10:20:00 PM
From: i-node
   of 59028
 
And how do you arrive at that bottom line, you have any numbers or just a bias.... Do you think there is a giant conspiracy among the thousands of scientists in the world and the hundreds of nations???

I do not think there is any giant conspiracy (although, the evidence is quite clear that a "small conspiracy" exists, in which so-called "scientists" doctor the data and results). I think most of it, however, is a result of liberal hyperbole gone viral. IMO, most liberals do not have the analytical capacity to understand these issues in a rational manner, and they just go nuts with it.

There may be a problem, but it certainly isn't a huge problem at this time and likely will never become one. The idea that we would invest much effort as a world community, at this time, in solving this non-problem seems pretty ridiculous to rational people.

If it becomes a real problem there will be sufficient time and resources to deal with it as it becomes a more pressing need.

Right now, it is just something for liberals to get hysterical about. Which, in my experience, is something all liberals need pretty much all the time.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.