I just sent this message to Sean Hannity:

quote:

Joe biden has been campaigning on his plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the near future. Ignoring the impracticality of that right now, I think a more important concern is what that would mean about the composition of the atmosphere. Eliminating fossil fuels as energy would greatly curtail the emission of carbon dioxide (which is, actually, the implied goal), and I think that might be a grave mistake. Plant life is dependent on carbon dioxide for its existence, and all the World's food is ultimately dependent on plants. Don't you think that perhaps this issue should also involve input from botanists, foresters, and agriculture specialists?

I'd love to send it to other places, but don't have an idea where to send it. I think it's a question that needs to be discussed.

flashguy

Look what I said to someone, everybody.

Very millennial.

Fossil fuels do not account for the increase in CO2. Lost organic matter from soils, do.

Gabe Brown proved some Ag changes work, and are profitable. He’s gotten General Mills, the USDA, and the UNs Ag department on board.

However, there’s no one to fight, so it receives little coverage.

Not sure if that was a serious question...

But, the answer is that before the use of fossil fuels and deforestation, the atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels were already sufficient to support a planet pretty much covered in plant life.

The planet settles into an equilibrium where CO2 is consumed by plants and converted into bio matter, and some of that bio matter is converted back to C02 as the bio matter dies and decays or is consumed and metabolized by animal life.

The burning of fossil fuels is releasing the C02 that was long ago trapped as organic matter. That C02 is, and has been for millions of years, unnecessary to support current plant life on the surface.

Whether or not the additional C02 released into the atmosphere from fossil fuels is harmful is not being argued here. But, it's pretty clear that the plants don't *need* the additional C02.

these people have zero education in science

it doesn't matter at all what you do

the net carbon stays the same

no carbon is created or destroyed, carbon footprints are an artificial construct to get people worried about nothing

the ONLY way to get new carbon or an increase in carbon on this planet is to get it from a neutron star - and the likelihood of that is pretty small given our current location

the amount of carbon stays the same - it just changes form

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Look what I said to someone, everybody.

Very millennial.

"How To Win Friends And Influence People" is a book you might want to read.

Honey Badger don't care. Dinosaurs don't care. Mother Earth don't care. She will take care of her own one way or another and has all the time in the world to do it. Oops sorry guys, time to move on, it's what I do. It's unfortunate you were too stupid to understand the obvious since I've been doing this shit for five billion years, or is it six ? I've lost count.

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Look what I said to someone, everybody.

Very millennial.

"How To Win Friends And Influence People" is a book you might want to read.

Beat me to it by (———-this———-) much!

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

"How To Win Friends And Influence People" is a book you might want to read.

Fuck that. The author was a con artist.

It is very millennial to post one's own quote and then announce to the world, "hey everyone, look what I just said to someone!" It falls in line with the need to take a picture of one's self every thirty seconds and post it. Hey world, look at me. Look what I'm doing.

Nice touch, couching it in an argument: nobody has thought of this (but me), and I said it, and look what I said, and why hasn't this occurred to anyone else but me, and who can I tell (oh yeah, everyone reading me telling everyone about my quote about me)?

Norman Vincent Peale...another fake christian. No thanks.

Flashguy is a millennial, just not in the way you mean. He's like a thousand years old and just offered a thought, take it don't take, but you could lighten up some.

There is a reason for the phrase "Carbon-based life forms." And as one of those, I don't even have to think much about why carbon is a good thing.

It is true that man's use of fossil fuels is increasing the climate calamity, threatening the well being of mankind. Ask Al Gore. The polar icecaps will melt by 2015. Just watch.


Sidenote. It seems that California's worship of mother earth: don't cut dead trees/dead limbs/underbrush; don't harvest forest lands; don't make fire breaks; such policies created much of the tinder that spawned the state's worst ever wildfire season. How many millions of tons of CO2 did the fires spew into the atmosphere these past few months? CA's enviro policies do a lot more harm than driving your car.

I'll take "man made climate change" seriously as soon as someone explains to me how man cooled the earth after the dinosaurs, and then warmed it up again after the mammoths.

Oh thats right there were no "men" at those times.
That climate change must have been something else or maybe just a natural occurrence of mother earth.

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:
Flashguy is a millennial, just not in the way you mean. He's like a thousand years old and just offered a thought, take it don't take, but you could lighten up some.

Thank you.

flashguy

Might be interested to hear about a group of scientists sharing flashguy's perspective....

quote:

a small nonprofit operating out of Arlington, Virginia. That group is the CO2 Coalition, formed in 2015 to educate policymakers and the public about climate change and the benefits arising from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The coalition’s leadership and members are a who’s who of leading scientists studying carbon dioxide and climate change, including atmospheric physicists, climatologists, ecologists, statisticians, and energy experts.

The group’s primary mission is stated as “educating thought leaders, policymakers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy.”

link to full article

I will add that when I was active in doing rose growing and consulting there was data showing that adding a bit of CO2 into greenhouses made them more productive.

A question- If CO2 is so bad Why do we have, consume and enjoy Carbonated Beverages?

if all that crap were true, then how did all the other ice ages start and end - all long before we were on the planet?

and if glaciers are so important, why have they never been a permanent feature? Suppose glaciers are the abnormal feature.

man-made global warming is junk science

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Look what I said to someone, everybody.

Very millennial.

flashguy is about as far from being a millennial as possible.



.

Doesn't matter about all those ice ages and warming of the 1500s.

The climate was at its ideal temperature in 1986 and only mankind has screwed it up since then. Those angry people got mean and now all the extra temperature is hiding at the bottom of the ocean.

If we send the UN a few trillion dollars they can fix it. Everybody knows a consensus can be replicated in a lab.

I do not have the link any longer to some lectures on YouTube with Dr. Patrick Moore, but in one lecture he shows that CO2 levels have fluctuated all through the earth's life. 2800 PPM CO2 was the high and 150PPM the low and the low was only in the last few 100,000 years and stayed there for a long time.

He indicated 150 PPM CO2 is the absolute minimum level for plant life to survive. Go below and plant life started to die.

I met him 5 or so years ago, through a friend of mine. Interesting guy.

So what is the CO2 equilibrium level for earth?
If 2800 PPM is the high and 150 PPM the measure low, then some where in the middle?

Besides, it was warmer from 800 to 1300 AD than it is today.