---------------------------------------------
"But by wearing my special 3-D
glasses, you won't feel warm at
all. And you can buy a pair of
Count Floyd's 3-D glasses for
... uhm ... eighteen dollars!"
Posted on 04/30/2019 9:16:37 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
CO2 is NOT a pollutant, but is essential for all green plants. So if we decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere it could jeopardize plant life. Instead of all these ridiculous schemes to reduce the already miniscule amount of CO2, why not simply plant more trees?
It is modern, beautiful and recycles carbon dioxide into its intended and natural purpose-- plant food.
RTFA
The book was a great read.
I still think the documentary has held up well.
Nuke the Sun.
“Staggering. You might be able to split the “C” from the “O2” but the energy cost to do so will be worse than leaving it alone.”
My point was there is no H in CO2. Obviously the hydrogen comes from H2O but that’s not what the line I quoted said.
Except that globally, there reported already is a CO2 shortage. To achieve maximum plant growth (read Food Production) CO2 levels should be higher than they currently are.
Not to mention that the Algores of this world do NOT want to actually reduce CO2. They just want to KEEP the hoax problem, and jawbone it incessantly, while enslaving the world with higher taxes and onerous regulations that do NOT apply to themselves.
Why not just plant a bunch of trees?
:) I’m aware there’s no “H”. My point was that if you work with what you do have it’d require a re-composition of CO2 into something that could be used....although it’d take more energy to do so and you’d still end up with CO2 again.
“That could cause enough carbon dioxide emissions to warm the planet by another deadly half-degree Celsius.”
It does not take the slightest knowledge of science to see how obviously fraudulent such a claim as this is.
Weather all over the world varies during the course a year by scores of times more than a “half-degree Celsius.”
Yet they expect us to believe that such a tiny, imperceptible change in the average global temperature would be “deadly.”
Further, they DEMAND that everyone join in their lockstep crusade of destroying economies. America is the richest nation on earth, and we cannot afford the things they propose. The rest of the world would die of starvation from the economic impact.
If there was even the slightest threat of such global changes, people would simply adapt. They would move further from the equator and toward the poles. Agriculture, which functions in a wide range of temperatures, would adapt the types of crops grown in various regions. These same people mock at the global flood of the Bible yet demand we believe their prophecies of rising oceans destroying coastlines. That’s not going to happen, but if it did the solution is to move not stop using fossil fuel. Their demands are total insanity.
These people must be locked up before they hurt someone.
The high temperature in Las Vegas yesterday was 59 degrees. We had more than 1/4 inch of precipitation, which fell mostly in the form of hail for about 3 hours. April 29.
It’s currently 67. It’s normally low 90’s this time of year, high 80’s at a minimum. Been this way all year, so far.
I think I remember they proposed boring huge holes through the mountains to install the fans.
“I’m aware there’s no “H””
I know you know that and didn’t mean to imply that you didn’t. I was just trying to make sure I was clear.
Since I’m not sufficiently interested to read the article I don’t understand what they intend to do with the CO2. I agree that it’s almost certainly energy inefficient. I’m guessing the only way to try to justify it economically is to somehow assign a cost benefit for reducing CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. I believe that is impossible to do that accurately.
As is normally the case, this exercise is likely about just a couple of scientists looking for ways to get grant money.
Unless you believe in perpetual motion machines, any conversion process is never 100% efficient. It always costs you more than you get in return. Energy is energy, energy is conserved.
However, if you are a socialist, then you probably think that you get back more than you put into it and everything is free.
You may be correct.
At one time they actually reported on science!
I can put my finger one when they went “political”.
In the Reagan era - article after article “demonstrating” that deployment of the Pershing missiles in Europe would result in nuclear war. I guess we all missed the war & somebody misplaced the Soviet Union! Because it didn’t happen!
It never looked back! No retrospection! No maybe we should stick to what we know? Just more political science articles of the same dubious value. I quit subscribing. I used to look forward to that magazine!
Liberals - the left but I repeat myself! RUIN EVERYTHING!
What, this guy likes to masturbate a lot?
I was in a cab from the airport in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory and the young driver was telling me that he had a fresh vegetable greenhouse attached to the family home. Winters in Whitehorse are veeeery long!
He said that he installed an exhaust system from the house, with wife, two kids and a couple of doggies, to the greenhouse and he said the results were dramatic. Everything started growing faster and larger.
Also, for all those nutters who believe CO2 is a poison, maybe they should check what the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is on submarines.
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.