C.A. Brobst - why do you use recycled paper? Because even though paper is a renewable resource, it takes a lot of land to grow trees for paper. And forests that are clear cut for paper every 20 years can’t support a real ecosystem. Recycling paper reduces the land that needs to be dedicated to growing paper (trees to be clear cut).
Solar and wind are ecological disasters when it comes to land use. We simply don’t have enough land. They are great when you can stick a solar panel on your roof, or plant a windmill in your cornfield. As soon as you start dedicating land to solar and wind, they are disasters.
Don’t get me started on the ethanol from corn insanity.
Remember Mount St. Helen’s and how much pollution it put in the air? That’s just one volcano erupting one time. How many volcanoes have there been over the eons? How many forest fires? How much pollution has been generated by nature? The pitiful little dab of man-made pollution can’t even come close to comparing with all that. Nature takes care of itself and cleans everything up.
Climate change? Sure. The climate has been changing ever since we’ve had a climate. It’s cyclical. We have global warming, then global cooling, then warming, then cooling. It’s a natural phenomenon.
The dems give lip service to promoting solar and wind energy projects, then Diane Feinstein personally cancels at least two solar projects in the Mojave Desert that I am personally aware of. And, no, there was no conflict with endangered species.
Lone Tayra said, a couple of posts back, “So worse case, what happens? Artic melts a bit, sahara grows a bit larger. Lowlands flood, so what? ”
when you consider that many of the world’s major cities are on seacoasts, lowlands flooding would be a major catastrophe. i remember reading, as a kid, something about the sea level rising by 300 feet if all the ice caps would melt. never mind New Orleans after the hurricane, you’d lose Washington, New York, Boston, almost ALL of Florida, Houston, San Diego, the Bay area Seattle and other cities too numerous to mention. i’m no alarmist or Global Warming believer, but “So What?” just doesn’t cut it.
Ha ha! It is to laugh! Over two centuries of steady, 24-7 carbon emissions is hardly a “pitiful dab of man-made pollution.” Funniest thing I’ve heard today. There may be some valid, science-based skepticism of man-made global warming, but I haven’t seen any here.
THAT sounds like the best idea I’ve heard yet!! Get rid of three quarters of the corruption in this country! And if you could manage to flood Chicago at the same time, you’d get rid of most of the rest of it as well!!!
“almost ALL of Florida”
Give it back to the alligators!
“i’m no alarmist or Global Warming believer, but “So What?” just doesn’t cut it.”
It might as well, because the climate has been changing ever since the earth existed and there isn’t a d@mn thing man can do about it one way or the other.
But consider this, you better hope it gets a little warmer instead of a little colder, because warmer is pretty well self-limiting ( if it wasn’t the earth never would have survived the MANY times in the past when the CO2 level was more than ten times what it is today ) but if it gets a little colder, that ISN’T self-limiting to anywhere near the extent that warmer is because the more ice that covers the earth, the more reflective the earth’s surface becomes, which reflects solar energy back into space, which causes the earth to cool even more, and that could trigger another ice age. That is what happened about 600 million years ago when the earth was iced over from pole to pole. And it took the volcanoes to rescue the earth from that frozen death. And since you can’t grow food when the ground is covered by fifteen feet of ice, even another MODERATE ice age would end up destroying all of civilization as we know it and most of life on earth.
@Jo jo, even the theory advanced by AGW alarmists admits that man-made CO2 is tiny compared to natural sources - not enough to change the climate appreciably. Their theory posits that the man-made contribution will destabilize some natural system. For instance, suppose deep sea methane deposits start to melt - methane is a much much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, the earth warms and melts more deposits which warms more … presto, catastrophic warming.
So yes, man-made CO2 is tiny compared to natural sources.
The problem I have with the AGW theory is that it basically claims to predict chaotic systems on a global scale - and that based on computer models rather than actual experience.
pouncingtiger over 14 years ago
HE has spoken!
Llewellenbruce over 14 years ago
It must of been just a coincidence.
GROG Premium Member over 14 years ago
Some God.
ksoskins over 14 years ago
I hope the villagers are feeling enlightened.
cdward over 14 years ago
For those who believe in God, let that be the prophet’s warning.
For those who don’t believe in God, it’s the only world we have – why play Russian roulette with it?
cats32 over 14 years ago
Shut up dsfgsdi
McGehee over 14 years ago
Is C.A. Brobst an anagram fro Barack Obama?
stuart over 14 years ago
C.A. Brobst - why do you use recycled paper? Because even though paper is a renewable resource, it takes a lot of land to grow trees for paper. And forests that are clear cut for paper every 20 years can’t support a real ecosystem. Recycling paper reduces the land that needs to be dedicated to growing paper (trees to be clear cut).
Solar and wind are ecological disasters when it comes to land use. We simply don’t have enough land. They are great when you can stick a solar panel on your roof, or plant a windmill in your cornfield. As soon as you start dedicating land to solar and wind, they are disasters.
Don’t get me started on the ethanol from corn insanity.
Takiniteasy over 14 years ago
Some random thoughts:
Remember Mount St. Helen’s and how much pollution it put in the air? That’s just one volcano erupting one time. How many volcanoes have there been over the eons? How many forest fires? How much pollution has been generated by nature? The pitiful little dab of man-made pollution can’t even come close to comparing with all that. Nature takes care of itself and cleans everything up.
Climate change? Sure. The climate has been changing ever since we’ve had a climate. It’s cyclical. We have global warming, then global cooling, then warming, then cooling. It’s a natural phenomenon.
JanLC over 14 years ago
The dems give lip service to promoting solar and wind energy projects, then Diane Feinstein personally cancels at least two solar projects in the Mojave Desert that I am personally aware of. And, no, there was no conflict with endangered species.
Brother_James437 over 14 years ago
Hea dsfgsdj don’t start tryinng to sell your JUNK here. Try haviing a yard sale.
Hath1 over 14 years ago
Sheik,
I’d much rather be enlightened than enlightenin’ed.
yyyguy over 14 years ago
Lone Tayra said, a couple of posts back, “So worse case, what happens? Artic melts a bit, sahara grows a bit larger. Lowlands flood, so what? ” when you consider that many of the world’s major cities are on seacoasts, lowlands flooding would be a major catastrophe. i remember reading, as a kid, something about the sea level rising by 300 feet if all the ice caps would melt. never mind New Orleans after the hurricane, you’d lose Washington, New York, Boston, almost ALL of Florida, Houston, San Diego, the Bay area Seattle and other cities too numerous to mention. i’m no alarmist or Global Warming believer, but “So What?” just doesn’t cut it.
tamron over 14 years ago
It would appear that God has a sense of humor in Id too.
chubbygirlcomics over 14 years ago
Awesome!
dradk over 14 years ago
wizard’s just being modest.
rotts over 14 years ago
Spucking fammer flagged.
mrsullenbeauty over 14 years ago
Ha ha! It is to laugh! Over two centuries of steady, 24-7 carbon emissions is hardly a “pitiful dab of man-made pollution.” Funniest thing I’ve heard today. There may be some valid, science-based skepticism of man-made global warming, but I haven’t seen any here.
BigChiefDesoto over 14 years ago
Well, I signed in to flag the spammer, but:
yyyguy,
“you’d lose Washington, New York, Boston,”
THAT sounds like the best idea I’ve heard yet!! Get rid of three quarters of the corruption in this country! And if you could manage to flood Chicago at the same time, you’d get rid of most of the rest of it as well!!!
“almost ALL of Florida”
Give it back to the alligators!
“i’m no alarmist or Global Warming believer, but “So What?” just doesn’t cut it.”
It might as well, because the climate has been changing ever since the earth existed and there isn’t a d@mn thing man can do about it one way or the other.
But consider this, you better hope it gets a little warmer instead of a little colder, because warmer is pretty well self-limiting ( if it wasn’t the earth never would have survived the MANY times in the past when the CO2 level was more than ten times what it is today ) but if it gets a little colder, that ISN’T self-limiting to anywhere near the extent that warmer is because the more ice that covers the earth, the more reflective the earth’s surface becomes, which reflects solar energy back into space, which causes the earth to cool even more, and that could trigger another ice age. That is what happened about 600 million years ago when the earth was iced over from pole to pole. And it took the volcanoes to rescue the earth from that frozen death. And since you can’t grow food when the ground is covered by fifteen feet of ice, even another MODERATE ice age would end up destroying all of civilization as we know it and most of life on earth.
stuart over 14 years ago
@Jo jo, even the theory advanced by AGW alarmists admits that man-made CO2 is tiny compared to natural sources - not enough to change the climate appreciably. Their theory posits that the man-made contribution will destabilize some natural system. For instance, suppose deep sea methane deposits start to melt - methane is a much much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, the earth warms and melts more deposits which warms more … presto, catastrophic warming.
So yes, man-made CO2 is tiny compared to natural sources.
The problem I have with the AGW theory is that it basically claims to predict chaotic systems on a global scale - and that based on computer models rather than actual experience.
bangalee over 14 years ago
Pollution is a good conversation piece for parties.