Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30922 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

SpaceBlues

United States

#31750 Mar 28, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Very interesting article, thanks. And yes, I AM slighly crazy...:)
You're most welcome.

Is slighly better than slightly?

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31751 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Right Josh, I'll walk right over and check it out.
Location, location, location... that's the three things that define the value of real estate. Venus is closer to the sun, of course its hotter than Earth. Mar's atmosphere is 95.9% CO2, but its still colder than Earth's atmosphere with a meager 0.0391 CO2. Distance from the sun is more important than CO2.
Yes, a majority of mar's atmosphere is co2, but its about 1% as thick as the earth's. in fact, to terraform mars, future colonists will have to pump co2 into the atmosphere in order to warm the planet. This is basic chemistry. I might agree with you on the validity of certain climate predictions, but the more co2 is in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet will get, and the oceans will become more acidic. The issue of ocean acidification is already affecting marine organism worldwide. Crustacious plankton and corals are adversely affected by carbonic acid that results from the fact that the world's oceans absorb about 25% of the co2 in the atmosphere every year. What happens is that these creatures are suddenly unable to build and repair their shells faster than the acidified water eats them away.

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

#31752 Mar 28, 2013
Anyone that had drank the Kool-Aid...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31753 Mar 28, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
Yes, a majority of mar's atmosphere is co2, but its about 1% as thick as the earth's. in fact, to terraform mars, future colonists will have to pump co2 into the atmosphere in order to warm the planet. This is basic chemistry. I might agree with you on the validity of certain climate predictions, but the more co2 is in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet will get, and the oceans will become more acidic. The issue of ocean acidification is already affecting marine organism worldwide. Crustacious plankton and corals are adversely affected by carbonic acid that results from the fact that the world's oceans absorb about 25% of the co2 in the atmosphere every year. What happens is that these creatures are suddenly unable to build and repair their shells faster than the acidified water eats them away.
The nice thing about oceans, warmer water emits CO2 into the air and colder water absorbs CO2. Kind of like a balance that's always changing. Its absorbing "25% of the co2 in the atmosphere every year" but then emitting it and more as it warms; that's partly why atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

It's a well experimented and documented fact, as temperature increases the less CO2 the oceans can hold. Look up Henry's law.

BTW, when water cools, when it sinks to the bottom of the ocean or flows up to the poles, it holds more gas, including CO2. Also, the ph of the oceans aren't acidic.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31754 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The nice thing about oceans, warmer water emits CO2 into the air and colder water absorbs CO2. Kind of like a balance that's always changing. Its absorbing "25% of the co2[sic] in the atmosphere every year" but then emitting it and more as it warms; that's partly why atmospheric CO2 is increasing.
It's a well experimented and documented fact, as temperature increases the less CO2 the oceans can hold. Look up Henry's law.
BTW, when water cools, when it sinks to the bottom of the ocean or flows up to the poles, it holds more gas, including CO2. Also, the ph[sic] of the oceans aren't acidic.
blah blah you don't get it.

CO2 concentration is critical everywhere, not benign anywhere.

Scientists examining evidence across the world from New Jersey to North Africa say they have linked the abrupt disappearance of half of earth's species 200 million years ago to a precisely dated set of gigantic volcanic eruptions. The eruptions may have caused climate changes so sudden that many creatures were unable to adapt -- possibly on a pace similar to that of human-influenced climate warming today. The extinction opened the way for dinosaurs to evolve and dominate the planet for the next 135 million years, before they, too, were wiped out in a later planetary cataclysm.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31755 Mar 28, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
blah blah you don't get it. CO2 concentration is critical everywhere, not benign anywhere.
Scientists examining evidence across the world from New Jersey to North Africa say they have linked the abrupt disappearance of half of earth's species 200 million years ago to a precisely dated set of gigantic volcanic eruptions.
That's exactly what I'm saying, geological sources of greenhouse gases are significant; man is not. I'm saying the biggest thing on Earth is the atmosphere and the Earth itself has released the gas that fills it. I'm saying, man can do more than put back the CO2 that was once free in the atmosphere, to absorb warmth and keep us alive.

Supervolcanoes cause catastrophic climate change, not man made greenhouse gas from our fossil fuel use. There's evidence of entire Orders being extinguished nature's climate change, but not even one single species extinction attributed to man made climate change. Habitat disruption, hunting, sure, man's extinguished many species before. Real Estate is as necessary as air.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
The eruptions may have caused climate changes so sudden that many creatures were unable to adapt --
No species evolved the ability to mitigate climate change in more than four billion years of evolution, there have been many climate changes that ranged from fast to slow.

Isn't it a clue, we've evolved brains to use skeptically when politicians ask for climate taxes and crony spending on undemonstrated and untested climate change mitigation?

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
possibly on a pace similar to that of human-influenced climate warming today.
Possibly the pace is slower now, we've seen no evidence of half or one millionth of a percent of species extinctions from man made climate change.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
The extinction opened the way for dinosaurs to evolve and dominate the planet for the next 135 million years, before they, too, were wiped out in a later planetary cataclysm.
Exactly, SpaceBlues makes my point, enormous meteorites cause climate change and taxing fossil fuel and energy won't do anything to stop climate change. Thank you very much.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31756 Mar 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's exactly what I'm saying, geological sources of greenhouse gases are significant; man is not. I'm saying the biggest thing on Earth is the atmosphere and the Earth itself has released the gas that fills it. I'm saying, man can do more than put back the CO2 that was once free in the atmosphere, to absorb warmth and keep us alive.
Supervolcanoes cause catastrophic climate change, not man made greenhouse gas from our fossil fuel use. There's evidence of entire Orders being extinguished nature's climate change, but not even one single species extinction attributed to man made climate change. Habitat disruption, hunting, sure, man's extinguished many species before. Real Estate is as necessary as air.
.
<quoted text>No species evolved the ability to mitigate climate change in more than four billion years of evolution, there have been many climate changes that ranged from fast to slow.
Isn't it a clue, we've evolved brains to use skeptically when politicians ask for climate taxes and crony spending on undemonstrated and untested climate change mitigation?
.
<quoted text>Possibly the pace is slower now, we've seen no evidence of half or one millionth of a percent of species extinctions from man made climate change.
.
<quoted text>Exactly, SpaceBlues makes my point, enormous meteorites cause climate change and taxing fossil fuel and energy won't do anything to stop climate change. Thank you very much.
Good, stop posting.

For the world to note: "on a pace similar to that of human-influenced climate warming today."

TODAY!
SpaceBlues

United States

#31757 Mar 28, 2013
Moving on without B_Gone:.. since the start of the industrial revolution, the world's oceans have grown nearly 30% more acidic, according to a 2009 Scientific Committee on Oceanic Resources report. Why? Climate change, where heat-trapping carbon dioxide emitted into the air by burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels ends up as excess carbonic acid absorbed into the ocean.

"The chemistry is really simple and really inevitable: More carbon in the air means more carbon in the ocean, and there is no getting around it."

http://www.centralohio.com/usatoday/article/2...

"Once we had the canary in the coal mine; now we have the oyster in the ocean," Washington Gov. Jay Inslee says.
litesong

Everett, WA

#31758 Mar 28, 2013
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
CO2 isn't poisonous at atmospheric levels.
"brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" advocates 1000+ ppm of atmospheric CO2. Many interiors of buildings have CO2 levels 4 times the atmospheric level, which pushes CO2 levels to poisonous levels.
//////////
In 1989......measured 1200 ppm at chest height in the center of the sanctuary in a Jewish synagogue during the high holy days in a small New York city. CO2 measures equal to the previous reading have been made in hospitals.
The US EPA warns that indoor ventilation is inadequate at CO2 levels of 1000ppm.....
//////////
Given the recommendation of "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver", it would consider 3000 to 4000 ppm CO2 adequate & proper.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31759 Mar 29, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" advocates 1000+ ppm of atmospheric CO2. Many interiors of buildings have CO2 levels 4 times the atmospheric level, which pushes CO2 levels to poisonous levels.
//////////
In 1989......measured 1200 ppm at chest height in the center of the sanctuary in a Jewish synagogue during the high holy days in a small New York city. CO2 measures equal to the previous reading have been made in hospitals.
The US EPA warns that indoor ventilation is inadequate at CO2 levels of 1000ppm.....
//////////
Given the recommendation of "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver", it would consider 3000 to 4000 ppm CO2 adequate & proper.
More and more that’s all the "pinheadliteout"have more and more diarrheas.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31760 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's exactly what I'm saying, geological sources of greenhouse gases are significant; man is not. I'm saying the biggest thing on Earth is the atmosphere and the Earth itself has released the gas that fills it. I'm saying, man can do more than put back the CO2 that was once free in the atmosphere, to absorb warmth and keep us alive.
Supervolcanoes cause catastrophic climate change, not man made greenhouse gas from our fossil fuel use. There's evidence of entire Orders being extinguished nature's climate change, but not even one single species extinction attributed to man made climate change. Habitat disruption, hunting, sure, man's extinguished many species before. Real Estate is as necessary as air.
.
<quoted text>No species evolved the ability to mitigate climate change in more than four billion years of evolution, there have been many climate changes that ranged from fast to slow.
Isn't it a clue, we've evolved brains to use skeptically when politicians ask for climate taxes and crony spending on undemonstrated and untested climate change mitigation?
.
<quoted text>Possibly the pace is slower now, we've seen no evidence of half or one millionth of a percent of species extinctions from man made climate change.
.
<quoted text>Exactly, SpaceBlues makes my point, enormous meteorites cause climate change and taxing fossil fuel and energy won't do anything to stop climate change. Thank you very much.
As usual you are full of it.
Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website ( http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ ) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2...

The bottom line? Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions***. Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

Eos
, Vol. 92, No. 24, 14 June 2011
kilometers of magma—enough for about three supereruptions annually. Supererup-tions are extremely rare, with recurrence intervals of 100,000–200,000 years; none have occurred istorically, the most recent examples being Indonesia’s Toba volcano, which erupted 74,000 years ago, and the United States’ Yellowstone caldera, which erupted 2 million years ago. Interestingly, these calculations strongly suggest that present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions every year.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

But, of course, nothing will deter your ignorance.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31761 Mar 29, 2013
NO. Actually:

Natural CO2 concentration change: 0.0001 ppm per year

but

man-made CO2 concentration change: 2.0 ppm per year.

Thus the man-made CO2 rate is twice the four orders of magnitude of the natural sources of CO2 annually.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31762 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>CO2 isn't poisonous at atmospheric levels. In fact, CO2 is vital for life.
Au contraire, Brain_Gone, CO2 is ALREADY poisoning us, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

CO2 is vital for life, but needs to be in the Goldilocks zone, just right. But we & (e.g.) the dinosaurs have completely different Goldilocks zones. We MUST have it <350 PPM to save our civilization. They did fine with levels of ~2000 PPM.

Of course, even the poles had tropical weather, there was virtually no ice on the earth, & sea level was ~70 meters higher. You might say that's a "minor detail," eh? You & all the other greedy sociopaths would have no trouble making those changes.

You, of course, will just repeat your same points that others have already refuted, so I'll repeat myself as well: since YOU are the ones who want to change the atmosphere, the onus is on YOU to prove it's safe, not on us to prove that mitigation would be possible & effective. You have your ethics arrantly backward.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31763 Mar 29, 2013
An open science conference in Austria... More than 150 scientists from over 20 different countries will meet to discuss the responses of ecosystems to climate variability and weather extremes, based on experimental evidence and modeling of the biosphere-climate system.

Rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations not only lead to global warming but also to increased climate variability and extreme weather situations. Within the past decade an exceptionally high number of extreme heat waves occurred around the globe: Record breaking temperatures hit central Western Europe in 2003, causing a large number of fatalities due to heat stress. In South-Eastern Europe dramatic wildfires ravaged in 2007, especially in Greece. Together with huge forest fires, an extraordinary heat wave with record temperatures led to a high and long-lasting air pollution in western Russia in 2010. The drought in 2011-2012 was reported to be one of the most severe ever recorded in the United States, with an economic loss of billions of dollars and heavy crop failures.

Not only severe droughts and heat waves but also extreme precipitation and windstorms can impact the structure, composition, and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. The importance of extreme climatic events for the carbon balance became clear after the 2003 heat wave in Central and Southern Europe. Triggered by this month-long anomaly, the ecosystems lost as much CO2 as they had absorbed from the atmosphere through the previous four years under normal weather conditions.

Recent evidence also suggests that extreme weather may influence the carbon balance of our terrestrial biosphere such that it accelerates climate change. Co-organizers Dr. Michael Bahn, Associate Professor at University of Innsbruck, and Dr. Markus Reichstein, Max-Planck Director at the Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, state unanimously:“Several lines of evidence indicate water-cycle extremes, in particular droughts, being a dominant risk for the carbon cycle in large parts of Europe. The largest and most diverse and enduring effects of extreme events are expected in forests.”

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31764 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's exactly what I'm saying, geological sources of greenhouse gases are significant; man is not. I'm saying the biggest thing on Earth is the atmosphere and the Earth itself has released the gas that fills it. I'm saying, man can do more than put back the CO2 that was once free in the atmosphere, to absorb warmth and keep us alive.
Supervolcanoes cause catastrophic climate change, not man made greenhouse gas from our fossil fuel use. There's evidence of entire Orders being extinguished nature's climate change, but not even one single species extinction attributed to man made climate change. Habitat disruption, hunting, sure, man's extinguished many species before. Real Estate is as necessary as air.
.
<quoted text>No species evolved the ability to mitigate climate change in more than four billion years of evolution, there have been many climate changes that ranged from fast to slow.
Isn't it a clue, we've evolved brains to use skeptically when politicians ask for climate taxes and crony spending on undemonstrated and untested climate change mitigation?
.
<quoted text>Possibly the pace is slower now, we've seen no evidence of half or one millionth of a percent of species extinctions from man made climate change.
.
<quoted text>Exactly, SpaceBlues makes my point, enormous meteorites cause climate change and taxing fossil fuel and energy won't do anything to stop climate change. Thank you very much.
To your point about climate change and the extinction of species, it is the unbridled human exploitation of natural resources worldwide that is causing the current mass extinction event. People need to learn how to live sustainably. For example, I am a huge proponent of urban farming. If every building in a city carried a rooftop garden, it would lower dependence on commercially grown food, but the urban heat environment would help the plants grow while also mitigating co2 pollution. There are mitigation efforts that work.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#31765 Mar 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
An open science conference in Austria... More than 150 scientists from over 20 different countries will meet to discuss the responses of ecosystems to climate variability and weather extremes, based on experimental evidence and modeling of the biosphere-climate system.
Rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations not only lead to global warming but also to increased climate variability and extreme weather situations. Within the past decade an exceptionally high number of extreme heat waves occurred around the globe: Record breaking temperatures hit central Western Europe in 2003, causing a large number of fatalities due to heat stress. In South-Eastern Europe dramatic wildfires ravaged in 2007, especially in Greece. Together with huge forest fires, an extraordinary heat wave with record temperatures led to a high and long-lasting air pollution in western Russia in 2010. The drought in 2011-2012 was reported to be one of the most severe ever recorded in the United States, with an economic loss of billions of dollars and heavy crop failures.
Not only severe droughts and heat waves but also extreme precipitation and windstorms can impact the structure, composition, and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. The importance of extreme climatic events for the carbon balance became clear after the 2003 heat wave in Central and Southern Europe. Triggered by this month-long anomaly, the ecosystems lost as much CO2 as they had absorbed from the atmosphere through the previous four years under normal weather conditions.
Recent evidence also suggests that extreme weather may influence the carbon balance of our terrestrial biosphere such that it accelerates climate change. Co-organizers Dr. Michael Bahn, Associate Professor at University of Innsbruck, and Dr. Markus Reichstein, Max-Planck Director at the Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, state unanimously:“Several lines of evidence indicate water-cycle extremes, in particular droughts, being a dominant risk for the carbon cycle in large parts of Europe. The largest and most diverse and enduring effects of extreme events are expected in forests.”
Sheesh, I support what you are saying, but this is one area where I think climatologists are shooting themselves in the foot- models. In theory, if you could enumerate every variable involved when somebody flips a coin- wind speed, initial velocity, resistance, angular momentum...etc, then you could accurately predict how the quarter will land. Now, take that concept and blow it up to global proportions. Do you think there exists any supercomputer capable of handling that gargantuan a calculation? Of course not, and the models must be simplified and make use of certain assumptions. Add a prediction about how the world's species will be effected by a climate change predicted in the model, and you're just compounding the likelihood that the model will yield false predictions. That is what I take issue with. Models can yield great insight, but what the model cannot account for often skews the predictions.

BTW, I am data scientist.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31766 Mar 29, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheesh, I support what you are saying, but this is one area where I think climatologists are shooting themselves in the foot- models. In theory, if you could enumerate every variable involved when somebody flips a coin- wind speed, initial velocity, resistance, angular momentum...etc, then you could accurately predict how the quarter will land. Now, take that concept and blow it up to global proportions. Do you think there exists any supercomputer capable of handling that gargantuan a calculation? Of course not, and the models must be simplified and make use of certain assumptions. Add a prediction about how the world's species will be effected[sic] by a climate change predicted in the model, and you're just compounding the likelihood that the model will yield false predictions. That is what I take issue with. Models can yield great insight, but what the model cannot account for often skews the predictions.
BTW, I am data scientist.
Nice to meet you. You've got to be a story teller.

No such danger exists due to many checks and balances. Don't you wish you knew others' arts in science and mathematics?

There's a long tradition of deep modeling in nuclear science. If you're not exposed to that, keep your opinion to yourself because the frame that works is inevitably and brilliantly applied to climate science as well.

Enjoy big data.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31767 Mar 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>CO2 isn't poisonous at atmospheric levels. In fact, CO2 is vital for life.
"Current" atmospheric levels, you trolling asshat. At CURRENT levels.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31768 Mar 29, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
"Current" atmospheric levels, you trolling asshat. At CURRENT levels.
At any atmospheric level during the past 300 million years:
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm135...

"Carbon dioxide differential above outdoor levels at steady state conditions (when the occupancy and ventilation system operation are sufficiently long that CO2 concentration has stabilized) are sometimes used to estimate ventilation rates per person....ventilation rates may result in indoor levels up to 2,100 ppm above ambient outdoor conditions. Thus if the outdoor ambient is 400 ppm, indoor levels may reach 2,500 ppm with ventilation rates that meet this industry consensus standard. Levels in poorly ventilated spaces can be found even higher than this (range of 3,000 or 4,000)."
[Wikipedia]

Levels up to 2,500 ppm (0.25%) are safe, there's no evidence CO2 is toxic at the atmospheric levels seen during the last couple million years. CO2 isn't toxic or poisonous in the atmosphere, its vital to keep Earth livable.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31769 Mar 29, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Au contraire, Brain_Gone,
I don't use insults because ad hominem arguments are irrational. I'll prove HSL is irrational using his quotes.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
CO2 is ALREADY poisoning us, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
At what level does CO2 poison humans? I contend, not 400ppm, we're not already being poisoned by carbon dioxide. Falsehoods are the mark of irrationality.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
CO2 is vital for life,
True, score even.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
but needs to be in the Goldilocks zone, just right.
Goldilocks is a Fairy Tale, take one HSL -1/

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
But we & (e.g.) the dinosaurs have completely different Goldilocks zones.
Mammals evolved from the dinosaurs 300-350 million years ago, and survived levels higher than 2,000ppm.-2 for ignoring evolution and repeating a Fairy Tale, HSL -3.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
We MUST have it <350 PPM to save our civilization. They did fine with levels of ~2000 PPM.
Of course, even the poles had tropical weather, there was virtually no ice on the earth, & sea level was ~70 meters higher.
Long term data shows CO2 was seldom as low as 350ppm:
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm135...
-1, overall HSL -4.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You might say that's a "minor detail," eh? You & all the other greedy sociopaths would have no trouble making those changes.
^^^Ad hominem,-1

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You, of course, will just repeat your same points that others have already refuted, so I'll repeat myself as well: since
Speaking of points, HSL -5

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
YOU are the ones who want to change the atmosphere, the onus is on YOU to prove it's safe, not on us to prove that mitigation would be possible & effective. You have your ethics arrantly backward.
Wrong again, I like to leave things as is. I take out carbon from the atmosphere with my garden, yard and forest and put in what I please. I'm not advocating anything but freedom; I'm not restricting anyone's fossil fuel and energy use and I certainly wouldn't tell them they can't emit or sequester carbon dioxide.

It's not me who assumes their is a cost for emitting carbon dioxide, that's zero. How much do you want to charge me to emit water and water vapor? What will you make me pay for the oxygen I breathe in? I don't claim using the air is unsafe; HSL does. I don't want a climate tax, HSL does. I don't want to restrict freedom to use fossil fuel and emit CO2; HSL does.

-1 for no self awareness. If you want to mitigate climate change; go for it. I'm stopping nobody from doing as they choose.

HSL -6

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Three Global Warming Skeptics Win Awards (Jun '14) 2 hr Time Will Tell 3
News EPA cooperated with group that dismisses climat... 4 hr SirPrize 7
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 hr Chelsea Fartton 64,725
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 6 hr hojo 40,077
The Pseudoscience of Global Warming 8 hr GIGO 133
News White House will override Obama's climate plan (Oct '17) 9 hr Big Al 4,740
News Global warming may have 'devastating' effects o... 11 hr don t drink the k... 4