Posted on 09/07/2018 9:38:50 AM PDT by rktman
The most common organic compound on the face of the earth is cellulose which is common in the botanical world. All plants die and decompose. The fire merely speeds it up.
But, the fact that the fire speeds up the availability of CO2 means that it can be utilized by other plants more quickly and photosynthesis takes the Carbon from a CO2 molecule and synthesizes it into larger organic compounds such as cellulose, which then die and decompose or can burn.
Plants are carbon sinks, where carbon is stored for periods that can be a long as a few hundred years, or a few days when the lawnmower comes along.
Sometimes plants or trees are covered up and modified by anaerobic bacteria and thru time, temperature, and pressure can be converted to fossil fuels.
There was a period of time about 360 million years ago that lasted for 60 million years which was called the Carboniferous Period and lots of fossil fuels were created then..
The internal combustion engine was developed about 1880 and Henry Ford mass produced them
A lot of people are trying to undermine Trump but it is no secret how much money the fossil fuel industry gives mainly to republicans.
That's the bad news. If by 2050 the USA is burning only half as much fossil fuel as is being burned now, then it would follow that the GOP would be receiving only half as much money as they receive now.
Excellent.
Thanks rktman. Just repeat after the guy with the megaphone -- when the average temperatures go up during a year, that's a sign of global warming, and when the average falls, remind all that temperature isn't the same thing as climate. And when questioned, claimed that it's really complex.
“If by 2050 the USA is burning only half as much fossil fuel as is being burned now, then it would follow that the GOP would be receiving only half as much money as they receive now.”
Well, I for one am not going to make conclusions based on whether oil executives or GOP politicians stand to benefit. Most of them will be dead or moribund by 2050, anyway.
It’s always nice to see that much cuteness wrapped up in one package.
So much for all the Freepers who predicted Ivanka would turn her father into a Global Warming Alarmist.
With the other 192 nations unofficially seeking same. China is flat out of control.
It’s a win. Good man and liberal heads explode - that’s a win win...
Good idea, Trump! We’ll be happier with Happer.
Happer is a noble choice for the position. Below is one example of early efforts to besmirch him, LONG before his consideration of this office (the left at work).
Watch the video, then read the text taken from the linked interview documentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tULDE_gYmuc
“The smear campaign began in 2015 when I received an email from a Greenpeace operative posing as an agent for a Middle Eastern “client,” who wanted me to write something about the benefits of CO2. As we will discuss below, I have long been persuaded that more CO2 will benefit the world, mainly because it makes plants grow more efficiently and increases their resistance to drought, and because the warming from more CO2, predicted by establishment models, has been exaggerated by a factor of three or more.
For years, I have used every avenue possible to spread the good news about the benefits of CO2, so I was quite willing to write an op-ed or essay on this topic for the client. As far as I was concerned, I was using the client, not vice versa. I would urge any reader interested in this episode to read the complete email exchange between me and the Greenpeace operative. It can readily be found on the internet.
In one of the first emails, dated 03/11/15, I stated: 10 I would be glad to try to help if my views, outlined in the attachments, are in line with those of your client.
The sentence makes it clear that I was only interested in helping the “client” to publicize my long-held views, not to peddle whatever message the “client” had in mind.
Note also remarks in my email response of 05/11/15:
To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc. I fully support regulations for costeffective control of these real pollutants. But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.
I ended the note of 05/11/15 with the paragraph:
My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science, which have been so corrupted by the climate-change cult. If your client was considering reimbursing me for writing something, I would ask that whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition. This was the arrangement I had with the attorneys representing the Peabody Coal Company in the regulatory hearings in Minnesota. The fee I would have received was sent instead to the CO2 Coalition, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization. The CO2 Coalition covers occasional travel expenses for me, but pays me no other fees or salary.
I have never taken a dime for any of my activities to educate the public that more CO2 will benefit the world.”
Who was talking about total co2? I was talking about co2 generated in a matter of days by forest fires, which could take decades for same plants to die and decompose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.