Replies

"For example, what is the CO2 vs O2 ratio? Plants convert CO2 into O2, and if things are in balance, that ratio would remain the same.

If humans are influencing the environment faster than the biomass can process, then the CO2 vs O2 ratio will change."

Yup. I totally agree. And that's one reason why the climate change isn't necessarily a bad thing. And the predictive models tell us nothing -- they really don't know how much of a vegetation CO2 sink there is. I'm not saying climate change is bad: that's the left, politicizing science, that says that. I'm saying the science indicates that manmade climate change is occuring. let's not us on the right politicize science too: I worry very much that many here are afraid to confront that science because they think that if it's true, they have to rush out and sign Kyoto. Balderdash

Perhaps you and I agree in many ways, and you did impress me with your understanding of a CO2 vs O2 ratio.

Yes, after a volcanic eruption, the CO2 levels will increase dramatically. If the biomass is healthy, it will rapidly be converted into O2 and Carbon.

I am very devoted to the concept of maintaining a healthy environment. However, the key word is "healthy" and not "untouched by humans."

I'm saying the science indicates that manmade climate change is occuring.

You are dead wrong. The effect is so miniscule as to be effectively incalculable. Scientists vehemently disagree whether there is any effect at all. Fred Singer is an example of one who disagrees and referred directly to the bald faced fraud in the IPCC report.

The NCAR findings were reported by the journal Science on May 1 at (http://www.sciencexpress.org), well before the normal publication date and just before hearings by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican. Coincidence? The lead author is Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; he became notorious for surreptitiously altering the text of a crucial chapter in the 1995 UN-IPCC Report on Climate Change — in order to make it conform to its politically inspired Summary for Policymakers.

1. The "scientific consensus" you've been touting doesn't exist.

2. The "scientists" flouting anthropogenic global warming have been caught committing FRAUD in the IPCC report.

Got it?

I'm still amazed how you opened a scientific discussion, with the phrase '"Um, Hello" followed it with a blatantly false statement. Then pissed and moaned that you didn't have to argue with those who would not take you seriously.

Your evidence has been proven false though you keep parroting the same record like some one hit wonder from the “70’s”, you never recognized or apologized for your own condescending attitude but did criticize it in others and you continue to parrot the same study even though it has been proven worthless.

Are the walls in your room padded? You do appear to be one of those limp ineffective individuals who needs to be protected from himself. Have you considered the Head & Shoulders you desperately shampoo with every day does nothing to stop the grey matter from falling out your cranial ports?

You’re not a mind of intellect, you are a target, brainwashed or brain dead you’re one of those shining ineffectuals that makes the sport of ridicule and humiliation too easy to be fun..

Start working on freeing yourself and stop trying to enslave others in your ignorance.

The thing that especially worries me is how the COC2 is acidifying the Ocean. I saw a piece the other day explaining that bedrock coral near Florida has dissolved as much in 6 years as had previously been predicted to happen in 40 years.