Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Coffee

Globel Warming

Recommended Posts

Well at least Baz is having a laugh !! Doh, the tanker analogy is merely to emphasise a LONG TIME, in the case of any environmental change, more than a lifetime; one way or the other, YOU will never see it, so YOU will never know if your right or wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least Baz is having a laugh !! Doh, the tanker analogy is merely to emphasise a LONG TIME, in the case of any environmental change, more than a lifetime; one way or the other, YOU will never see it, so YOU will never know if your right or wrong.

 

 

So it can be turned around then, so not too late then, so silly analogy then.  Like I said,, it's not all about me, its about our children and theirs. Talk about selfish, myopic attitudes, this takes the biscuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of those politicians gathering in Paris to discuss the threat of climate change are the same ones authorising the dropping of tonnes of explosives on the Middle East. Are these explosives "environmentally friendly" somehow? 

So the bombs will harm the environment but millions of tons of co2 won't?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CO2 is a vital trace gas in the atmosphere. Without it all life on earth, plant and animal, wouldn't exist. There is evidence (yes real evidence, not computer model conjecture) that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is actually greening the planet by encouraging plant life. This can be seen from space.We could do with more warming, it's no accident that the tropics are teeming with all manner of wildlife and plants while the arctic and antarctic don't seem to have much of anything really

 

Still lost on the Uncle Albert thing. A friend of yours is he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CO2 is a vital trace gas in the atmosphere. Without it all life on earth, plant and animal, wouldn't exist. There is evidence (yes real evidence, not computer model conjecture) that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is actually greening the planet by encouraging plant life. This can be seen from space.We could do with more warming, it's no accident that the tropics are teeming with all manner of wildlife and plants while the arctic and antarctic don't seem to have much of anything really

 

Still lost on the Uncle Albert thing. A friend of yours is he?

So here you are admitting, no boasting , that mankind is effectively changing the earths atmosphere whilst simultaneously denying mans ability to affect his planets atmosphere.  Are you Shroedingers poster?  The uncle Albert reference seems to be only one of many things that leave you confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said it can be "turned around"; I'm merely making the point that even if it could be "turned around", no one alive today would see the benefits. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myopic at best, there are people being born today who will still be alive in a hundred years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CO2 is a vital trace gas in the atmosphere. Without it all life on earth, plant and animal, wouldn't exist. There is evidence (yes real evidence, not computer model conjecture) that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is actually greening the planet by encouraging plant life. This can be seen from space.We could do with more warming, it's no accident that the tropics are teeming with all manner of wildlife and plants while the arctic and antarctic don't seem to have much of anything really

 

Still lost on the Uncle Albert thing. A friend of yours is he?

"Let's celebrate CO2.

We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth.

We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.

The deserts are greening from rising CO2."

 

Dr Patrick Moore, founding member, Greenpeace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well "at best" it'll take a hundred years, if you have the arrogance to believe that puny mankind can control the forces of nature. What is more likely is that pollution will get worse, due to population increase and demand, but not to worry, we won't see it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well "at best" it'll take a hundred years, if you have the arrogance to believe that puny mankind can control the forces of nature. What is more likely is that pollution will get worse, due to population increase and demand, but not to worry, we won't see it !

Oh, they don't talk about pollution, it's all about CO2.

That lovely taxable, carbon creditable, target striveable, financially subsidisable CO2.

Gosh, how the money rolls in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Plants produce CO2 (Carbon dioxide) all the time as a metabolic product of respiration, but when light is available, they can use and fix some of this CO2 as a substrate in photosynthesis. When light is available, they also take up additional CO2 from the surrounding atmosphere, and one of the the end products of photosynthesis is O2 (molecular oxygen), so when light is available, on net balance they use/fix more CO2 into other molecules than they produce, and so produce more O2 than CO2.

 

When light is not available, i.e. when it is dark, they do not have an energy source for photosynthesis, and so cannot fix CO2 and produce O2, but of course they must continue to respire to stay alive (and hence continue to produce CO2), so they become net producers of CO2. Christopher Huang, Developmental biologist.

just found this interesting tidbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Dr Patrick Moore, founding member, Greenpeace.

 

 

Now a mouthpiece for big oil and GM companies ,  and a real man of his word who will practice exactly what he preaches.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here you are admitting, no boasting , that mankind is effectively changing the earths atmosphere whilst simultaneously denying mans ability to affect his planets atmosphere.  Are you Shroedingers poster?  The uncle Albert reference seems to be only one of many things that leave you confused.

Man's contribution to any increase in atmospheric CO2 is minute compared to the natural outgassing of the oceans and from volcanoes. I'm not the confused one here, as you are apparently able to confuse a vital trace gas with pollution. As for the uncle Albert thing, perhaps you will stop wetting yourself for a minute and explain what you seem to find so funny, because I really don't know what you're on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

India and Indonesia are examples of why it will get worse; they're committed  to economic growth to sate their growing populations, and the cheapest way to fuel that growth is with dirty old coal. So, over-population is the problem ultimately; China made a brave attempt to stem it (one child policy) but as now given up; but population levels will continue to rise, increasing demands for energy and other resources; which relatively expensive renewables may not keep up with. :cry:   While the West starts to give up smoking, the Third World is just lighting up !  8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian, you are calling something a pollutant that we all produce.

Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning ancient CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when we burn coal. And that's a good thing since it's at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine right now. It is very, very low. More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture.

If plants could vote they'd vote for coal."

 

Dr Will Happer, Physicist, Princetown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love it, it wasn't that funny at first but you have made it hilarious

Must be a private joke if it's only funny to you, and you can't tell anyone else why. Very strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume it's some form of insult then. Typical really, you don't have any coherent argument so you turn to derision. Sad really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your starting to suss him out Asp !   Sorry, but most folk don't do crèche humour.

Even creche humour is beyond you.  And you bandy about more insults and derogatory terminology than anyone then skrike when you get some back,  in fact you have posted some of the vilest statements on here over the years.  Pot, kettle , black .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume it's some form of insult then. Typical really, you don't have any coherent argument so you turn to derision. Sad really.

Not really an insult, I like uncle Albert.  More a mild piss take to be fair.  You made it funnier though with your ignorance of the gag and your constant pleading for enlightenment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...