I'm well aware of the respiration process as I have cleary pointed that out in other posts(amazingly enough the same stubborn people don't believe that science)(do a search) arguing the point with the same people over and over here and there. And yes I would like to make that comparison of how much humans dump co2 into the environment VS. mother nature - lets see you prove humans are responsible for the majorty of green house gases on earth. Let me know how many parts per million you find out when you are done your research...I already know the answer.

<popcorn is in the microwave...this ought to be good>

My basic problem with Gore is the hypocrisy, the taxes that major corps. will pass on to the consumer (you/me) eventually. And the control factor they want to have over the common person - where are the civil rights there??? They are already pushing standards so hard car manufacturers are slapping together cars that you know dayum well will get people crushed in car accidents that people normally would walk away from. Wouldn't it be great if everyone drove a focus so when people hit each other no one gets hurt but that will never be the case.

People are so PC forcing our government to subsidize farmers making them grow corn for alternative fuel. The cost of producing ethanol, the lack of other crops such as wheat are driving other costs up such as dairy, meats, produce in general. Internationally Kyoto is forcing taxes, penalties and fines driving the costs of products we purchase from them. All for what? So we can save a polar bear from drowning that isn't?

Temps haven't gone up in a decade. Arctic/Antarctic sea ice is growing. Earths temp has only gone up half a degree C over the last 200 years.

Global warming is a socialists agenda and myth. Climate change is a fact of reality and natural course of earth.

"People are so PC forcing our government to subsidize farmers making them grow corn for alternative fuel. "

That's your beloved republican party doing that you know. Led by your hero GW Bush. Other countries are using the much more efficient soy beans.
http://www.energybulletin.net/25558.html
You really truly have your head up your a$$ when you post.

Trees produce CO2 when they respire at night, and they produce a little more O2 during the day when they are photosynthesizing...net gain of oxygen.

We humans produce CO2 day and night...and then some. Throws the balance out of whack.

It is just about the most basic and fundamental problem with talking science with those who would rather discuss partisan politics...compare apples to oranges, call it a "debate", and then ignore the problem...

Fish on...

Todd

No tree hugger here. I just get defensive when I have to hear people like you who are completely biased and misinformed...Politically and in the environmental science department..

BJ wrote: .. Yet you keep on making the same stupid mistake. Sure, trees produce CO2 and consume O2 at night, but they consume more CO2 and produce more O2 during daylight, so that the net is a reduction of CO2 and an increase of O2.

BJ wrote:
Have you ever heard of the concept of the last straw? Or a tipping balance? Humans don't have to be responsible for a majority of green house gases, to be able to have an effect on the climate.

BJ wrote: Circular reasoning- if everybody keeps on getting bigger vehicles, for accident protection, where will that end?

BJ wrote: What planet are you living on, it doesn't seem to be Earth? Here's an AP article citing NASA data, saying that sea ice melted faster than ever, this past summer- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004065899_webarctic11.html
"Greenland Ice Melting at Record Pace"- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004064731_greenland11.html
From the European Environmental Agency, including a chart showing the increase in growing seasons- http://epaedia.eea.europa.eu/page.php?pid=343#galleryhere

A prudent person doesn't wait till there is inconclusive proof of a hazard, before altering their behavior. But then, maybe we can hope that you DO like to drive fast, at night, with your headlights off.

Well lay it on the line bud, tell us why I am wrong and who you are voting for in 08'. I could really care less, but since you insist by not backing up anything you are saying with proof and standing on your perch calling me simpleton names then tell us.+

You forgot trees also die and when they do its all carbon my friend. pffft. Mother nature has a natural cycle that keeps balance. What about other living things, humans, plants animals -when they die, the atmosphere, etc, etc??? Forgot about those too huh.

The amount of Co2 human's produce via industry, machinery, emissions is less then 17 parts per million which could not effect the climate. In layman's term's that's worse odd's then any lotto, or realitively speaking dropping a penny into a pool with nearly 6,000,000 other pennys and trying to find the same one. What do you not understand about it? LOL


NASA satellite lower atmospheric surface imaging when corrected for instances of El Nino or the later and other events such as Volcanic eruptions show absolutely no global warming. The head honcho at NASA Micheal Griffin is a skeptic of Gore's theory.

BTW your articles you linked from 2004 have been updated as of Decemeber this year by left wing nuts at the PI.

If it takes you an hour or more to eat breakfast stop focusing on the word concentrate too much on the side of the orange juice carton.

BJ you tool, even those who believe the preponderance of the evidence supports climate change are skeptical of Gore. By definition, a scientist is skeptical. It comes with the territory.

And since when does 1:6,000,000 equal 17:1,000,000? Didn't make it past grade school arithmetic, eh? Thought as much.

Don't know why I'm bothering, you're not even good cheap entertainment. TK was better.

Don't mean to pile on, but that's one nasty slimy ass boot perch, you're proudly holding there BJ. Just an observation.

Boot_Jay, even you can't throw up a good smokescreen. Remember the Alamo??? lol

Take some biology courses! All carbon, my ass! Also nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. And it doesn't all just go "pffft" in to the atmosphere when plants die; if it did there wouldn't be any petroleum for fuel. The process is called sequestration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink

The odds aren't even relevent- that's the whole point of the concept of the last straw. Add too many pennies to the wrong side of the scale, or too many straws on the camels back, and things break down.



You're a good one to be insulting my reading ability! Read the names of these links , again.
I can read SEATTLE TIMES, not PI! If you had (or could) really read the articles, you'd notice the info is not recycled from 2004, but is data released by NASA this year.

Seems to me that the above is PROOF that either YOU can't read, or that you're willing to be a blatant liar and hope nobody notices.

"Todd, I've given this a lot of thought. You can be President. I'd like to be VP if that's OK. I have a strong desire to go grouse hunting with some friends down in Olytown."

Deal...I'll help you with the list of potential hunting partners, if you'd like...

Fish on...

Todd

I have told you why you are wrong, numerous times and numerous ways. SO has everyone else. Give up...

That was really enough said... You could have just stopped there!

I can read SEATTLE TIMES, not PI! If you had (or could) really read the articles, you'd notice the info is not recycled from 2004, but is data released by NASA this year.

Seems to me that the above is PROOF that either YOU can't read, or that you're willing to be a blatant liar and hope nobody notices. [/quote]

Seems as though you are totally cluless when it comes to news links. They contain the date of the original story. 2004 is clearly visible in the link. NEXT!

Okay back to reality, trees, plants and animals, even humans when they die emit c02. Also water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The odds are in my favor. You just don't get it. That's okay, it's easy to see how stubburn you lefites are. LOL

Over 17,000 scientists now agree there are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. That's 16,000+ more scientist then Gore could buy to get them to say it was happening if you count media agents, television actors, politicians included.

Damn lefty's....they tend to make sense

Quit pulling info outta your @$$...Seriously. Believe what you want, but make sure you read facts that aren't from your own imaginary source....

I don't think his source is imaginary...I'm guessing it's one of two sources; Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity.

To be fair to Blow Jay, neither of them is imaginary...though virtually everything they say is.

Fish on...

Todd

Wow, what a great choice of words, BJ. Even you realize, on some level, that you're full of it.The idea that the the link contains the date of the original story (in this case, 2004) is bogus. Again, if you actually could, or did, read the article, you might be able to figure it out. There is no mention of events from 2004, and is clearly about events of this year. Ya think an article from 2004 could predict what would be observed in 2007??!

No, just another case of you pulling crap out of you a$$, throwing it against the wall, and hoping it sticks. Mean while, you don't even notice how much is getting on you.