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.
man puts out a tiny fraction of the CO2 introduced to the atmosphere, and CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total make up of our atmosphere.
This is incorrect. In the late 1800's, just as the industrial revolution began and the burning of fossil fuel started to ramp up, the natural CO2 level was about 280 parts per million. Today it is currently at 405 ppm, about a 45% increase in CO2 in just 120 years. The Earth has never, ever had such a rapid escalation in CO2.
It's true that CO2 only makes up a small fraction of the air. But doubling that small fraction has a large impact on how much solar energy is retained as heat. Any bright kid in high school science can demonstrate this in a lab.
farmers. ranchers. fishermen. certainly not EPA scientists.[/QUOTE]
Farmers and ranchers won't have crops without bees and other insects to pollinate. Fisherman won't have fish when the phytoplankton has died, which will affect the rest of the food chain. Think about it. This stuff doesn't just spring up out of nowhere. That's like saying our food comes from the store.
again - how do EPA scientists contribute to my eating?
You are either being disingenuous or deliberately obtuse. Read the link I gave. CD has rules about copyright infringement, so I can't just repost the entire story here.
But to be specific, the scientists are:
Autumn Oczkowski, a research ecologist at the E.P.A.’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Atlantic Ecology Division in Rhode Island
Rose Martin, a postdoctoral fellow at the same E.P.A. laboratory
Emily Shumchenia, an E.P.A. consultant
Apparently, you think that scientists who work for the EPA are "fake" scientists or something. Everything you people don't like gets labeled as "fake" these days.
If you can't understand the simplified reply that I gave to your previous question, then it's because your mind is closed. I'm not going to waste anymore of my time answering questions about science from someone who obviously has no desire to actually understand it.
The Donald put a flack into the EPA to kill all research that might interfere with the greed of the donors that support the Republican Party. This is the real meaning of Political Science.
I am not all that surprised that the Uber wealthy bought our government but I am upset that it sold for so little.
Meanwhile, Pruitt wants to double the amount of security at a cost of 2 million more dollars. And put in a soundproof booth outside his always locked door.
The impression that science is free of politics both internal and external is about as naive a statement that can be made.
Define what you mean by "politics." I missed out because I forgot to sign up when I was in grad school for the "How to get the highest price for your research results" class. You'd think my advisor might at least have mentioned it to me. But NO!
So what field of science did you major in?
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.
