Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see you are going to avoid this question like the true propagandist you are. You refuse to answer something truthfully because it will prove that what you believe is pure fallacy.
I would be interested to know as well. Maybe he is thinking of hydrogen fuel cells? It has promise, but still has a ways to go.
Problem is, the news always reports this stuff like it is here and ready and omits the issues that really put its practical ability into perspective currently.
To anyone but a complete moron it's clear that I don't have any opinion. because it doesn't matter, and doesn't prove anything. I'm not qualified to answer the question, and neither are any of you. But, if Ferd's original point (the third time he stated it) is true, it tends to prove my point.
You keep spinning until you're dizzy, I don't care. Let me make this very simple for you..
A T-Rex breathes OXYGEN to survive like all other land creatures right? If there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere for this 70 ton giant to feed it's bloodstream wouldn't it be extremely highly likely that humans could also survive being that their oxygen demands would be much, much lower? I think this is a no brainer. So if humans COULD have survived back then when co2 was between 1200-2500ppm, what is the alarm that humans won't be able to survive in a few short years if the co2 concentration is only 350ppm?
A third grader could answer this the way I laid it out for you, want to give it a try?
I would be interested to know as well. Maybe he is thinking of hydrogen fuel cells? It has promise, but still has a ways to go.
Problem is, the news always reports this stuff like it is here and ready and omits the issues that really put its practical ability into perspective currently.
I heard that hydrogen fuel cells may not be viable because the cost and availability of platinum.
I heard that hydrogen fuel cells may not be viable because the cost and availability of platinum.
Yep, you have to change them every so many years and they are very expensive.
Electric hybrids are similar in their draw backs as well.
I don't think anyone would argue against these if they actually solved the problem, but all they end up doing is forcing you to trade one thing for another.
Some eco-nuts are just fine with the draw backs though. They want people to pay enormous amounts of money for energy and they aren't concerned with the impractical aspects of the technology.
So, this is where we are: Over the last 2million years, we've had intelligent homo sapien life for about 160,000 - or roughly 10%. And according to the detective work of Ferd (without providing any source) most of the time we've had atmospheric CO2 over 1000ppm, although these days it's down around 380ppm. And the brilliant dumdum is also possessed of this knowledge. And wapasha joins the chorus, too.
A reasonable person might think that this was evidence that perhaps CO2 is not very conducive to the existence of such intelligent life, as we only arose as the CO2 concentration declined. And a resonable person might conclude that increasing the CO2 concentration might just return the Earth to conditions fairly hostile to our way of life.
But not the chorus. No way. They know what the scientists don't. They know that we have nothing to fear from CO2 concentrations because ... because ... well, because it's natural. It happened that way before.
Brilliant.
you really want an answer to this really dumb assertion? You obviously have no idea about evolution and why somethings evolved when they did. Human evolution had nothing at all to do with the co2 concentration, that is pure lies on your part. Higher life forms didn't evolve because they were out paced and out hunted by the bigger guys in the food chain. Smaller mammals had to spend their lives in hiding in order to survive long enough to evolve where they are today. Once the higher predators like the dinosaurs were wiped out, that gave the opportunity for mammals to become the most abundant life form on tha planet. That my friend is pure fact, what you said is pure fallacy and wishful agenda thinking.
you really want an answer to this really dumb assertion? You obviously have no idea about evolution and why somethings evolved when they did. Human evolution had nothing at all to do with the co2 concentration, that is pure lies on your part. Higher life forms didn't evolve because they were out paced and out hunted by the bigger guys in the food chain. Smaller mammals had to spend their lives in hiding in order to survive long enough to evolve where they are today. Once the higher predators like the dinosaurs were wiped out, that gave the opportunity for mammals to become the most abundant life form on tha planet. That my friend is pure fact, what you said is pure fallacy and wishful agenda thinking.
Nothing more needs to be said. You are living up to your handle.
Nothing more needs to be said. You are living up to your handle.
It had nothing to do with it PERIOD! If you KNOW this to be true, do us a favor and point us to sources that back up your claim. I shouldn't have to do that for you, what I said is FACT and you can turn on the Discovery or Science channel any night of the week when they are airing their shows about it and become informed about evolution and our planet. You are being difficult on purpose because you have no answers. Are you sure you don't work for Al Gore or the IPCC?
I would be interested to know as well. Maybe he is thinking of hydrogen fuel cells? It has promise, but still has a ways to go.
Problem is, the news always reports this stuff like it is here and ready and omits the issues that really put its practical ability into perspective currently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
I heard that hydrogen fuel cells may not be viable because the cost and availability of platinum.
I really think the answer to the next gen energy question is fuel from Algae.
i really think in 5 to 10 years, a lot of what we are talking about will be useless because we will have moved beyond digging fuel out of the ground.
instead we will be making it from algae at very low cost on marginal land and we will be able to replace almost if not all of the coal and crude oil products.
I really think the answer to the next gen energy question is fuel from Algae.
i really think in 5 to 10 years, a lot of what we are talking about will be useless because we will have moved beyond digging fuel out of the ground.
instead we will be making it from algae at very low cost on marginal land and we will be able to replace almost if not all of the coal and crude oil products.
I believe this also, but we will still need petroleum for plastics, lubricants, etc. Who knows though, we might an alternative to that too.
...because if prehistoric reptiles could survive higher amounts of CO2, then it's nothing for us to worry about.
Boy, that's some logic, there. You betcha.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
