Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/28/2011 10:48:24 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The ‘cure’ for higher CO2 emissions is PLANTS.
The whole ‘global warming’ thing was a fabrication (IMHO) in the first place in order to plunder the people for money and greater power. It wouldn’t be the first time that governments altered real results to acquire a means of control. A whole bunch of ‘law’ was passed based on those phoney results. Now that the laws exist, and they acquired the resources they wanted to acquire, the laws will stay until they need them again, and they will already be in place.
The purpose was acquisition and control of the world’s natural resources, and then to hoard them for the use of the elite at some later date for profit and power.
Well, that’s it. The data are in. Like it or not, the results are clear. Industrialized nations should colonize third world nation.
As our AGW friends like to say, the science is settled. Pith helmets on, and Tally Ho.
That would be “nations”.
You are aware this line of reasoning kind of contradicts the other line popular among “climate change deniers” that the climate isn’t really changing?
Thanks for your stuff...
Show me one person that says climate isn’t changing.
And make sure you don’t confuse it with people who are saying that the climate isn’t changing due to human influence. Apples and oranges.
And please don’t use the term climate change “deniers” (a term most commonly associated with deniers of the hollocaust). It is an Alinsky-type tactic to appear to win an argument by shaming an opponent rather than dealing with the inconvenience of addressing actual facts. It betrays a lack of confidence in your position and it doesn’t work on Freepers. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised to see a Freeper use the term at all.
Suggest you Google Medieval Warming period that occurred Circa 1,000-1300 A.D. or 650 Years before 1850.
“Climate change denier” was used ironically. Which is why it had scare quotes.
A great many articles have been posted recently about how warming has stopped and/or reversed.
I take no position on these issues, I’m merely pointing out that if the CO2 increase is a result of the warming, then the stopping of the warming should result in a slowdown or reversal of the CO2 increase.
I am agnostic on “anthropogenic global warming.” We do not begin to understand the climate mechanisms thoroughly enough to predict climate out 50 to 500 years.
While it seems intuitively unlikely that large increases of CO2 will have zero effect, I suspect there are negative feedback mechanisms we haven’t found yet.
The more critical question is, “So what?”
Let us stipulate AGW is as critical an issue as the alarmists claim. Few of their “solutions” will do much of anything to solve the problem anyway. And none of those that might work have a hope of doing so without a worldwide government of unprecedented totalitarian authority.
Which “solution” I consider a great deal worse than the problem, even if it is as bad as claimed. Which I doubt.
My uneducated guess:
Farming in industrialized nations is, well, industrialized....and the crops consume alot of CO2.
Farming in the third world - not so much. Compounded with burning dung for cooking, and clear cutting to grow soybeans for the Chinese, I am not surprised at this study.
Who knew, industrialization is ‘cleaner’ than ox carts and thunderpot toilets.
Why? It's not critical at all. The sky is not falling and to stipulate it is, is simply ludicrous.
Anyway, warming is far better than cooling for all life on this rock, IF we could control it.
Aztecs cut people hearts out, it didn't work then and it won't work now.
Well as one of your other posts today indicate. Canada is waking up to the reality. Looks like they are not going to sign into the Koyoto agreements in the near future. I suspect we shall see other nations follow suit in due time.
I don’t know what percent of atmospheric CO2 comes from human activity (or other processes), and I doubt if anyone does. When I see pictures of the White Cliffs of Dover or the eroding chalk cliffs of Rügen (as painted by Caspar David Friedrich in the first half of the 19th Century), it occurs to me that all that carbon was once in the atmosphere as CO2. As these cliffs and all the limestone mountains of the world erode (by decaying plant acids, acid rains, and other processes), huge quantities of CO2 are constantly released. Warming temperature probably increases the production of natural acids, and CO2 from other sources increases atmospheric sulfuric acid. Humans may have contributed to this by adding sulfuric acid to the atmosphere, but the CO2 exchange with warming oceans probably contributes more than anything else, human activities included. The AGW folks have the cart before the horse.
Blondes.
If not blondes, What?
Silly way to argue anything.
NO! NO! I’m melting.
Thanks Earnest. Latest post on nationalforestlawblog.com is the latest Newsweek. Is man made GW a hoax? Duh!
I have been in night school a lot to see if I want a science and a math degree. I learned I can teach my self a lot. Kinda of discovered I am a head of my IPCC peer group. I have enough here at the house and Amazon.com at my fingertips. I bought about a $1000+ in TEACHING Co. Courses to last a few years.
Keep me posted.
Thank you.
NO! NO! I’m melting.
Thanks Earnest. Latest post on nationalforestlawblog.com is the latest Newsweek. Is man made GW a hoax? Duh!
I have been in night school a lot to see if I want a science and a math degree. I learned I can teach my self a lot. Kinda of discovered I am a head of my IPCC peer group. I have enough here at the house and Amazon.com at my fingertips. I bought about a $1000+ in TEACHING Co. Courses to last a few years.
Keep me posted.
Thank you.
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.