1 posted on
07/07/2003 9:09:44 AM PDT by
presidio9
To: presidio9
I has long been established that raising the CO2 levels will cause significant increases in the rate of plant growth. The global warming chicken littles somehow conveniently forgot this point.
2 posted on
07/07/2003 9:17:58 AM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: presidio9
Amazon rain forests accounted for nearly half the increase seen globally over the 20-year period. Oh, that's a relief. Now I won't have to keep buying shade-grown coffee!"
3 posted on
07/07/2003 9:19:12 AM PDT by
jwalburg
(Line dry only)
To: presidio9
You mean to tell me the Earth adjusts to changes?
That really IS news. (for some people)
4 posted on
07/07/2003 9:21:40 AM PDT by
Only1choice____Freedom
(Once a soldier, always a soldier. They enemies of freedom never rest.)
To: presidio9
of course plants are a "sink" for CO2
so is the ocean
the unknown question is the capacity of these sinks
global warming from manmade causes is a *fact* -- a matter of general scientific agreement -- and we shouldn't be debating whether it exists with the Rats
rather we should be discussing what the conservative response to this fact is: market solutions rather than government-made solutions
To: presidio9
There is a very interesting book recently published that has exactly recreated scenes photographed on Custer's 1875 expedition to the Black Hills of South Dakota with their modern day view. What is striking in the 1875 photos is the general lack of forests compared to the lush forests in contemporary views. Extinguishing forest fires and extensive tree planting has vastly increased forestation in this part of the world.
To: presidio9; marsh2; dixiechick2000; Mama_Bear; doug from upland; WolfsView; Issaquahking; amom; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
18 posted on
07/07/2003 10:41:44 AM PDT by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: presidio9
I invite readers to attempt to glean any hard factual evidence cited in the article that makes a definite causal connection between their observations and conclusions. The article boasts in several places about what "some scientists believe" which are buzz words for the pseudo-scientific left wing fringe of the scientific community. Fact is, most rigorously trained qualified scientists familiar with the subject generally agree that man's fingerprint on the biosphere is nary a trifle when compared to other natural processes. Not to mention other complications such as chaos theory, noise and sampling theory, long term trends, unknown variables or relationships, the list goes on. The moral is that to an unsuspecting and unchallenging public at large, you can sell them the Brooklyn Bridge quite easily.
27 posted on
07/07/2003 10:51:36 AM PDT by
SpaceBar
To: presidio9
bttt
54 posted on
07/07/2003 1:40:30 PM PDT by
Coleus
(God is Pro Life and Straight and gave an innate predisposition for self-preservation and protection)
To: presidio9
Yeah, well there's still the problem with all those farting cows blowing holes in the ozone?
To: presidio9
Peter N. Spotts Sounds like a particularly busy fellow, or one with a major problem "on his hands."
79 posted on
07/07/2003 2:33:58 PM PDT by
Junior
("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
To: presidio9
"That was a big surprise," says Ranga Myneni, a botanist at Boston University and a member of the research team. Amazon rain forests accounted for nearly half the increase seen globally over the 20-year period. What is this??????. The rain forests are GROWING in size. Not possible, as the environwennies have been moaning for years about how the rain forest was on the verge of becoming a desert. I know it's true because I've seen bumper stickers urging me to save the rain forrest.
110 posted on
07/07/2003 6:32:26 PM PDT by
Fzob
(Why does this tag line keep showing up?)
To: presidio9
The 1997 Kyoto Protocols - a first step at trying to reduce emissions and so moderate the change - permits countries to use the carbon-absorbing capacity of their forests and farmlands as credits against their emissions targets. Mr. Author, are you sure about that? That was a proposal, but wasn't it shot down?
150 posted on
07/08/2003 8:54:01 PM PDT by
lepton
To: presidio9
Notice how they stopped calling it the "greenhouse effect" and started calling it "global warming", to make it sound big and scary instead of benevolent.
219 posted on
07/13/2003 7:29:28 AM PDT by
P.O.E.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson