World Needs to Aim for Near-Zero Carbon Emissions (THE REAL AGENDA OF THE ENVIROWACKOS)

universe today ^ | 2/15/2008 | Fraser Cain

[milwguy]

If we really want to combat climate change, how much carbon can we reasonably generate? How much will still push temperatures up? The current presidential candidates are all calling for serious carbon reductions over the next 40 years, but according to researchers at the Carnegie Institution for Science, it's not enough. To really stabilize our planet's climate, we need to get away from carbon forever. Although eliminating carbon dioxide emissions seems like a radical idea, the researchers see it as a reasonable goal.

"It is just not that hard to solve the technological challenges. We can develop and deploy wind turbines, electric cars, and so on, and live well without damaging the environment. The future can be better than the present, but we have to take steps to start kicking the CO2 habit now, so we won't need to go cold turkey later."

[milwguy]

The hubris of these nuts leaves me speechless. To think that man can 'stabilize our planet's climate' is the height of arrogance. When in the history of the earth has the climate been stable? NEVER!!

[Mark was here]

What? And have Al Gore walk?

[Tax Government]

Anthropogenic warming is not bad; many people welcome it. What has been totally discredited is catastrophic, runaway anthropogenic warming. These charlatans won’t admit the sky-is-falling rhetoric was a bald lie.

[richardtavor]

It is not worth the CO2 that I just exhaled to respond to this fool. I guess that his solution is to kill off all animal life—of course the plant life would soon follow, so maybe he should just move to the moon....

[nmh]

Of course they’ve PROVEN that this is the root problem?

LOL!

It isn’t.

It’s just another way to SCARE people into doing something that would not normally endorse or want to do.

Even KIDS are being intellectually abused ... recall the commercial TICK, TICK, TICK, ... .

[xcamel]

Carbon Scam/POGW

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Of course, a ruling elite — free to travel in Gulfstream jets and stretch limousines — will be required in order to ensure that the masses remain carbon neutral. But this will be a small price to pay in order to save Gaya.

[EagleUSA]

The Loons of the Left continue their insanity and redefinition of the earth and its science. The faux world of the left continues to proliferate.

[RoadTest]

The tree huggersd want to return to the caves. Ugh! Me no like cave. Me want car and air-conditioned house! Go away, Tree Huggers!

[alecqss]

What? “Universe Today”??? I suppose Big Bang happened because of SUV backfire...

[Waco]

99% plus CO2 is from mammals breathing. But don’t hold your breath waiting for these turds to acknowlege it. It’s fraud, bunko burn em.

[Windflier]

I’ve got an answer that’ll help cut down on all those dangerous carbon dioxide emissions. Why don’t all of the enviro-wackos in Algore’s religion just stop breathing out?

Imagine how much cleaner, and greener our planet would be!

[Jagman]

Since the earth in the past year appears to have entered global cooling cycle, I have a counterproposal; namely, that everyone should be encouraged to begin living large in terms of carbon emissions, to help counteract climate change! Brag about your BigFoot carbon footprint at work; keep a wood fire going in your fireplace all year round, augmented by keeping the AC cranked high when necessary.
You must do this and more to save the planet!

[ully2]

We will have to go cold turkey anyway, as the suns nuclear fuel runs out the sun will go cold and so will we. What are we
doing about that?

Richard

[kittycatonline.com]

The hubris of these nuts leaves me speechless. To think that man can 'stabilize our planet's climate' is the height of arrogance.

So true, so true. I will take the liberals a percent more serious when I see them ELIMINATE BEER in their efforts to cut down on CO2 emissions. It'll never happen.

[JasonC]

CO2 isn't a problem. One, as a trace gas it cannot influence the climate more than a fraction of a degree. Two, the temperature response to increasing CO2 concentration is not linear, it is log, as absorption bands become saturated. So the total change is effectively capped. Three, atmospheric CO2 is in equilibrium with dissolved CO2 in the oceans, which constitute the system's sink. Increasing the partial pressure on one side of such a system always results in a net flow into the other side.

We could burn all the organic carbon there is, and not move the temperature more than a degree or so. All the claims to the contrary are junk science, based on correlation not causation, mythical amplifying "sensitivities", and unspecified mystery power sources. Direct CO2 greenhouse cannot cause significant increases in global mean temperature. It is therefore silly to worry about it, and beyond silly to trash human economic development to do so.

The actual purpose behind all of this is to find an excuse to suspend capitalism in favor of worldwide socialist central planning, directed by a priesthood of green acolytes, who are religiously opposed to the existence of industrial civilization, and for that matter to the existence of 95% of the human race. There is no reason whatever to listen to these genocidal monsters.

[olezip]

If we really want to combat climate change, how much carbon can we reasonably generate? How much will still push temperatures up? The current presidential candidates are all calling for serious carbon reductions over the next 40 years, but according to researchers at the Carnegie Institution for Science, it's not enough. To really stabilize our planet's climate, we need to get away from carbon forever.

The writer is taking action on an unsupported assertion that mankind can affect climate change. Climate change is caused by the Sun on Earth, Mars, and Venus, et al. Taking action to reduce carbon emissions is an act of incredible stupidity!

Please go back to the "drawing board" and better understand the role of our Sun in climate change!

[Islander7]

Hey, if all these nuts would stop breathing we could cut CO2 significantly.

[Popman]

World Needs to Aim for Near-Zero Carbon Emissions

First question? : Does that Near-Zero Carbon Emissions include breathing out carbon after we inhale oxygen

Question #2 : Are the global alarmist willing to eliminate their carbon output first?

[Eric]

Another 'problem' with the CO2 nuts is that CO2 has a weight that is basically 2 times the weight of the standard composition of 'air'. It SINKS!! It doesn't rise into the air to block the sun or reflect the sun.

As I see it, their whole argument flies in the face of basic science.