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.
The proponants of "global warming" are determined to impose measures to reduce levels of atmospheric CO2, claiming that CO2 is a "pollutant" and is destroying the planet.
However, CO2 is essential for plant (and thus animal) life; there is a direct correlation between more dense and robust plant life and higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Further, desert regions tend to become more "green" with higher CO2 levels, providing a more suitable environment for humans and animals. Currently, the Sahara Desert is "shrinking" in size due to higher levels of CO2 and thus plantlife.
Gustav Borglum, a Nobel Prize winner, supported the concept of a "Green Revolution" in which more robust agricultural seeds and techniques would be spread to third world nations to help feed the starving nations of the world. This initiative requires not only the seeds, equipment, and technology, but high CO2 levels to promote plant life.
The assault on the Rain Forests in South America, Asia, and Africa has been a "pet project" of the left, in which many have spoken quite vocally about efforts to "save the rain forests" through bans on clear cutting. Yet, as the same time, the very same crowd wants to reduce CO2 levels (which are essential to the preservation and expansion of the rain forests.
So........................... are the AGW advocates essentially eco-terrorists who are attempting to limit food production in third world nations, expand deserts, and kill the rain forests?
The proponants of "global warming" are determined to impose measures to reduce levels of atmospheric CO2, claiming that CO2 is a "pollutant" and is destroying the planet.
However, CO2 is essential for plant (and thus animal) life; there is a direct correlation between more dense and robust plant life and higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Further, desert regions tend to become more "green" with higher CO2 levels, providing a more suitable environment for humans and animals. Currently, the Sahara Desert is "shrinking" in size due to higher levels of CO2 and thus plantlife.
Gustav Borglum, a Nobel Prize winner, supported the concept of a "Green Revolution" in which more robust agricultural seeds and techniques would be spread to third world nations to help feed the starving nations of the world. This initiative requires not only the seeds, equipment, and technology, but high CO2 levels to promote plant life.
The assault on the Rain Forests in South America, Asia, and Africa has been a "pet project" of the left, in which many have spoken quite vocally about efforts to "save the rain forests" through bans on clear cutting. Yet, as the same time, the very same crowd wants to reduce CO2 levels (which are essential to the preservation and expansion of the rain forests.
So........................... are the AGW advocates essentially eco-terrorists who are attempting to limit food production in third world nations, expand deserts, and kill the rain forests?
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a greenhouse gas. They are different. A pollutant is some toxic substance that does not sit well with nature. Plastic is a pollutant. Oil is a pollutant. CO2 is not. It's a greenhouse gas. It is essential for life, but significant variations in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a profound impact on life on Earth.
The Sahara shrinks and expands reasonably often. It's an issue of precipitation. That last 15 years or so, we've seen a very slow receding line of the desert, though in reality, that's not even what's happening. It's a wet period right now, and vegetation is actually just moving into the desert. For several decades prior to this loss in desert land, however, we saw the Sahara expanding outward. No clear link between this process and CO2 has ever been made. However, mass deforestation is one of the thing that causes new deserts to be formed. High CO2 levels also do not promote plant life. Access to water, sunlight, and nutrients in the ground promote plant life, all of which are what is attributed to the loss of the Sahara desert. At this time, all of those needs are being met on the edges of the Sahara. All that has to happen is for the rain to stop for a while.
You make the 'green revolution' sound so humanitarian. It's not happening though. What happens is private companies in the US will create genetically modified seeds and stronger pesticides, the long term effects of neither have been thoroughly studied, and put patents on them. They will then outsource farming labor to foreign countries, where the workers there will do the work without the safety standards that exist in the US and for lower wages. Nearly all of the profits earned from these foreign farms comes back to the US. Little stays in those countries and is thus doing basically nothing to address starvation. It actually is making it worse becasue the massive corporate farms suck in way more resources that the agricultural economies that would normally have existed in these places, making poverty a more pressing issue.
And with your rain forest comment, again, you're wrong on how plant life flourishes. Higher levels of CO2 wont' do much in the same way that more oxygen wont' do much. As long as the minimum healthy standard is meant, having a surplus of these gases won't make living easier. Healthy soil, clean water, and access to sunlight are more the more obvious factors needed for plant life, the first two of which are threatened as we destroy the forest for agriculture, housing, and oil extraction.
Adding more CO2 when combined with the other conditions caused by a warming planet can actually retard plant growth.
Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.
This has to be the most biased poll I've ever seen....
Well............................... if you reduce CO2, you will reduce plant life on earth, expand deserts, and increase famines. I am afraid you must examine the consequences of your CO2 crusade. This is the problem with the AGW cult- attacking a "problem" which is not defined and proceeding with a "treatment" which may have disasterous consequences. This is why, in medicine, we usually like a diagnosis before proceeding with a treatment, define the treatment, define goals, and look at the consequences of the treatment. That, of course, would be prudent as well in AGW, but the cult members want to proceed with reckless abandon and care little about the consequences. In that light, yes................AGW IS ECO-TERRORISM.
The AGW cult IS a death cult, after all, so it is not surprising. I personally like plants, food, and would like to see more "greening" of the major deserts around the world. But, to each his own.
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.
