[stemmer]

It annoys me to no end how naive some people are buying into Al Gore's belief carbon dioxide is pollution...


For one thing it is required by ALL plants for use in their chlorophyll process... The more C02 should benefit plant life making them more vigourous AND thereby producing more OXYGEN....


Remember PLANTS breath in carbon oxide and expel oxygen.... Animals of course require oxygen and expell C02...


With the heavy depletion of our forests in key areas like the Amazon wouldn't more C02 be desirable to foster new and additional plant growth?


Yet Al Gore and his ilk concentrate on C02 emissions and ignore the other and real poisonous toxins which humans emit daily....


Their solution is a carbon tax. How insane...


Another Gore solution is to reduce our energy consumption....


YET Al Gore uses 20x the energy in an year that the average American uses. He has been asking us to reduce our annual energy consumption yet his increased 20% last year...!!!!

[DerbyX]

Oxygen isn't a pollutant either in that respect but would you care to guess what would happen with an enviornment 100% O2?

What it does do though is act as insulation and traps heat that would otherwise bleed off into space. Less heat bleeds off means it builds up down hear.

BTW, excess CO2 only helps plant growth when it is the component limiting growth. The vast majority of plants meet their maximum CO2 needs at concentrations far lower then exist in the environment and other factors like phosphate and fixed nitrogen limit plant growth.

In fact most plants grow at near maximum rates because of an abundance of CO2 and nutrients and the addition of more nutrients would have little effect.

[commanderkai]

DerbyX wrote:

Oxygen isn't a pollutant either in that respect but would you care to guess what would happen with an enviornment 100% O2?

I'm sure it'd be devastating because of the lack of Nitrogen, but is CO2 even CLOSE to 100%...or for that matter...2%?

[DerbyX]

It would be devastating because our atmosphere would go up in a massive explosion the first little spark.

CO2 doesn't need to be in massive concentrations to have a large effect on the earth. Remember that even if we only raise the earths mean temp by a lousy 5 degrees it can have devastating effect on humanity simply because we inhabit virtually the entire planet. Thats not to say it will render us extinct.

I don't subscribe to apocalyptic scenarios but recognize that certain areas will be effected in apocalyptic style.

If you want to see the power of a massive greenhouse effect simply take a look at the planet Venus. Mean temp 462 degrees celcius.

Stock up on cold beverages if you plan to vacation there.

[Zipperfish]

Pollution, by definition, just means too much of somehthing. Some call AC/DC music, others call it noise pollution. It's a value judegment.

[Zipperfish]

excuse me while my son learns about smilies.

[C.M. Burns]

commanderkai wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Oxygen isn't a pollutant either in that respect but would you care to guess what would happen with an enviornment 100% O2?

I'm sure it'd be devastating because of the lack of Nitrogen, but is CO2 even CLOSE to 100%...or for that matter...2%?

And how much of a good thing like pizza would you have to have on the floor of your bedroom before Mommy calls it pollution?
Well, if you have more pizza than you can eat before it goes bad then you have pollution!
Now, if you had a really big fridge to put those pizzas in then you could do Pizza Sequestration.

[C.M. Burns]

Zipperfish wrote:

excuse me while my son learns about smilies.

You're not letting him read the posts here, are you?
Talk about teaching hate!

Quote:

Your message contains too many smilies. The maximum number of smilies allowed is 20.

[commanderkai]

DerbyX wrote:

CO2 doesn't need to be in massive concentrations to have a large effect on the earth. Remember that even if we only raise the earths mean temp by a lousy 5 degrees it can have devastating effect on humanity simply because we inhabit virtually the entire planet. Thats not to say it will render us extinct

I don't subscribe to apocalyptic scenarios but recognize that certain areas will be effected in apocalyptic style.

I'm sorry, you're saying you don't subscribe to doomsday scenarios yet you add in about raising the Earth's temp by five degrees and have devastating impact on humanity? That paragraph contradicts that one line.

Just quickly using this graph.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Humans contribute .117% of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Not 10%, not 1%, but .1%. I'm sorry, I need a bit more proof even if we stopped all the factories and cars and even breathing tomorrow...I don't even think the world would notice. Sure some areas, like Beijing and Mexico City would have cleaner air and less smog, but would the grand scale of this entire planet even notice? Probably not.

Quote:

If you want to see the power of a massive greenhouse effect simply take a look at the planet Venus. Mean temp 462 degrees celcius.

Stock up on cold beverages if you plan to vacation there.

Yes I know about Venus, however, that still does not explain the fact that Mars' ice caps are shrinking more rapidly, and that also that other systems, like Pluto, Jupiter, and Triton are experiencing things that scientists attribute to climate change on Earth...

Of course, our long term studies of any of these planets basically stem for...500 years? 1000 at the most? This is a long series of lucky chances that so many solar bodies are warming up at the same time as us.

I'll admit I'm biased and a skeptic, but you yourself can admit that you have the possibility that you can be wrong, and arguing that you're right just because you have a majority on your side isn't really an argument at all. Even if that majority includes a majority of scientists.

[DerbyX]

Quote:

I'm sorry, you're saying you don't subscribe to doomsday scenarios yet you add in about raising the Earth's temp by five degrees and have devastating impact on humanity? That paragraph contradicts that one line.

Devastating impact on specific areas. Canada may not be adversely harmed but what about the island nations like the carribean? How about areas that will receive more frequent and more violent storms?

When I say I don't subscribe to a doomsday scenario I mean the human race as a whole and the planet in general. That doesn't mean specific areas won't face devastation.

Of course this doesn't take into account unforseen factors that we cannot predict.



This says otherwise that humans are having a larger effect on CO2 levels then your data suggests.

Its extremely reasonable also. Given the vast amount of CO2 emitting human apparatus its unreasonable to think we aren't having a large impact.

The real question is what will that impact be?

I believe that impact will be severe enough to warrant controlling it just as we should control waste dumping or anything else hman made for that matter.

[commanderkai]

DerbyX wrote:

Quote:

I'm sorry, you're saying you don't subscribe to doomsday scenarios yet you add in about raising the Earth's temp by five degrees and have devastating impact on humanity? That paragraph contradicts that one line.

Devastating impact on specific areas. Canada may not be adversely harmed but what about the island nations like the carribean? How about areas that will receive more frequent and more violent storms?

When I say I don't subscribe to a doomsday scenario I mean the human race as a whole and the planet in general. That doesn't mean specific areas won't face devastation.

Of course this doesn't take into account unforseen factors that we cannot predict.



This says otherwise that humans are having a larger effect on CO2 levels then your data suggests.

Its extremely reasonable also. Given the vast amount of CO2 emitting human apparatus its unreasonable to think we aren't having a large impact.

The real question is what will that impact be?

I believe that impact will be severe enough to warrant controlling it just as we should control waste dumping or anything else hman made for that matter.

Sorry I misread. My apologies

Anyway, I don't see this as big of an issue as most people expect. But I mean, we can throw statistics and counter statistics and cute graphs until something happens...but I don't care too much.

I believe in personal responsibility: recycle, plant trees, walk or bike more, use fans or open windows instead of airconditioning, cut the heat at night, turn off the lights, yada yada yada. I don't think this is as big of an issue as most expect, and I think we know little of Earth's climatic history, even with ice cores, to truly know what will happen. If you're right, oops. If I'm wrong, meh. Want cleaner power? Go nuclear. Want better fuels? Plug ins.

I'm sure you'd get a few other believers to toss two or three posts until I get bored and forget to check. We should do things to lower pollution, like nuclear or whatever else. I have no quarrel with that. Reduce smog in the huge cities? Good, because I want to see the stars.

The vast levels you say we release, is far from vast from both what I read and what I've heard. It's a difference of opinion that we will neither figure out

[emart]

living in a more environmentally friendly way isn't such a terrible thing. if you want to help curb the current global warming crisis, then you are doing it to help the environment in any way you can. and if you do not believe in the whole global warming mumbo jumbo, then, well, it's just good habits to get in to anyways, and if you are right about it not being a man-made problem, then you were right AND you picked up a few good habits along the way.

[faile]

emart wrote:

living in a more environmentally friendly way isn't such a terrible thing. if you want to help curb the current global warming crisis, then you are doing it to help the environment in any way you can. and if you do not believe in the whole global warming mumbo jumbo, then, well, it's just good habits to get in to anyways, and if you are right about it not being a man-made problem, then you were right AND you picked up a few good habits along the way.

There's an obscenely large difference between learning to be a bit less wasteful and paying an economy stifling tax on everything.

[Scape]

emart wrote:

living in a more environmentally friendly way isn't such a terrible thing. if you want to help curb the current global warming crisis, then you are doing it to help the environment in any way you can. and if you do not believe in the whole global warming mumbo jumbo, then, well, it's just good habits to get in to anyways, and if you are right about it not being a man-made problem, then you were right AND you picked up a few good habits along the way.

Exactly. Don't work hard on issues like CC (kill the economy) work smart. Phase out wastful practices with more efficent ones. It's basic free market thinking.

[C.M. Burns]

Scape wrote:

Exactly. Don't work hard on issues like CC (kill the economy) work smart. Phase out wastful practices with more efficent ones. It's basic free market thinking.

And yet none of this 'basic thinking' has happend!

Why not? Because there isn't an adeqaute cost for polluting. Carbon Taxes are the means to put a price on one form of pollution.