How are you making sure all the non natural CO2 you do produce is fully locked away?
I hold in my farts. I let them out when I visit the USA. I call it "cap and trade".
Thunderchild, I'm kind of in your camp, pretty much everyone agrees universally that some kind of action is necesary, the action being taken however won't get the desired goals accomplished. I can't really see that taxing coal/oil is unfair though, as even if it's not the end of the world evil it still is a pollution source, why shouldn't the money come from there, as long as it actually went into someting beneficial not just more pork barrel spending. There is almost zero accountability in government spending, and even less checks and ballances to determin cost/benefit ratios for big ticket spending.
just look at the amounts of garbage humans are releasing each day. How can you think that all this gunk is not affecting the planet?
View attachment 37504
View attachment 37505
How are you making sure all the non natural CO2 you do produce is fully locked away?
I hold in my farts. I let them out when I visit the USA. I call it "cap and trade".
Correct. All that CO2 sequestered over millions of years, is now being released in a few hundred.Mikebits, think for just one second where all that 'gunk' came from.. Mother nature created it.
I know what you said. I also can guess what you implied. ie: It's "natural" so it is perfectly OK to do that.ALL that I said was be aware of where that gunk came from.
That's why I made it a broad general statement. The basic truth is this: That 1 ton of CO2 from oil took a heck of a longer time to get sequestered than the time it took us to release it.Really? When has science fully quantified all of the fossil fuel available on the entire planet and determined every way in which C02 has been sequestered. How was all that material weighed and quantified to make such a bold statement? Oh yeah... it hasn't...
LOL! That's pretty funny!Just to give you an example of how gullible people are and how 100% true information can be used to give a horribly wrong public opinion to something that is completely normal.
Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division - dihydrogen monoxide info
That's why I made it a broad general statement. The basic truth is this: That 1 ton of CO2 from oil took a heck of a longer time to get sequestered than the time it took us to release it.
That statement is not necessarily true. C02 emited by man is a point source, that absorbed and emited by nature is over the entire valume of the earth, especially with respect to the ocean, and we have NO clue how these carbon cycles work in detail. It is reasonable to assume, but not scientifically valid that man's addition to earths c02 may have something to do with the observed average rises in c02 level, but we simply put DO NOT KNOW. Common sense says we should attempt to reduce the amount of carbon we put out, but not to completely upset our entire societies economic systems in the process or we'll screw ourselves worse than nature would have if we'd done nothing =PThat's why I made it a broad general statement. The basic truth is this: That 1 ton of CO2 from oil took a heck of a longer time to get sequestered than the time it took us to release it.
kchriste I'm gonna answer your responses in reverse order cause it just seems to work better for me that way.
Actually it's not funny at all. It's horribly horribly sad and telling of the sheepishness of the human race. It's been done several times Google it, high school students have done 'projects' very similar to that, and people have done petitions at environemental rallys and upwards of 75-90% of people will sign a petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide based on the perfectly sound scientific data presented...
I hope that gets my point across, because believe me that is THE point as far as anything else in this thread goes.
That statement is not necessarily true. C02 emited by man is a point source, that absorbed and emited by nature is over the entire valume of the earth, especially with respect to the ocean, and we have NO clue how these carbon cycles work in detail. It is reasonable to assume, but not scientifically valid that man's addition to earths c02 may have something to do with the observed average rises in c02 level, but we simply put DO NOT KNOW. Common sense says we should attempt to reduce the amount of carbon we put out, but not to completely upset our entire societies economic systems in the process or we'll screw ourselves worse than nature would have if we'd done nothing =P
I can safely and completely ignore your perception of what I implied because I don't imply anything intentionally, it's a very difficult thing for me to remove perceived emotion from what I'm saying because I do feel strongly about it, but what you think about what I'm saying is dead wrong.
The carbon we're producing is from nature; That is as close to an established fact as we can get. I did not intend to imply that this was okay in any way. Just that one must keep the source in mind, because we know so little about earths natural energy cycles in the first place that pretty much everything that is said is implication in the first place and not really based on anything even remotely resembling sane logical analysis of simple data collected.
The house of cards is still there, it's just as unstable and it doesn't matter how impressive it looks, it WILL come down and the likelihood is that we as a species won't even be here to see it happen. A basic fact is that you me and every currently living human being on this planet will not be here when there are actually true statistically provable answers to these questions.
So we're on almost post 300 in this thread now, and there isn't even anything to talk about!
I've heard from various people that there is one major method to determine if something is insane or not. If someone/thing is insane it will continually attempt to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Almost everything I read about the doom of humanity that is based on environmental 'science' is heavy paranoia for us to immediately act to save ourselves. It's nothing more than a simple mass hallucination designed (by ourselves and not conciosuly) to ease our own inability to deal with the temporary status of our own existence.
A million years from now, this planet will in all statistical likelihood be here, things will be different than they are now. We can not predict how they will be different, and most importantly WE WILL NOT BE HERE. All this blibber blabber is like shouting into the wind pointlessly to no positive outcome to anyone or anything involved in the discussion. This entire thread is a virtual insanity diary.
So you don't think the site was just created as a joke that got out of hand? On the CBC, we had a show called Talking to Americans which went around asking stupid loaded questions of people in the USA. Usually they were about Canada. One famous one was when, posing as a reporter, Rick Mercer talked to Bush about our, now ex, Prime minister as Jean Poutine. The 20hr clock bit was pretty good too. Stupid people are everywhere in the world. No one has a monopoly.kchriste I'm gonna answer your responses in reverse order cause it just seems to work better for me that way.
Actually it's not funny at all. It's horribly horribly sad and telling of the sheepishness of the human race. It's been done several times Google it, high school students have done 'projects' very similar to that, and people have done petitions at environemental rallys and upwards of 75-90% of people will sign a petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide based on the perfectly sound scientific data presented...
What? That plant matter can't turn into oil at the same rate that you can burn oil? Come on! Even if you burned the plant matter directly, such as heating your house with wood, it takes WAY more time for the tree to grow than it'll take you to burn it. That is what we are doing with oil. Burning it faster than it was created. Releasing carbon stored over a long period of time in a very short period of time.That statement is not necessarily true.
I don't know about that. One way to end it is to agree with my point of view.So we're on almost post 300 in this thread now, and there isn't even anything to talk about!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?