Can someone please explain this to me?

[Dreamingawake]

 

 

The 200 year-old history of oil, and the power of the oil lobby throughout most industrial nations, should be evidence enough to any observer that the alchemical effect is real if not metaphorical. But just as we know that the elements have controlling relationships to others, we will soon see oil transformed into so much CO2 that all the political power in the world will not be able to cool us down. In fact, we've already passed the point of no return and will have to wait several thousand years for the carbon cycle to naturally re-sequester enough atmospheric carbon to make equatorial and mid latitude regions inhabitable again. Until then, the era of the Polar Peoples, characterized by semi-nomadic tribes within the Arctic Circle and Antarctica, will prevail.

 

I see this all the time and now I'm really curious. The most aggressive estimates I've ever seen say that all humans (including our machines, factories, etc..) combined contribute 5% or less carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The other 95+% comes from rotting plant and animal matter and volcanic activity. Again that's extremely aggressive. The most common estimate I've seen is 3% so how can we be responsible for heating up the planet?

 

I've also seen that the other planets in our solar system heated up just as much as ours did and some of their moons (made of ice) even melted. This probably has something to do with the increase in solar activity that happened while all this was occurring. I say was because the planet has been cooling off for several years now and this last winter the news was reporting the coldest temperatures in 50 years where I live.

 

So basically my question is where are people getting the idea that global warming is going to kill us all and that its our fault? Or that it's even still occurring? I mean other than Al Gore and his associates. I don't consider politicians, banks and businesses that stand to make huge sums of money a viable source for accurate information.

 

P.S. PLEASE, no flaming, name calling, or straw man arguments. I understand this is a *hot* topic but I'm looking for rational conversation only. Trolls need not apply

[DarthBane]

I see this all the time and now I'm really curious. The most aggressive estimates I've ever seen say that all humans (including our machines, factories, etc..) combined contribute 5% or less carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The other 95+% comes from rotting plant and animal matter and volcanic activity. Again that's extremely aggressive. The most common estimate I've seen is 3% so how can we be responsible for heating up the planet?

 

Either side of the argument fence for these "kind" of things like to use percentages to prove points. Truth is anyone can lie with percentages and the like. In fact there are many books out there that cover that fact.

 

I've also seen that the other planets in our solar system heated up just as much as ours did and some of their moons (made of ice) even melted. This probably has something to do with the increase in solar activity that happened while all this was occurring. I say was because the planet has been cooling off for several years now and this last winter the news was reporting the coldest temperatures in 50 years where I live.

 

Seen? Wow you have lived a long time. Yes there are theories but no one actually knows exactly how things happened. Proof is only in the after-product and the legacy left behind by how we can try to understand how things were formed.

Yes things are cooling, other areas are heating up. Course this doesnt cover the ice age and moraines and sediments also deposited by ice floes.

 

So basically my question is where are people getting the idea that global warming is going to kill us all and that its our fault? Or that it's even still occurring? I mean other than Al Gore and his associates. I don't consider politicians, banks and businesses that stand to make huge sums of money a viable source for accurate information.

 

P.S. PLEASE, no flaming, name calling, or straw man arguments. I understand this is a *hot* topic but I'm looking for rational conversation only. Trolls need not apply

 

I guess you are asking based upon opinions. I only deal in facts. Thats the way you wanted it. If I wanted to discuss the counter opinions, that is not an option. One person didnt come up with opinions for either side. Big-business backs the other side. So really in a sense you want fact, but turn to discuss opinion. By nature you are asking for people to "flame". Not many can have a rational conversation when opinions are knocked. But personally I dont really care by now, I swear ive heard it all about this subject Hope this sheds at least some light.

 

Politics and belief here on this subject are combining and clashing with the opposites. If you want an opinion, I will give you one of a person I talked to last week: "Good. Maybe this means Armageddon is comming. I have waited so long to go to heaven".

 

I didnt know what to say to that, and they are a good person. But what do you do? It makes me wonder how many will let people destroy earth because of a similar thought haha something to think about. I am sure there is some kind of cause and effect for that.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Guest

[Marblehead]

So basically my question is where are people getting the idea that global warming is going to kill us all and that its our fault? Or that it's even still occurring? I mean other than Al Gore and his associates. I don't consider politicians, banks and businesses that stand to make huge sums of money a viable source for accurate information.

 

 

Acually, there is global warming at this point in time. I don't recall the exact figures but there has been a warming trend over the past 20 years.

 

Now, I do agree with you that we, humanity, is not causing that much of a difference, but we are a factor. We cannot control the factors caused by nature so the only thing to talk about is how we play a roll in this entire affair.

 

There have been and will continue to be climate changes caused by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. What these changes will be is still in question because an event such as global warming has never been documented.

 

The thing is, the melting of additional ice flowing into the oceans will cause a change in the oceans' currents and this will amplify the climate changes.

 

Just the CO2, I think, isn't that big a deal. However, if things warm up too much there will be a lot of methane released that is currently held in oceans and frozen areas of the world. Methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than is CO2. Plus methane is flamable. That's bad news.

 

I agree with you that the talk about millions or billions of people being wiped out because of global warming is over-stated but I suppose it is a possibility if most of the methane on the planet is released into the atmosphere.

 

There have been dramatic climate changes in the past before man was ever on the scene. I see no reason to think that the changes have stopped just because man is now on the planet. There will be changes. North Arfica will once again be a fertile savannah with rivers and plants and animals.

 

But overall life is expected to continue to exist in some form or another for at least the next 2.5 billion years before the sun begins over-heating planet earth.

 

But we should conserve. Hehehe. I had to add that. We do need to find alternative sources of energy so we do not kill ourselves when the oil starts running low.

 

Peace & Love!

[thelerner]

Facts, I don't need no stinking facts. The lousy stinkin facts point in both directions depending on whose computer model you go by.

 

So....

 

It may well be a hoax, but in my mind its a good one! I don't see the true believers getting rich off it, not like the big wigs at so many of the oil companies have done for 60 years.

 

Myth or not its creating opportunity and a legacy of greater energy efficiency and helps make the move to alternate energy sooner, rather then in a panicked state. We are horrible energy hogs; simple measures could save massive amounts, but we don't, cause we don't have to, conservation isn't an economic necessity, hence big cars and vampire appliances that constantly waste energy, instead of having 50 cent chips installed.

 

So sign me up on Gore's side, even if its wrong.

 

 

Michael

[Dreamingawake]

Very interesting post Marblehead, as usual

 

I'm definitely with you on conservation (not just environmental). Waste not, want not and all that

It just seems to me that if, as we seem to agree, humans are not causing the apocalypse with our miniscule 'carbon footprint' then maybe we could spend our energy on cleaning up our act in other ways. There are many forms of pollution that have been proven to harm the environment so why focus on one that has no solid evidence behind it? All the toxic chemicals related to production of most petroleum based products and instead we focus on carbon?

 

thelerner, the 'bigwigs' like gore ARE making lots of money off of it. His big scheme to 'save the world' has you paying private banks for carbon credits. And if I'm not mistaken his carbon-offset corporation is the first and the biggest. He makes ridiculous sums of money by screaming that the sky is falling. That's why his house uses more electricity in one month than most American homes use in 17, he can afford it.

[C T]

That's why his house uses more electricity in one month than most American homes use in 17, he can afford it.

....and almost certain he does not drive a nissan micra or toyota prius hybrid either....

Edited July 19, 2010 by CowTao

[DarthBane]

thelerner, the 'bigwigs' like gore ARE making lots of money off of it. His big scheme to 'save the world' has you paying private banks for carbon credits. And if I'm not mistaken his carbon-offset corporation is the first and the biggest. He makes ridiculous sums of money by screaming that the sky is falling. That's why his house uses more electricity in one month than most American homes use in 17, he can afford it.

 

I disagree. Sorry that is just propaganda.

Corporations who make most the money would like you to be distracted by this type of thing because they wish to hold all the cards. If you were in danger of losing money because people were realizing you were using lobbyists to push through bills that had your interest then people would realize how bad you really were. Big money is not Gore. Big corporation is not Gore, but then that is what large corporations would like you to be distracted by.

 

Just like eating healthy, it doesnt have to be expensive. There is such thing as common sense.

 

Another thing is that Gore does not equal the eco-reformation.

 

edit:

One person is not responsible for an ecological perspective reformation. Just like one person is not responsible for economic crisis. We all did it to ourselves.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Guest

[Encephalon]

If a truly satisfactory explanation is what you seek, then I could probably point you in the direction of the learning curve ahead. I may even have some tips on how to make the learning curve shorter and less steep, but there's still plenty of study ahead if you want a firm command of the issue. I have a Master's in geography, which means that I wasn't good enough in math to pursue life sciences,ecology and environmental studies, but I'm familiar with the literature.

 

I'd start with James Lovelock, the planetary ecologist who popularized the Gaia hypothesis. "The Revenge of Gaia" is probably his most sobering work and has left many colleauges in the scientific community losing a lot of sleep.

 

His piece in Rolling Stone 2007 appears here.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/com/Logan/teaching/html/HPR319_fall_2007/docs/lovelock_Rolling%20Stone_10-17-07.htm

 

You'll get 206 titles if you run a "Peak Oil" search on Amazon, and 28,900,000 hits on Google.

 

If you've got the time or inclination, some basic lower division bio and earth science classes at your local junior college would go a long way. Besides, Taoism IS ecology; Taoism obviously includes the study of the human experience, but the mysteries of the Tao are revealed to us through basic ecological principles as much as by our internal alchemy practice. Any formal studies in these subjects will only enrich your personal practice. (of course, tai chi masters like Waysun Liao, C.K. Chu and Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming all have advanced degrees in physics and engineering.)

 

At this point, you could throw up your hands and say "It's a hopelessly politicized subject, this 'End of Oil Era' Broohaha! Who can we trust?" I think it prudent to read the works of people who've made their careers in the oil industry and are now sounding the alarms. I would maintain a very wary distance of people on the oil and chemical company payrolls who encourage us to stay the course.

 

I'm curious to see how the self-described Buddhist and Taoist community members respond to contemporary End Times scenarios. Impermanence is a cornerstone of Eastern thought, but many people find the dissolution of the human industrial era too frightening to wrestle with, even in the midst of powerful arguments. The biosphere is vastly worse off than most people realize, but if Katie Couric doesn't say this, it must not be true, eh? The only reason this is not the subject of every major news outlet in the world is because glboal state power does not have the means to adequately respond to catastrophic depletions of energy, resources and the ensuing global pandemonium.

 

There is a way through the 21st century bottleneck, however. I've written about this elsewhere, but guess what? Taoism is the answer!! At least for those of us willing to commit to the practice.

[Brian]

...

[Encephalon]

Dreamingawake, I would encourage you to:

 

• 
   
  
• Follow the money (and remember that money <-> power)
  
• Research other 20th century warming/cooling warnings
  
• Look at societal/natural reactions to previous significant warming and cooling periods
  
• Think openly about the reasonableness of the claims, including both measurement techniques and the timing of reported changes
  
• Consider the ocean's role in carbon entrainment, especially chemical processes involving calcium and deep ocean currents
  

 

Think critically and you may see the situation clearly.

 

(FWIW, I have talked with a number of chemists, biologists and physicists outside the realm of politics & academia on this topic and find almost uniform concensus...)

 

 

Critical thinking? Scientific method? Are you serious!!??

 

So, lets compare retreat longlats.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Blasto

[joeblast]

We're still discussing CO2? You'd think the alarmist lot would have next to zero credibility after the gig was up and exposed, preconceived notions ruled the class for years, it was only about how to go about proving it - but I guess the fox watching the henhouse whitewash "review" of procedures is enough of a helping of bullshit to keep those that already have their mind made up on CO2 placated for a little while longer.

 

 

Shouldn't the onus be on climate scientists to come up with an actual working model sans concrete role for CO2 that doesnt have to be re-calibrated to reality every year or so?

 

 

 

"Keith, can you delete those emailes re:AR4? I've already deleted them..."

 

"If we wind up with FOI over here I am going to delete everything rather than let the world see what I've been doing...

 

 

Warming contribution to CO2 is a logarithmic function, each additional ppm contributes less than the one before it.

 

These models cant predict an el nino, la nina, the sunspot predictions are wrong because we dont have an accurate model of solar dynamics...and we're trying to worry about a wisp of statistical noise that's perfectly within the bounds of historical norms.

 

*facepalm*

 

Gospel to some, load of BS to others.

[Encephalon]

We're still discussing CO2? You'd think the alarmist lot would have next to zero credibility after the gig was up and exposed, preconceived notions ruled the class for years, it was only about how to go about proving it - but I guess the fox watching the henhouse whitewash "review" of procedures is enough of a helping of bullshit to keep those that already have their mind made up on CO2 placated for a little while longer.

 

 

Shouldn't the onus be on climate scientists to come up with an actual working model sans concrete role for CO2 that doesnt have to be re-calibrated to reality every year or so?

 

 

 

"Keith, can you delete those emailes re:AR4? I've already deleted them..."

 

"If we wind up with FOI over here I am going to delete everything rather than let the world see what I've been doing...

 

 

Warming contribution to CO2 is a logarithmic function, each additional ppm contributes less than the one before it.

 

These models cant predict an el nino, la nina, the sunspot predictions are wrong because we dont have an accurate model of solar dynamics...and we're trying to worry about a wisp of statistical noise that's perfectly within the bounds of historical norms.

 

*facepalm*

 

Gospel to some, load of BS to others.

 

 

With all due respect Joe, your estimate of the earth's carrying capacity of 250 billion, as well as your recent assertion of the Chinese population of 6 billion, does not support the argument that your ecological education is sound. Neither does it provide any evidence that you have the technical expertise to evaluate the data you submit.

 

Maybe you should cut your losses and stick with Milton Friedman?

[joeblast]

I love that backhanded phrase, all due respect. Your words aside from those indicate none whatsoever. Yeah, I guess since I mixed up china & the world populations that must mean I'm full of it! You can keep banging your peak-human-race drum, and I'll be content knowing my breath isnt warming the planet up. Since I havent seen you post up much in the way of technical writings, am I to assume that you dont quite have the technical expertise to evaluate these things as well? I've already posted plenty of data on this CO2 issue, but not in this thread - do I need to keep it all handy so I can have it ready every time the kyoto protocol is broken? Or maybe every time a carbon credit is sold? They're dirt cheap, going for about 10 cents a share on CCX right now - down from what, twenty some odd bucks a share a few years ago, early 2007 thereabouts? (psst! they tanked to less than 25 cents a share well before the financial troubles surfaced.)

 

 

 

 

 

As to cutting my losses, time spent on this crap doesnt seem to help you or I anyway, since we've both taken a look and decided for ourselves.

[Encephalon]

I love that backhanded phrase, all due respect. Your words aside from those indicate none whatsoever. Yeah, I guess since I mixed up china & the world populations that must mean I'm full of it! You can keep banging your peak-human-race drum, and I'll be content knowing my breath isnt warming the planet up. Since I havent seen you post up much in the way of technical writings, am I to assume that you dont quite have the technical expertise to evaluate these things as well? I've already posted plenty of data on this CO2 issue, but not in this thread - do I need to keep it all handy so I can have it ready every time the kyoto protocol is broken? Or maybe every time a carbon credit is sold? They're dirt cheap, going for about 10 cents a share on CCX right now - down from what, twenty some odd bucks a share a few years ago, early 2007 thereabouts? (psst! they tanked to less than 25 cents a share well before the financial troubles surfaced.)

 

As to cutting my losses, time spent on this crap doesnt seem to help you or I anyway, since we've both taken a look and decided for ourselves.

 

You won't get any argument from me that carbon credits are a sham. It's a fake solution, as are most ventures in large-scale sustainability, but it's about as much as we could expect from an industrial capitalist world. We've already passed the point of being able to halt the trajectory.

 

All of my technical classes were taken years ago as an undergrad, so my technical chops aren't up to speed either. The process one must go through in order to intelligently harvest information beyond the realm of ones own expertise is not a complicated one but neither is it forgiving. If there is overwhelming consensus amongst the world's scientific community regarding a particular issue then it's a fairly safe bet the scope of the conclusion is sound.

 

The only detractors are those who have a vested interest in seeing the current fossil fuel era perpetuated (which is just about every major industry in the world). Maybe we should join them and concede that it's beyond our control. But this idea that human beings can't possibly be culpable is one that does not emanate from science, but from a desire to deflect accountability. The oil companies, especially Exxon, have spent millions muddying the waters of the climate change debate and spreading seeds of doubt via the news outlets that are sympatheic to their interests or are corporately-owned institutions themselves.

 

Okay. We're done.

[joeblast]

Millions have flown in both directions. Dont care but for the true science of it all, and the alarmist take on CO2 is simply not convincing.

 

All of my technical classes were taken years ago as an undergrad

ditto, so at least there is a foundation in both of our cases. Plenty of voices on either side imho, the CO2-scam as a whole has a negative net effect on environmental efforts, since resources have gravitated toward the fad of tying CO2 into everything - and when the science isnt quite convincing, its got scam written all over it right down to the inflated numbers of support - not just the carbon credit part.

 

Good day, brother

[Brian]

..

[Encephalon]

Dreamingawake, I would encourage you to:

 

• 
   
  
• Follow the money (and remember that money <-> power)
  
• Research other 20th century warming/cooling warnings
  
• Look at societal/natural reactions to previous significant warming and cooling periods
  
• Think openly about the reasonableness of the claims, including both measurement techniques and the timing of reported changes
  
• Consider the ocean's role in carbon entrainment, especially chemical processes involving calcium and deep ocean currents
  

 

Think critically and you may see the situation clearly.

 

(FWIW, I have talked with a number of chemists, biologists and physicists outside the realm of politics & academia on this topic and find almost uniform concensus...)

 

 

Whoah!! I completely misread your post! Quite an exercise in interpretation and comprehension.

So, for instance, when you wrote "Follow the money" I naturally concurred, but erroneously inferred that you were citing every modern oil-dependent industry and global consumer lifestyle they support as the source of money that keeps fossil fuel complicity out of the popular equation.

 

When you suggested researching "other 2oth century warming/cooling warnings" I again erroneously inferred that you were pointing out the error of using too small a sampling size of time.

 

Your third point kind of bounced off my forehead.

 

The fourth point did the same thing, but the part about considering the reasonableness of the claims struck a chord. My inference was erroneous again, because by this point I assumed we were in agreement. Certain facts have a more intuitive resonance with some folks, less with others. Burning 1.25 trillion barrels of oil and pumping it into the atmosphere seems significant to those of us in Earth sciences, especially when you consider delicate and sensitive nature of the atmosphere, a very thin membrane indeed. (Oh, coal burning not included). And if you multipy 317 kilograms of CO2 for every barrel of oil burned... well you get the picture. Since the world total is just under 90 million barrels a day... blah blah blah... more math...

 

The point I'm stumbling to make is that average human beings have an intuitive sense of the world's size and resilience that is almost universally and radically inflated. The natural world is riddled with instances where homeostasis depends on very narrow tolerances, parts per million, but the atmosphere is particularly so.

 

I was right with you with the last point about "the ocean's role in carbon entrainment" and just assumed that we were in agreement about the rising acidity of the oceans due to the increase in carbonic acid, and the negative effect this has on small marine organisms' ability to construct their exoskeletons from the calcium carbonate.

 

"Think Critically" was the clincher for me. I thought we were kindred spirits, you and I. Oh, well.

 

I sincerely hope, from the bottom of my heart, that I am wrong and the world's scientific community is suffering some sort of greenwashed theistic hysteria. Imagine what a sigh of relief it will be to concede our foolishness and be proven wrong!

 

The alternative scenario is pure Greek tragedy. A species with a moral capacity lagging behind its technical prowess spends 10,000 years heedlessly devouring the worlds resources and ultimately has to face the consequences. I know which scenario I'm planning for.

[Brian]

..

[Encephalon]

I'm afraid that you still miss my point! The burning of hydrocarbons (petroleum, lignite, whatever) is most definitely having a deleterious effect on the planet. The pollutants and toxins we dump into the environment (through "fossil fuels and from many other sources) is frightening, both in terms of quantity & content. Absolutely no doubt about that, in my mind or in the minds of any scientist I spoken with on the topic.

 

The problem is that the current focus is on CO₂ and "climate change" -- this is the bogus part! In the first place, the so-called "data" is wildly inconsistent and blatantly fraudulent but the policy makers say "we don't care, that doesn't matter." That in itself should set off alarm bells (and for a scientist totally invalidates the study regardless of the findings).

 

Second, the models that were used rely on highly agenda-driven assumptions and, when these assumptions are modified to something slightly less extreme, the predictions change drastically. These models, and the "scientists" who developed them, began from the viewpoint of "man-made greenhouse gasses are causing global warming & our mission is to show how bad it will be". This is not science.

 

Want an interesting read? Search the Internet for the draft of the original IPCC report, complete with comments. The "panel of scientists" start out in the opening sections with LOTS of criticism about the lack of good science, pointing out that the data didn't support the conclusions, decrying faulty logic & assumptions, etc. The responses from the report's authors were exclusively to the effect of "we think this is true" or "we don't care" or "it is important to make this point in order to effect policy change."

 

Third, the actual data gathering is highly questionable in itself, both on the original reports and on subsequent "confirming" studies. Not only was data routinely culled to shape the results but the methodology was suspect. Some monitoring stations were moved from grassy fields to the middle of asphalt parking lots, some had AC condensers place next to them while data collection was in progress, most had the oil-based paint on their surrounding structures replaced with lower-albedo water-based paint but no attempts were made to compensate for the resulting impact on the measured temperatures. We could go on here but, instead, try this little experiment on your own -- place a thermometer in each room of your home and then tell me what the average temperature is to within +/- 0.001 degree. Do this each day for a year and then tell me what impact your water heater has on the temperature in your home and what the temperature will be fifty years from now. As a physicist, I tell you it is a ludicrous proposition.

 

Forth, some of these same "scientists" (I keep using quotes because most of them are policy-focused zealots) were telling us in the 1970s that these very same greenhouse gasses were bringing on an ice age and that only a drastic government power-grab/intervention could correct/prevent it. Look back through the archives of major newspapers and magazines and you will find that the pendulum has swung back & forth every 15 to 20 years since the late 1800s. Part of it is just journalistic sensationalism and the population's "inquiring minds want to know" mentality but much of it is driven by policy makers who never want to let a good crisis go to waste and who are not above manufacturing a crisis if it is "for a good cause."

 

Fifth, an examination of history shows that EVERY warming period has been good for both biodiversity AND human society while EVERY cooling period has had the opposite effect. Suddenly, however, we are told that a relatively small increase in the Earth's average temperature is going to be catastrophic! When actions and stated objectives don't match, one should carefully consider the motivations. In this case, it can be traced directly back to a publication by the Club of Rome, indicating that a then-current uptick in planetary temperature measurements should be attributed to man-made greenhouse gasses in order to advance their own agenda of establishing a single global autocracy because this would permit deindustrialization and population control.

 

Sixth, the warming period ended shortly after the hoopla reached a state of fervor and we have seen a multi-year cooling period of late. In response, the "scientists" and policy makers didn't say "hey, you know, the planet has lots of ups & downs, some attributable to solar activity" -- instead, they just changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change"! So now, the objective is to prevent "climate change" and only massive growth in governmental regulation on a global scale combined with dramatic wealth redistribution can save the world... <sigh>

 

Seventh, one of the problems with the early discussions on global warming (and with the Al Gore movie my son was shown eleven times in school, as a "documentary" of scientific fact despite minor details like using clips from a Hollywood action-thriller as "evidence") was the annoying issue of timing -- turns out that the long-term warming trend being discussed started BEFORE the major upswing in CO₂ emissions. Turns out that examining glacial corings, tree rings, etc., shows this to not be unique to this cycle. Additionally, the ramping of atmospheric CO₂ levels doesn't correspond to the growth in man-made emissions. Something else is at work here. That "something else" is, at least in part, the planet's oceans.

 

You are exactly on target with the observation about calcium carbonate and carbonic acid but you are forgetting your basic chemistry! A system in equilibrium like that is NOT driven by the amount of CO₂ but by the temperature. The answer appears to lie in deep currents -- specifically a many-hundred-year roll in which surface waters are sub-trained and replaced by deeper waters. The sun provides the basic energy but the oceans modulate the air temperature; warming and CO₂ levels are linked but the alarmists have cause & effect reversed.

 

Eighth, there are two gasses within Earth's environment that the entire biosphere is designed to cycle -- O₂ and CO₂. The planet's flora is a custom-made, globe-sized carbon reprocessing factory! Plants absolutely LOVE elevated CO₂ levels -- they thrive and prosper, thereby naturally increasing the planet's ability to handle the increased CO₂.

 

My point here (which others will no doubt insist on arguing but which I won't discuss any further) is that, while man's impact on the planet's biosphere is significant and frightening, the CO₂/"Climate Change" thing is a fraud and a scam.

 

I will humbly investigate your very thoughtful points. I'm still moving to Canada, however.

[Brian]

..

[Birch]

"I'll be content knowing my breath isnt warming the planet up."

 

Yeah, but would you be content knowing that someone is making it into ca$h?

 

How do you protest that? Stop breathing ?

 

Scott, we need a currency converting algorithm for cultivators. All that deep breathing must be the equivalent of a few ounces of gold