It Gets Tougher And Tougher To Sell The Idea Of Global Warming…

Believe what ever tripe suits your fancy. I posted by proof, believe it or not.

 

If we were cutting trees primarily has FUEL, you might have some point... But We're NOT!

A tree stands, old and stately in a forest, a large column of fixed carbon. But in its old age, the tree has reached the organisms maximum height, and while it gains slightly year by year in girth, it sheds as much as it grows.

A logger cuts down the tree (hardwood) and sends it to industry where it is made into beautiful stained oak furniture, bought and treasured by some family, handed down generation to generation. The majority of the Fixed Carbon of that tree STAYS fixed!

But now there is a clearing, a spot in the forest for new and vigorous growth of a NEW TREE, which as it grows up to its maximum height, and as it does so, it fixes allot more carbon...

See the REAL picture?

-

 

That any many areas have been transplanted with faster growing trees as a renewable resource for building.

 

It's not just the burning of wood releasing the CO2 back into the air, it's the future carbon sequestration is lost.

What do you think about CSP?

 

Right, me providing a position with supporting links is propaganda and not reliable, but you providing a position without evidence is somehow a sign that you are correct?

That's fairly counter-intuitive.

 

My position is that libs have filed to prove their position.

Man-made global warming is only a theory.

It's an opinion that has been heavily financed but only one explanation for why climate changes.

Particularly since climate has never been static.

 

LOL, the fact that the hiatus is being discussed in scientific circles and why new hypothesis are being provided is not enough for you. Sorry, can't hold your hand and lead you through what is going on, you would have to provide some curiosity on your own part.

 

In the first place, I've never bought into the concept that high CO2 levels are a significant threat. Scientifically, it a load of B.S.

However, even IF ( and its not real !) CO2 levels were a significant threat, when you talk about deforestation, it is not a loss to CO2 sequestration unless the land area no longer covered with forest is instead covered with dead sand.

ALL plant life, be it wheat farms, corn plants, Oak Trees, Pine Trees or Grass, by the square meter, they all absorb roughly the same amount of sunlight, take in atmospheric CO2 and convert it into cellulose, starch and sugars through photosynthesis. Yes, the amounts vary slightly, but its in the single digits as a percentage. Often replacing Trees with a crop plant like Corn results in a HIGHER rate of atmospheric absorption / conversion of CO2.

The only way that cutting down a forest makes the land area no longer fix carbon, is if it suddenly is left a lifeless desert, which just doesn't happen.

Look, I love trees as much as any outdoors man, back packer, and hunter. Which is why I hope we start to see corporate interests start to take a significant interest in aesthetic and recreational forest preserves.

We need the equivalent of National Parks, owned and operated by Corporations and Profit motive, rather than by big Government.

Mainly because anything that only governments is doing is bound to fail, because Government agencies always become fatally infected with selfish, ignorant, clueless, honor-less, Liberals.

Corporations can screw up. Liberal Governments ALWAYS screw up.

-

 

Said the guy who ignores the research handed to him on a silver platter while illustrating that he's only interested in the single source that provides results matching his preconceived notion...

- - - Updated - - -

Which is worse? Drowning or Suffocating? Burning or freezing? Getting shot or getting stabbed?

Seriously, what's your point?!

 

If you believe that:
a) our population grows over time,
b) we become more and more reliant on energy and technology over time,
c) we pave over more green areas over time to accomodate our growing population.

Then you must agree that we produce more and more pollution while doing more and more damage to the planet's ability to offset that pollution. Given continuation of that trend, there logically must come a time when we produce more pollution than the planet can handle. The only questions are:
a) whether we've hit that point in time yet,
b) what we can do to change the status quo.

 

For all you climate change/global warming believers, since you believe this garbage are you prepared for what comes next? Are you prepared and do you believe that we should all be subject to paying carbon credits? Because that is what this is about you know. It's about some, certain people like Al Gore making money. It's not about saving the earth and all that crap. Honestly, I find it hard to believe anyone would swallow this crap. It's like Obamacare is about healthcare, another lie used on useful idiots to perpetrate a fraud. Of course not surprised anyone who voted for Obama would believe this tripe.

 

Do you understand what a "hiatus" is? It's a temporary break from the norm. By very use of the word hiatus, your source acknowledges that there is a visible pattern that has being temporarily paused.

Do you require any further hand holding to understand the concepts the adults are discussing?

 

Typical true believer arrogance. Why did it surprise everyone and why are they creating new hypothesis for it?

 

What's arrogant about explaining to you the implication made by the term you (and your sources) have used repeatedly?!

Let me guess, this is something else you won't provide any source for?

 

It is not my problem you cannot keep up with current events.

 

Taxcutter says:
Nuclear is currently the only viable non-carbon replacement for fossil fuel. Either go big on nuclear or don't worry about carbon dioxide because there is no other substitute. And even nuclear is not a good substitute for fossil fuel for transportation, beyond electrified railroads.

 

Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming

Here's a very long list of peer-reviewed articles skeptical of man made AGW.

 

Historically the vast majority of energy subsidies have gone to developing fossil fuel resources and reserves. The CBO notes that until 2008 most energy subsidies went to the fossil fuel industry as a way to encourage more domestic energy production. A report by the non-profit Environmental Law Institute (ELI) confirms that, between 2002 and 2008, the federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. “Subsidies to fossil fuels—a mature, developed industry that has enjoyed government support for many years—totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers,” reported ELI. “Subsidies for renewable fuels, a relatively young and developing industry, totaled $29 billion over the same period.”

- - - Updated - - -

Debating with some people is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good a chess player you are, the pigeon will just knock over all the pieces, defacate on the board, and strut around like he's winning.

Will there come a time when you'll actually abide by forum rules, or will you continue to debate like a pigeon?

 

I will continue to debate at your level, though it is difficult to debate someone that is not up to date with their information.

 

Fossil fuels and nuclear work on a wide scale.

Solar and wind work (not particularly well) in very narrow niches.

 

The primary difference between our "levels" is that I provide sources and support for my assertions, whereas you cannot and expect others to prove your points.

So much dumb.

 

Have you bothered to compare how much money has gone into the developement of these technologies?
If not, you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

Taxcutter says:
Doesn't matter. Fossil fuel and nuclear work. Wind and solar don't.

 

Who is denying the climate is changing???? The climate has changed untold times in the last 4 Billion years.

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. You can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again and nothing we can do will matter anyway.

Deforestation is likely a driver of any man made warming far more than any emissions. An area the size of England, Wales and Scotland (50 million acres) is cut down every year around the world. Trees are nature's carbon sinks. When that much carbon sink is removed every year, they are fighting a losing battle by simply controlling emissions. Unless the main thrust of climate change "control" if that's possible, is putting a stop to deforestation, ya'all are just wasting everyone's time and money.

 

At some point in history, I'm sure people said that horse drawn carriages were more reliable than cars too.

Other than producing poison at a rate faster than the planet is equipped to deal with, what is it that fossil fuel and nuclear power generation methods accomplish that can't be accomplished through wind, solar, hydoelectric, and other power generation methods?