You Are Causing Global Warming

[FreeThinker]

I'm getting unbelievably tired of hearing these idiots scream all day about Bush and the evil corporations being the cause of global warming. It's driving me INSANE. It's like listening to an infomercial on how I can make money by spending money or watching an MTV cribs marathon or something. Jesus christ.

Hippies keep saying "LOOK AT THIS A GROUP OF SCIENTISTS JUST SAID CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING AND THAT ITS BUSH'S FAULT LOL?!"

Well I have some science of my own. It's called Biology.

Humans, just like the rest of the animalia (and bacteria) kingdoms, are consumers. The producers (plants) build biological molecules on carbon backbones. We eat the plants. We exhale the carbon.

This is the carbon a gallon of gasoline produces:
Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel | US EPA

This is the carbon you produce EVERY DAY:
Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today you (yes you, reading this) have burned almost half a gallon of gasoline into the atmosphere just by sitting on your fat *** yelling about George Bush on the internet. Nice job hippie.

Next time you feel like screaming at republicans about global warming do everyone else a favor: stop breathing.

Guess what else you're doing to kill the earth: you know that bran muffin you ate for breakfast? Right now bacteria in your intestines are breaking it down and producing methane as a byproduct, which you're going to expel from your anus. That CH4 molecule is going to float up into the sky and it is going to stay up there for about 10 years.

Methane has 23 times more global warming potential than carbon, which means that per pound of gas you are 23 times more effective at melting ice caps and killing polar bears than a Hummer.

Methane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So humans are the greatest threat in regards to global warming? The environment would be fine if we weren't screwing it up right? Wrong hippie.

250 million years ago 95% of life in the sea and 70% of life on land became suddenly extinct. Microorganisms below the sea floor called archaea produced immense amounts of methane, which froze on the sea floor as methane hydrate. Methane hydrate is explosive and unstable, and the reaction can chain. The craters on the sea floor to this day stretch for miles, and scientists have recently discovered massive deposits of methane hydrate 60 miles off the coast of Oregon.

The event was called "The Permian Great Dying", and not a single SUV contributed.

Biology Concepts and Applications, 6th edition, Cecie Starr 3.2

The earth is not a perfectly balanced masterpiece of forests and oceans. It is a homicidal tyrant that has killed 99.999% of every species that has ever existed on its surface or in its oceans, and all the hybrid cars you drive koom bai ya's you sing won't save you.

Something as retarded as capping carbon emissions for American corporations isn't even close to a solution. Pick up a science book and shut the hell up about Bush.

 

[RightinNYC]

I'm getting unbelievably tired of hearing these idiots scream all day about Bush and the evil corporations being the cause of global warming. It's driving me INSANE. It's like listening to an infomercial on how I can make money by spending money or watching an MTV cribs marathon or something. Jesus christ.

Hippies keep saying "LOOK AT THIS A GROUP OF SCIENTISTS JUST SAID CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING AND THAT ITS BUSH'S FAULT LOL?!"

Well I have some science of my own. It's called Biology.

Humans, just like the rest of the animalia (and bacteria) kingdoms, are consumers. The producers (plants) build biological molecules on carbon backbones. We eat the plants. We exhale the carbon.

This is the carbon a gallon of gasoline produces:
Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel | US EPA

This is the carbon you produce EVERY DAY:
Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today you (yes you, reading this) have burned almost half a gallon of gasoline into the atmosphere just by sitting on your fat *** yelling about George Bush on the internet. Nice job hippie.

Next time you feel like screaming at republicans about global warming do everyone else a favor: stop breathing.

Guess what else you're doing to kill the earth: you know that bran muffin you ate for breakfast? Right now bacteria in your intestines are breaking it down and producing methane as a byproduct, which you're going to expel from your anus. That CH4 molecule is going to float up into the sky and it is going to stay up there for about 10 years.

Methane has 23 times more global warming potential than carbon, which means that per pound of gas you are 23 times more effective at melting ice caps and killing polar bears than a Hummer.

Methane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So humans are the greatest threat in regards to global warming? The environment would be fine if we weren't screwing it up right? Wrong hippie.

250 million years ago 95% of life in the sea and 70% of life on land became suddenly extinct. Microorganisms below the sea floor called archaea produced immense amounts of methane, which froze on the sea floor as methane hydrate. Methane hydrate is explosive and unstable, and the reaction can chain. The craters on the sea floor to this day stretch for miles, and scientists have recently discovered massive deposits of methane hydrate 60 miles off the coast of Oregon.

The event was called "The Permian Great Dying", and not a single SUV contributed.

Biology Concepts and Applications, 6th edition, Cecie Starr 3.2

The earth is not a perfectly balanced masterpiece of forests and oceans. It is a homicidal tyrant that has killed 99.999% of every species that has ever existed on its surface or in its oceans, and all the hybrid cars you drive koom bai ya's you sing won't save you.

Something as retarded as capping carbon emissions for American corporations isn't even close to a solution. Pick up a science book and shut the hell up about Bush.

But the people who this is directed at will have convinced themselves that in terms of "the greater good," they're actually helping the earth because they're convincing people to change their usage habits.

Completely random side note - anyone else remember Captain Planet? I didn't realize until recently how much propaganda that show was. Incredible.

Earth!
Fire!
Wind!
Water!
Heart!

GO PLANET!

With your powers combined I am Captain Planet!

Captain Planet, he's our hero,
Gonna take pollution down to zero,
He's our powers magnified,
And he's fighting on the planet side

Captain Planet, he's our hero,
Gonna take pollution down to zero,
Gonna help him put us under,
Bad guys who like to loot and plunder

"You'll pay for this Captain Planet!"

(chanting)
We're the planeteers,
You can be one too!
'Cause saving our planet is the thing to do,
Looting and polluting is not the way,
Hear what Captain Planet has to say:

"THE POWER IS YOURS!!"

Another way this show brainwashes kids is by pushing the idea of reduction of the military forces. This attitude is reflected in the episode “A Mission to Save Earth," which states that, “countries spend billions of dollars on armies and weapons to defend themselves from one another. But the Earth faces a more serious and common enemy. The enemy is pollution. Let’s use our money, people, and time to help stop this threat to our survival.” This is also the moral to the particular episode. “Captain Planet” teaches children what to think, and is, thus, propaganda.

 

[RightinNYC]

Related story: The National Post in Canada just posted a 10 part series about "The Deniers," the scientists who disagree with various parts of the Global Warming Canon.

Some relevant excerpts from part 1.

Many in the "science is settled" camp claim that the skeptics are untrustworthy -- that they are either cranks or otherwise at the periphery of their profession, or that they are in the pockets of Exxon or other corporate interests. The skeptics are increasingly being called Deniers, a term used by analogy to the Holocaust, to convey the catastrophe that could befall mankind if action is not taken. Increasingly, too, the press is taking up the Denier theme, convincing the public that the global-warming debate is over.

In this, the first of a series, I examine The Deniers, starting with Edward Wegman. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. Few statisticians in the world have CVs to rival his (excerpts appear nearby).

Wegman became involved in the global-warming debate after the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess one of the hottest debates in the global-warming controversy: the statistical validity of work by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann's study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium. You may have also heard of Mann's hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick's long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick's blade) this century.

Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann's work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.

Wegman accepted the energy and commerce committee's assignment, and agreed to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann's work.

"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.

Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians." Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

Worse, the problem also applied more generally, to the broader climate-change and meteorological community, which also relied on statistical techniques in their studies. "f statistical methods are being used, then statisticians ought to be funded partners engaged in the research to insure as best we possibly can that the best quality science is being done," Wegman recommended, noting that "there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics."

In other words, Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt -- although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, he believes, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how.

While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion. (Ring a bell anyone? "These documents regarding GWB's military service are fake but accurate."

To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.

Edward Wegman received his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics. Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative's Innovative Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight books

 

[hereyago]

gee... thanks...

making me more self conscious

 

[jfuh]

I'm getting unbelievably tired of hearing these idiots scream all day about Bush and the evil corporations being the cause of global warming. It's driving me INSANE. It's like listening to an infomercial on how I can make money by spending money or watching an MTV cribs marathon or something. Jesus christ.

Hippies keep saying "LOOK AT THIS A GROUP OF SCIENTISTS JUST SAID CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING AND THAT ITS BUSH'S FAULT LOL?!"

Well I have some science of my own. It's called Biology.

Humans, just like the rest of the animalia (and bacteria) kingdoms, are consumers. The producers (plants) build biological molecules on carbon backbones. We eat the plants. We exhale the carbon.

This is the carbon a gallon of gasoline produces:
Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel | US EPA

This is the carbon you produce EVERY DAY:
Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today you (yes you, reading this) have burned almost half a gallon of gasoline into the atmosphere just by sitting on your fat *** yelling about George Bush on the internet. Nice job hippie.

Next time you feel like screaming at republicans about global warming do everyone else a favor: stop breathing.

Guess what else you're doing to kill the earth: you know that bran muffin you ate for breakfast? Right now bacteria in your intestines are breaking it down and producing methane as a byproduct, which you're going to expel from your anus. That CH4 molecule is going to float up into the sky and it is going to stay up there for about 10 years.

Methane has 23 times more global warming potential than carbon, which means that per pound of gas you are 23 times more effective at melting ice caps and killing polar bears than a Hummer.

Methane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So humans are the greatest threat in regards to global warming? The environment would be fine if we weren't screwing it up right? Wrong hippie.

250 million years ago 95% of life in the sea and 70% of life on land became suddenly extinct. Microorganisms below the sea floor called archaea produced immense amounts of methane, which froze on the sea floor as methane hydrate. Methane hydrate is explosive and unstable, and the reaction can chain. The craters on the sea floor to this day stretch for miles, and scientists have recently discovered massive deposits of methane hydrate 60 miles off the coast of Oregon.

The event was called "The Permian Great Dying", and not a single SUV contributed.

Biology Concepts and Applications, 6th edition, Cecie Starr 3.2

The earth is not a perfectly balanced masterpiece of forests and oceans. It is a homicidal tyrant that has killed 99.999% of every species that has ever existed on its surface or in its oceans, and all the hybrid cars you drive koom bai ya's you sing won't save you.

Something as retarded as capping carbon emissions for American corporations isn't even close to a solution. Pick up a science book and shut the hell up about Bush.

No one denies humans exhale co2, but anyone with half a wit would clearly see the amount emitted by a vehicle within the same period of time is clearly and obviously far more.
Yes, we are all to blame for global warming as we are the consumers of fossil fuels for our energy needs. The reason however that industry, republicans and especially the bush administration have gotten the blunt of the blame is due to their denial of the situation - as is your mis-information and deletion of the remainder of your sources to support your claims.
The bush administration has a record of silencing scientists simply because those scientists are publishing material that goes against administrative policy on the matter. It has also until recently denied global warming and even now still questions whether humans are the cause. The industry is well known for it's propaganda and mis-information of global warming and spent literally millions of dollars to hire lobbiests so as to affect legislation to be more favorable towards their energy uses or production.
Finally the Republicans, they too have received the criticism because it was their party line initially that there's no such thing as global warming.

 

[jfuh]

But the people who this is directed at will have convinced themselves that in terms of "the greater good," they're actually helping the earth because they're convincing people to change their usage habits.

This is bad because? We shouldn't do so because? Changing bad habits is bad because?

Completely random side note - anyone else remember Captain Planet? I didn't realize until recently how much propaganda that show was. Incredible.

I don't disagree it's propaganda but Teaching children about conservation is bad how?

 

[RightinNYC]

This is bad because? We shouldn't do so because? Changing bad habits is bad because?

I'm not saying that changing bad habits is bad, I'm saying that justifying ones own failure to change bad habits by rationalizing that you're having a bigger impact on others is somewhat hypocritical.

See: Celebrities who drive suvs and fly private jets to talk about conservation.

I don't disagree it's propaganda but Teaching children about conservation is bad how?

Teaching children about conservation is fine. Going the next step and saying "Don't support increased military expenditures, support using that money on the environment" is a completely different ball game.

I mean, we all agree that a television show that teaches children about sharing is a good idea. But if that show went so far as to say "the capitalist system inherently causes inequality of wealth and harms the poor," it would be rightly off the air.

 

[jfuh]

I'm not saying that changing bad habits is bad, I'm saying that justifying ones own failure to change bad habits by rationalizing that you're having a bigger impact on others is somewhat hypocritical.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

See: Celebrities who drive suvs and fly private jets to talk about conservation.

I don't think that pvt jets would be a valid comparison in this case for the simple reason that in many instances, mega celebrities are not welcomed by commercial airlines because of the excess measures that the airlines would need to go through.
The president of the United states flies around in his own private 747 air force one, add onto that fighter jet escorts. But I'm not going to say that he's anti-environment because of it. Simply that the conditions require h/er to do so.

Teaching children about conservation is fine. Going the next step and saying "Don't support increased military expenditures, support using that money on the environment" is a completely different ball game.

I mean, we all agree that a television show that teaches children about sharing is a good idea. But if that show went so far as to say "the capitalist system inherently causes inequality of wealth and harms the poor," it would be rightly off the air.

I've seen that show probably once or twice. But I don't recall ever really sensing such an "anti-capitalist" stance from the show. As a kid all I got was the conservation part. I don't know if kids really see that deep into it. The polluters in the show were just that, polluting for the sake of polluting alone. I may be wrong, it was a long time ago.

 

[saggyjones]

I ride my bike rather than drive as much as possible. When I get the chance and money I'm buying a more fuel efficient car. I try to spread the word about global warming to many people. I use as few bags as possible at the grocery store (like that matters lol). I support the research of alternative fuel sources for cars and in the mean a massive switch to nuclear power, which jfuh mentioned in another thread and turns out to be a perfect energy solution (I'll tell you why if you'd like).

And instead of attacking others and having a very negative attitude like you, I try to do as much as possible to help our planet. Even if you can't be convinced that global warming is happening and we are causing it, you must agree that burning fossil fuels in power plants and cars puts out pollution, which makes the air dirty. Why not try to clean it up so we can live in a nice place? Also with an alternative fuel source for cars we wouldn't be dependent on foreign oil. I just don't see the drawbacks of switching to alternative energy.

 

[FreeThinker]

I ride my bike rather than drive as much as possible. When I get the chance and money I'm buying a more fuel efficient car. I try to spread the word about global warming to many people. I use as few bags as possible at the grocery store (like that matters lol). I support the research of alternative fuel sources for cars and in the mean a massive switch to nuclear power, which jfuh mentioned in another thread and turns out to be a perfect energy solution (I'll tell you why if you'd like).

And instead of attacking others and having a very negative attitude like you, I try to do as much as possible to help our planet. Even if you can't be convinced that global warming is happening and we are causing it, you must agree that burning fossil fuels in power plants and cars puts out pollution, which makes the air dirty. Why not try to clean it up so we can live in a nice place? Also with an alternative fuel source for cars we wouldn't be dependent on foreign oil. I just don't see the drawbacks of switching to alternative energy.

You don't seem to understand that fossil fuels are only one factor in a much larger problem. You also don't seem to understand that even if we don't burn fossil fuels anymore humans are still going to be giving off massive amounts of carbon just by existing. Carbon is a natural biological byproduct of human beings just like oxygen is from plants.

Petroleum is not unlimited. It is going to run out and then we're going to be forced to use alternative energy anyway. That isn't going to change the fact that humans are still going to be giving off massive amounts of carbon and methane.

My attitude isn't negative, it is simply one that realistically looks at the overall problem instead of focusing all my attention on oil companies and republicans.

 

[jfuh]

You don't seem to understand that fossil fuels are only one factor in a much larger problem.

Being?

You also don't seem to understand that even if we don't burn fossil fuels anymore humans are still going to be giving off massive amounts of carbon just by existing. Carbon is a natural biological byproduct of human beings just like oxygen is from plants.

See post #5

Petroleum is not unlimited. It is going to run out and then we're going to be forced to use alternative energy anyway. That isn't going to change the fact that humans are still going to be giving off massive amounts of carbon and methane.

Why?

My attitude isn't negative, it is simply one that realistically looks at the overall problem instead of focusing all my attention on oil companies and republicans.

Again post #5

 

[FreeThinker]

Being?

The larger problem is that our environment has always been unstable. Drastic climate changes that kill entire species happen all on their own without any help from mankind.

If we stopped burning ALL fossil fuels TODAY, there would still be enough carbon and methane emissions from humans and animals to cause the greenhouse effect to continue.

There is more animalia biomass in the form of humans, cows, cats, dogs, and everything else than there ever has been in the history of the planet, and it is still increasing.

The problem is not the oil, or George Bush, or any evil corporations. The problem is too much animal life and not enough plant life.

Carbon is the natural byproduct of human life, and unless you feel like genocide, capping carbon emissions on industry isn't going to do squat.

Liberal's solutions are overly simplistic and in the long run completely pointless. The technology we need to solve our ecological problems is what is important. Bush is spending less time on pointless taxes on carbon emissions and more time doing what we need: putting federal tax dollars into research and development.

 

[jfuh]

The larger problem is that our environment has always been unstable. Drastic climate changes that kill entire species happen all on their own without any help from mankind.

Hence as I've asked you for the nth time now. WHat's natural about this?

If we stopped burning ALL fossil fuels TODAY, there would still be enough carbon and methane emissions from humans and animals to cause the greenhouse effect to continue.

prove it.

There is more animalia biomass in the form of humans, cows, cats, dogs, and everything else than there ever has been in the history of the planet, and it is still increasing.

Proof there of?

The problem is not the oil, or George Bush, or any evil corporations. The problem is too much animal life and not enough plant life.

Deforestation is a problem, human development is a problem. for the rest read post 5

Carbon is the natural byproduct of human life, and unless you feel like genocide, capping carbon emissions on industry isn't going to do squat.

proof?

Liberal's solutions are overly simplistic and in the long run completely pointless. The technology we need to solve our ecological problems is what is important. Bush is spending less time on pointless taxes on carbon emissions and more time doing what we need: putting federal tax dollars into research and development.

He's not doing that either.

 

[saggyjones]

You don't seem to understand that fossil fuels are only one factor in a much larger problem. You also don't seem to understand that even if we don't burn fossil fuels anymore humans are still going to be giving off massive amounts of carbon just by existing. Carbon is a natural biological byproduct of human beings just like oxygen is from plants.

Animals putting out CO2 from respiration have existed for a long long time, that doesn't affect the earth because there are plants to balance it out. Oh wait, we're cutting down all the trees, so yes, it will have a slight impact, but not nearly as much as burning fossil fuels. If you look at this graph you will see that:

Petroleum is not unlimited. It is going to run out and then we're going to be forced to use alternative energy anyway.

So why are you complaining about global warming? Why not support switching to alternative energy instead of complaining about liberals?

That isn't going to change the fact that humans are still going to be giving off massive amounts of carbon and methane.

Source?

My attitude isn't negative, it is simply one that realistically looks at the overall problem instead of focusing all my attention on oil companies and republicans.

Oil companies sell oil. This oil is mostly used as power for cars. Cars produce greenhouse gases. Most republicans support big business and approve of tax cuts to these oil companies. Can you see the connection between republicans, oil companies, and global warming now?

Also, you aren't realistically looking at the problem, you are simply bitching and whining about liberals, which seems very negative to me.

 

[FreeThinker]

You people still are not understanding the basic biological principal behind this.

I'll make it as simple as possible:

There are two main types of life on earth. Those two types are producers and consumers.

Producers grab a CO2 molecule from the air, release the O2 molecule, and use the carbon as the backbone in sugars, proteins, and fats.

Consumers, by eating the plants or each other, consume the sugars/proteins/fats and kick that carbon molecule back up into the air when they breath or burn (petroleum is just dead biomass) or biodegrade.

Remember how I said in my first post that 250 million years ago 95% of life in the sea and 70% on land died? That happened because the consumers (archaea below the sea floor) outnumbered the producers. More carbon and methane was released into the atmosphere than could be processed by the plants.

Archaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The more consumers that exist on the planet, the more carbon is going to be in the atmosphere. Making oil companies pay higher taxes is not going to change this.

I said it before and I'll say it again: attempting to cap carbon emissions from industry is not going to change anything in the long run. New technologies are needed and that is what Bush is investing in.

 

[Sauwan]

You people still are not understanding the basic biological principal behind this.

I'll make it as simple as possible:

There are two main types of life on earth. Those two types are producers and consumers.

Producers grab a CO2 molecule from the air, release the O2 molecule, and use the carbon as the backbone in sugars, proteins, and fats.

Consumers, by eating the plants or each other, consume the sugars/proteins/fats and kick that carbon molecule back up into the air when they breath or burn (petroleum is just dead biomass) or biodegrade.

Remember how I said in my first post that 250 million years ago 95% of life in the sea and 70% on land died? That happened because the consumers (archaea below the sea floor) outnumbered the producers. More carbon and methane was released into the atmosphere than could be processed by the plants.

Archaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The more consumers that exist on the planet, the more carbon is going to be in the atmosphere. Making oil companies pay higher taxes is not going to change this.

You seem to think that the number of consumers is growing larger right now. Consider the fact that insects outnumber humans on this earth 200 million to every one of us. While they are considerably smaller, I'm guessing that two hundred million of the average bug size outputs more CO2 than each person. Needless to say that's not even considering all our small furry friends as well. While we are the largest of the species on the planet, we are by no means the dominant consumer.

I said it before and I'll say it again: attempting to cap carbon emissions from industry is not going to change anything in the long run. New technologies are needed and that is what Bush is investing in.

And I'll say what's been said before as well. Bullshit. The amount of CO2 we output naturally pales in comparison to the amount we output by burning for fuel. The sinks in the ocean could handle the output from the overwhelming number of consumers prior to us. Now they clearly cannot.

It's this type of bunk "science" - science where people have their conclusions prior to their answers - that causes so many problems.

 

[Dezaad]

The larger problem is that our environment has always been unstable. Drastic climate changes that kill entire species happen all on their own without any help from mankind.

If we stopped burning ALL fossil fuels TODAY, there would still be enough carbon and methane emissions from humans and animals to cause the greenhouse effect to continue.

There is more animalia biomass in the form of humans, cows, cats, dogs, and everything else than there ever has been in the history of the planet, and it is still increasing.

The problem is not the oil, or George Bush, or any evil corporations. The problem is too much animal life and not enough plant life.

Carbon is the natural byproduct of human life, and unless you feel like genocide, capping carbon emissions on industry isn't going to do squat.

Liberal's solutions are overly simplistic and in the long run completely pointless. The technology we need to solve our ecological problems is what is important. Bush is spending less time on pointless taxes on carbon emissions and more time doing what we need: putting federal tax dollars into research and development.

Where do you suppose humans are getting the carbon that they exhale? My hypothesis is that they get it from plants that extracted the carbon from the atmosphere less than 1 year ago. If this is true, then a carbon cycle is set up with a maximum turn-around time of 1 year. This carbon cycle results in a net increase of carbon dioxide of zero.

Plants absorb CO2. Man eats Plants, exhales CO2. Plants absorb CO2. Man eats plants, exhales CO2.

Where is the net increase of CO2 arising from?

 

[FreeThinker]

Where do you suppose humans are getting the carbon that they exhale? My hypothesis is that they get it from plants that extracted the carbon from the atmosphere less than 1 year ago. If this is true, then a carbon cycle is set up with a maximum turn-around time of 1 year. This carbon cycle results in a net increase of carbon dioxide of zero.

Plants absorb CO2. Man eats Plants, exhales CO2. Plants absorb CO2. Man eats plants, exhales CO2.

Where is the net increase of CO2 arising from?

The more consumers exist, the more carbon is in the atmosphere.

 

[saggyjones]

The more consumers exist, the more carbon is in the atmosphere.

If you look at jfuh's graph you will understand that we are adding much more CO2 with burning energy, etc. than we are with breathing naturally.

And why did you ignore my post?

 

[jfuh]

The more consumers exist, the more carbon is in the atmosphere.

Is that from the consumers simply breathing? Or is that from consumers burning fossil fuels?