Global Warming?

[toppop52]

If C02 were the only enemy, it could be rather easily controlled by planting unused open lands in fast growing, high exchange rate plants, duckweed, many grasses and some trees.

 

[IslandTractor]

I'm interested that a professed regulator never thought to invest time and effort to investigate if removing pollution for the air directly might be a better, easer and cheaper way of tacking a problem rather than regulate. Just shows me how narrow minded these regulators are and the lack of interest in really solving the issue but just regulating, what many of us have know from the every start.

HS

We asked you for further information on your $10 miracle filter. Do you have a reference or name?

Some of you keep referring to science or devices that are never referenced. Sounds almost like the old Sen McCarthy trick of waving around a wad of paper that is supposed to be a list of hundreds of commies. He was shown to be a fraud. Where is your information?

 

[houstonscott]

Maybe just older than you and followed the auto industry since the 1960's and pollution control devices on auto's. I have lived all this crap for 50 years. It's obvious to me Mr. IslandTractor with all your intellect you just discovered the other half of the coin. You just don't know what you don't know. You have allot of homework, maybe years or decades worth before you spout this man made global warming thing as some settled science with a bunch of hay seeds holding out, it's you whom didn't even consider or recognize the whole picture. That's ok, many people like you have been fooled, so called educated ones too.

HS

 

[Egon]

I'm not sure I get your point; I agree with what you say, but the way I see it, the conflicts that stifle science are between science and the stilted religious community(s). When the church is as powerful or more powerful as the host government, and has it's own courts to punish (or convert, or stone or burn at the stake as the case may be), science has to work undeground or in a more hospitable country. In such a case, dogma wins every time. Admittedly, today science will progress in enlightened areas of the world, but things were a bit slow in the dark ages. It's really scary to think that at one time, you could be executed for theorizing that the earth revolved around the sun, instead of vice versa, simply because any science to the contrary was in opposition to the absolute "truth" as seen by the church.

The Dark Ages? Depends on where you refer to. Timbuktu was once the centre of knowledge and economic power!

Scientist are; well, Scientists. Normal folk one and all. Some just get vetted through more rigorous regime's than other's!

 

[skspurling]

Dark Ages? You mean when learning and science were preserved by the Irish monasteries? Maybe you mean the period after that when universities that provided the bastion of higher learning were all religious institutions? No? Maybe you mean that great hieratic, Isac Newton? Well, he did say "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Dang! He's not an atheist. So, where does this notion that science and religion are in direct opposition come from?

Randy brings up an important point. If the problem is CO2, Why don't we plant more fast growing CO2 processing plants? The best answer I can think of is because it doesn't end up in the regulation of others behavior. The plants would sequester the carbon, and release the O2. Much better than just pulling it out of the air and burying it.

 

[Cat_Driver]

The real reason for Global warming:

AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Full Movie) FREE for a limited time. on Vimeo

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Synthetic Trees Could Be Environmental CO2 Scrubbers | greenUPGRADER

I'm interested that a professed regulator never thought to invest time and effort to investigate if removing pollution for the air directly might be a better, easer and cheaper way of tacking a problem rather than regulate. Just shows me how narrow minded these regulators are and the lack of interest in really solving the issue but just regulating, what many of us have know from the every start. I have read about many over the years, 2 seconds of search turned up these, it's an old idea. Spending tax dollars to scrub CO2 rather than look to spend billions to get a 1 ton truck to get 55mpg just maybe a better idea. My point is there is no threat, if you assume there is you find the people articulating the threat are not interested in solving it. It's a hoax, get it...Always was.

HS

CO2 regulation is a fairly new phenomenon, and as far as I know, there aren't any final regulations in place. Emission and removal of CO2 was never a regulatory issue until the obama adminstration. It is used in many industrial processes, but not as a regulatory requirement. I would be interested to know how a retired Coastie would presume to know so much about a the mindset of a former regulator whom you know nothing at all about. Oh, FWIW, the apparatus you referenced is still in the prototype stage. Building one of these things, doing pilot plant studies and working out the bugs is another ball game altogether...not to mention the environmental issues connected with putting the stuff down an injection well in the middle of the ocean.

 

[Egon]

Dark Ages? You mean when learning and science were preserved by the Irish monasteries? Maybe you mean the period after that when universities that provided the bastion of higher learning were all religious institutions? No? Maybe you mean that great hieratic, Isac Newton? Well, he did say "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Dang! He's not an atheist. So, where does this notion that science and religion are in direct opposition come from?

Randy brings up an important point. If the problem is CO2, Why don't we plant more fast growing CO2 processing plants? The best answer I can think of is because it doesn't end up in the regulation of others behavior. The plants would sequester the carbon, and release the O2. Much better than just pulling it out of the air and burying it.

Are you referring to a small portion of the world?