Re: Can Plants Stop Climate Change?

 


uriel13;871573 Wrote:

planet has continually gone through climatic

vast amounts of carbon monoxide and CFC’S that are pumped into her

> atmosphere.

This in conjunction with the decimation of the rain forests

> which are the

lungs of our eco-system  have triggered this response.

pollution on this planet. They have no ethics, and they don’t care

> who knows

it, they are a power unto themselves. Into this category you

> can also place

politicians, bankers and stock traders. This group of

> trough feeders ease the

way for multi-national conglomerates to do as

> they please in the quest of

profit.

actively pursue a dole claimant who has tried to get more money than

> they are

due.. This same government has refused to bring to justice the

> bankers and

stock market traders who have left our country with billions

companies to make society feel that they are somehow

> responsible for global

warming. It is spin doctor stuff and must be

> viewed as such. Only they can

change what is taking place and that is

> like telling a junkie to quit the

habit, it isn’t going to happen.

know the facts of cause and effect relative to your question.

its not altruism that drives them its profit.

rain forests is stopped climate change will continue to the point

> of no

return.

become aware of how the system works and why it works.

What a complete and utter load of crap, CO has nothing whatsoever to do
with so
called AGW.
Plants absorb CO2 this is what makes them grow, hence the reason tomato
growers
increase the CO2 concentration in their greenhouses to about 3
times the current
atmospheric level.  
Increasing the rain forest will help to reduce the CO2 level a bit as
well if it
actually matters that much.

Forget the stupid emotional hype, half truths and outright lies from
people like
Al Gore et al and delve into the science, you will find
there is as much
evidence against AGW as there is for it and given the
scandals that are
surrounding some of the scientists and their methods
at the moment, the
situation is far from certain.

In the early 70's there was great panic that we were heading for a
climatic
calamity, Why? The scientists were absolutely certain that we
were heading for
an mini ice age, the science was settled they said.




--
Granity

 


Granity;871576 Wrote:

whatsoever to do

growers increase the CO2 concentration in their greenhouses to about 3

> times

the current atmospheric level.  

if it actually matters that much.

like Al Gore et al and delve into the science, you will find

> there is as much

evidence against AGW as there is for it and given the

> scandals that are

surrounding some of the scientists and their methods

> at the moment, the

situation is far from certain.

calamity, Why? The scientists were absolutely certain that we

> were heading for

an mini ice age, the science was settled they said.



And you notice that everyone is very careful not to mention the effects
of
growing human populations.




--
beccabunga

 


Hi Granity,
Oh my, I did hit a nerve with you, and to answer with such  bile and
venom, you
are obviously a fully paid up member of the flat earth
society.

I will not use words like Crap, stupid and emotional to describe your
post. I
think it is sad, very sad that you can’t see the wood from the
trees that are
being cut down in these rain forests that are being
decimated.

Humbly suggest that you watch the BBC documentary “A Farm For The
Future” to see
where our future lies, that is if you can find the time
to take your head out of
the sand,

Hi Beccabunga
How very true,  nobody wants to talk about the explosion of  population
because
it is a vote loser. And so we are back to politics again,
nothing changes but
the faces and the snouts in the money trough.

uriel13

The mind is like a parachute it is totally unless it is open




--
uriel13

 


uriel13;871909 Wrote:

you are obviously a fully paid up member of the flat earth

I think it is sad, very sad that you can’t see the wood from the

> trees that

are being cut down in these rain forests that are being

see where our future lies, that is if you can find the time

> to take your head

out of the sand,

because it is a vote loser. And so we are back to politics again,

> nothing

changes but the faces and the snouts in the money trough.

No you didn't hit a nerve, I just can't stand all the lies and deceit
associated
with the greens who seem to put out total misinformation to
serve their own
ends, whatever they may be. AGW is now discredited due
to the behaviour of the
leading players concerned and there is so much
money to be made by people like
Gore out of carbon trading they will do
anything to perpetuate the theory.  Of
course for the likes of Brown and
his robbing cronies a very good excuse to
raise taxes, and, as for the
poorer countries, they see it as a good way of
screwing free money out
of the so called richer ones.  

As to your original post it was totally irrelevant to the original
question and
quite a different problem CO along with SO2 are pollutants
and cleaning them up
would not be a particularly bad thing, but saving
the rain forest won't do that.
CO2 is not a pollutant, life cannot exist
without it.




--
Granity

 


Granity;871931 Wrote:

with the greens

like Gore out of carbon trading they will do anything to

Unfortunately the environmental campaigners do overstate the case quite
shockingly in some cases.  But they have been doing that all the time,
so no
surprise there.  But the current anti-AGW PR is strongly funded by
the oil and
heavy industrial lobby, and no surprise what they are up to.
They are using the
same pseudoscientific tactics as they used when they
tried to discredit
scientists telling us "tobacco is bad for you", "lead
is bad for you" and
"asbestos is bad for you". Of course the scientists
were right. Why would the
oil industry not campaign against a movement
trying to restrain their output.
Of course they will do that. So don't
be fooled by them either.

But if we are neutral about it, and look to what scientists are telling
us, then
the scientific evidence for AGW is pretty incontrovertible.
CO2 is a
significant atmospheric insulator, demonstrable by experiments
going back 150
years.  How can a substantial increase in it not warm us
up? Here's a
bibliography unaffected by dodgy hacked email science and
shrill greenpeace
campaigners which will take you through it.

http://tinyurl.com/yepm2dl

CO2 is a plant fertiliser.  So are nitrates.  What happens when you put
too much
nitrate on your fields? Yes it washes into the rivers and sea
and creates toxic
algal blooms and anoxic dead zones, and kills lots of
fish. And we have to
process it out of our water supply.  The plant
fertilisation effect won't take
out all the CO2 of an instant.  All the
CO2 we put in the atmosphere will get
washed out in the end. In fact
only 40% of what we put out in a single year ends
up in the atmosphere
at the end of that year. Unfortunately it will take several
hundred
years to wash it all out, and in the mean time we are at risk of having
cooked the place. Too much CO2 will change our climate, and that will be
very
inconvenient for people who will get flooded out or find they are
now living in
a desert.  They will want to come and move to where you
can live, which will be
all very costly and frightening to the people
who are already there.  Think of
CO2 reduction as insurance against this
happening. CO2 will warm us up, it must
do, though precisely how much is
not quite clear, because the climate and
biological systems are very
complex.  If it is worth buying flood insurance for
your house, it seems
to be worth buying climate change insurance for the planet.

Sorry you have been misled by the industrial lobby.




--
echinosum