UN report: Nature best controls clima...

UN report: Nature best controls climate gases

There are 44 comments on the Clover Herald story from Jun 5, 2009, titled UN report: Nature best controls climate gases. In it, Clover Herald reports that:

Nature's way is best for controlling the gases responsible for climate change, the U.N. Environment Program said in a report Friday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Clover Herald.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
MattJ

Pleasanton, CA

#1 Jun 5, 2009
From the headline, I just know people are going to quote them out of context:(

When they say 'best', they do NOT mean that we should forget about lowering CO2 emissions, and let Nature take care of it. They mean that Nature's way is better than trying to remove it ourselves, or playing with SO2 aerosols.

And that is certainly true. But Nature's way alone simply CANNOT cope with the huge amount of CO2 we dump every day into the atmosphere. We must cut back AND stop deforestation.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#2 Jun 5, 2009
It might work to balance output and input but you FIRST need to reduce output to something that can be handled by vegetation growth. We are WAY beyond that now.
Earthling

Huécija, Spain

#3 Jun 5, 2009
Who would have guessed that the UN got it wrong again? And how lucky are we here at Topix to have an on the spot team of experts to prove them wrong?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4 Jun 5, 2009
"The report said better management of forests, more careful agricultural practices and the restoration of peatlands could soak up significant amounts of carbon dioxide, the most common of the gases blamed for global warming."

At last, a solution that won't wreck our economy.
MattJ

Pleasanton, CA

#5 Jun 5, 2009
Brian_G wrote:
At last, a solution that won't wreck our economy.
It is not a solution. And spending a mere 2% of GDP every year on the REAL solution is NOT going to wreck our economy.
Earthling

Huécija, Spain

#6 Jun 5, 2009
Brian_G wrote:
"The report said better management of forests, more careful agricultural practices and the restoration of peatlands could soak up significant amounts of carbon dioxide, the most common of the gases blamed for global warming."
At last, a solution that won't wreck our economy.
Sorry, Brian, our resident team of experts disagree with the UN, so the report must be wrong.
MattJ

Pleasanton, CA

#7 Jun 5, 2009
Earthling wrote:
Who would have guessed that the UN got it wrong again? And how lucky are we here at Topix to have an on the spot team of experts to prove them wrong?
Who do you think you can fool,'Earthling'? When the UN disagreed with you, you didn't believe them, but NOW you praise their authority? NOW you pretend that they can't "get it wrong"?

We know your dirty little game. When the UN says what you happen to agree with, then you say they are right. When they say that you happen to disagree with, they are wrong, and no amount of evidence will convince you of YOUR error.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#8 Jun 5, 2009
Brian_G wrote:
At last, a solution that won't wreck our economy.
Who is going to pay millions of people to go around planting trees? And how about compensation for the loggers that will have to leave trees standing, the land owners that want to cut down trees to build condos, etc etc etc.

While nicely logical, in practice, this is actually a VERY expensive way to cut CO2 relative to the impact.
Earthling

Huécija, Spain

#9 Jun 5, 2009
Will someone please tell Doormatt he's talking to himself?

“Your Own Peace Prize Inside”

Since: Mar 07

Hyannis, Mass

#10 Jun 5, 2009
I see the AGW apologists were quick to jump on this, claiming all sorts of inaccuracies.
Perhaps they should start to realize that they don't have all the answers and that they might be wrong in their opinions.
Even the IPCC 4th has documentation that supports this report.
It's all about the significance of nature and man on the condition. Nature has, by far, the most (and maybe entirely) influence on the condition called global warming.
There are EPA, NASA, NOAA reports in the IPCC 4th that document this. BUt the "green heads" refuse to believe anything other than man is the main reason the condition is happening.
MattJ

Pleasanton, CA

#11 Jun 5, 2009
WeElectedABunchOfIdiots wrote:
I see the AGW apologists were quick to jump on this, claiming all sorts of inaccuracies.
Perhaps they should start to realize that they don't have all the answers and that they might be wrong in their opinions.
Even the IPCC 4th has documentation that supports this report.
It's all about the significance of nature and man on the condition. Nature has, by far, the most (and maybe entirely) influence on the condition called global warming.
There are EPA, NASA, NOAA reports in the IPCC 4th that document this. BUt the "green heads" refuse to believe anything other than man is the main reason the condition is happening.
Read the 4th report more closely. You will find that it DOES support the need to stop and reverse deforestation, but does NOT tout that as a solution to AGW.

They know better. The IPCC realizes we must also cut CO2 emissions and cut them IMMEDIATELY.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12 Jun 5, 2009
MattJ wrote:
...They know better. The IPCC realizes we must also cut CO2 emissions and cut them IMMEDIATELY.
If we don't cut CO2 emissions immediately, and nothing happens, this will prove the falacy of climate mitigation. Keep it up!
Earthling

Huécija, Spain

#13 Jun 6, 2009
WeElectedABunchOfIdiots wrote:
I see the AGW apologists were quick to jump on this, claiming all sorts of inaccuracies.
Perhaps they should start to realize that they don't have all the answers and that they might be wrong in their opinions.
Even the IPCC 4th has documentation that supports this report.
It's all about the significance of nature and man on the condition. Nature has, by far, the most (and maybe entirely) influence on the condition called global warming.
There are EPA, NASA, NOAA reports in the IPCC 4th that document this. BUt the "green heads" refuse to believe anything other than man is the main reason the condition is happening.
They read the parts that suit their heroic cause, proving the need to save the human race from the certain destruction only they can foresee.
They have become complete and absolute extreme fanatics and fanaticism has never been a very good ideal under any circumstances.
MattJ

Pleasanton, CA

#14 Jun 6, 2009
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
If we don't cut CO2 emissions immediately, and nothing happens, this will prove the falacy of climate mitigation. Keep it up!
The fallacy is, as usual, all yours. It takes years for the effect of any one day's CO2 emissions to show up in climate. But by the time it does, like a steering error in a supertanker, it is too late to do anything about it.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15 Jun 6, 2009
MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
The fallacy is, as usual, all yours. It takes years for the effect of any one day's CO2 emissions to show up in climate. But by the time it does, like a steering error in a supertanker, it is too late to do anything about it.
You have plenty of excuses, why there is no experimental verification. Why not put your energy in improving the science? If we had more ways to remove GHGs from the air, we might be onto something, instead, we get climate mitigation, excuse science, faith based science.
MattJ

Pleasanton, CA

#16 Jun 6, 2009
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
You have plenty of excuses, why there is no experimental verification.
They are not 'excuses'. They are reasons. Your inability to distinguish between the two is yet another symptom of your lack of education.
Why not put your energy in improving the science?
Because the science ALREADY supports one conclusion unequivocaly: AGW is real, it is a real threat, we must cut CO2 NOW to deal with it.
If we had more ways to remove GHGs from the air, we might be onto something, instead, we get climate mitigation, excuse science, faith based science.
No, Brian, this too reveals your ignorance. Any method of removing it from the atmosphere must be MUCH more expensive than it was to put it in there.

Both the laws of economics and the laws of chemistry dictate this result. YOU are pretending to be concerned about the costs of mitigation, while insisting on a MUCH more costly course of action.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#17 Jun 6, 2009
MattJ wrote:
...Because the science ALREADY supports one conclusion unequivocaly: AGW is real, it is a real threat, we must cut CO2 NOW to deal with it...
Matthew, you don't understand science, it isn't a secret, theory must be proven experimentally. If you have no experimental data, your theory is of no practical value so you can't propose policy based on wishful thinking. You continue to say "we must cut CO2 NOW", when will it be obvious that we don't have to do any such thing? Why won't you understand the scientific method, you don't take medicine that's never been tested on another patient, why promote a climate cure that's never been tried?
MattJ

Pleasanton, CA

#18 Jun 6, 2009
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Matthew, you don't understand science,
No, you are the one who doesn't understand. You have demonstrated this with your idiotic posts over and over for months now.
it isn't a secret, theory must be proven experimentally.
It isn't a 'secret' because it isn't even TRUE. Yet again you ignore the vital distinction between experimental and observational sciences.

Yet it is an observational science, astronomy, that was the FIRST of all sciences, and in a way, the mother of them all. Physics, chemistry, and all those sciences relying on them, were made possible by astronomy, the OSBERVATIONAL science.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#19 Jun 6, 2009
MattJ wrote:
... Yet again you ignore the vital distinction between experimental and observational sciences.
Yet it is an observational science, astronomy, that was the FIRST of all sciences, and in a way, the mother of them all. Physics, chemistry, and all those sciences relying on them, were made possible by astronomy, the OSBERVATIONAL science.
I don't follow you, how is climatology OBSERVATIONAL, if you propose some climate mitigation policy? If you have a policy, you are no longer observing, you are experimenting. Is there another observational science with policy recommendations? What policy does astronomy promote? How do you do astronomical mitigation?

It’s you who confuses observational and experimental science.
MattJ

Pleasanton, CA

#20 Jun 6, 2009
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't follow you, how is climatology OBSERVATIONAL, if you propose some climate mitigation policy? If you have a policy, you are no longer observing, you are experimenting. Is there another observational science with policy recommendations? What policy does astronomy promote? How do you do astronomical mitigation?
It’s you who confuses observational and experimental science.
No, you are the one confusing them. Perhaps you would not be as confused, if you realized that astronomy DOES recommend a policy: watching for "killer asteroids".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bonn, Germany Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
God Damned Holy Spirit!!!. Jul '15 dGo mnaDed lyHo i... 1
News Europe pivots between safety and privacy online (Jan '15) Jan '15 Kid_Tomorrow 1
News Religion is out of fashion with most German you... (Aug '08) Nov '14 Herb 5
News Greenhouse gas emissions hitting record highs (Jun '11) Nov '14 Earthling-1 214
News UN climate talks in Bonn reach no concrete result (Oct '14) Oct '14 Earthling-1 15
News Tall Tales from the Vienna Courts on Jews (Jul '14) Jul '14 Scorpio 1
News Sildenafil Helps Turn 'Bad' White Adipose Tissu... (Apr '13) Jun '14 Gregorio 9
More from around the web