Is this the answer to atmospheric carbon?

Discussion in 'Science' started by DennisTate, Oct 15, 2018.

?

Is recycling carbon out of the atmosphere the answer?

  1. Yes

    3 vote(s)
    30.0%
  2. No.... only a carbon tax will do!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. No

    7 vote(s)
    70.0%
  4. I am not sure.... but I think I may watch that video again?!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,798
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While increasing population comes with issues, this does not mean that the population cannot take better care of Earth. One very positive aspect to AGW is that we possess knowledge and we had/have time to do better. If we waste our time luxury then we are left in a reaction mode that will be much more painful than proactive actions today. Another positive about increased population is if world citizens can work together, proactively, they can make very large differences in short periods of time. Of course, any of these proactive actions require PEOPLE to learn and make better decisions...as long as most PEOPLE do nothing, mankind will be controlled by the effects of AGW...
     
  2. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    26,595
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly, control the breeding or pretend individuals will act responsibility.
     
  3. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,798
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like it or not...PEOPLE ultimately decide everything...in the case of AGW and it's potential, it seems collectively humans are either in denial or too stupid to understand...BOTH are a huge detriment to society and the future of Earth...
     
  4. OhZone

    OhZone Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    But you aren't even curious enough to hear the other side of the debate.
    What do you call that? It is Arrogant & Righteous to believe the wrong scientific community. The one getting paid to promote the Agenda. How about learn where the other side is coming from? It is naive to believe the UN paid "scientists" They do not have your best interests at heart.
     
  5. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    26,595
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am of the opinion that people ultimately do decide everything. However I also believe people with money and political influence, assuming those are somehow different, have much more influence then their numbers would suggest.
     
  6. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,798
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again, I'm not so arrogant and righteous to believe I know more than the collective scientific community. When it comes to science, there is ONLY ONE SIDE...
     
  7. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,798
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Always excuses for people not doing their jobs? If most Americans would read, would understand issues without partisanship, will actually vote for what's in the best interest of the nation, most all of our problems will be attended!
     
  8. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    26,595
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In which fantasy world do you think people will vote for the good of the nation over their own perceived interests?
     
  9. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,798
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't...and this is the problem that cannot be corrected...so tighten your shorts and hold on for a very bumpy ride...
     
    CourtJester likes this.
  10. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    51,050
    Likes Received:
    10,944
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We have long noted that in general, republicans try diligently to do just that.
     
  11. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    51,050
    Likes Received:
    10,944
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Scientists dispute that idea. My gosh, it took decades for scientists to accept what Einstein said. As we speak, other scientists still would love to prove he is wrong.
     
  12. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    51,050
    Likes Received:
    10,944
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Have you deeply looked into the scientists who do not accept AGW to be a huge disaster?
     
  13. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,798
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry...but there is only one scientific method.
    Science is a work in process and will forever be open to new information.
    It's not a matter of proving something 'wrong'...it's a matter of establishing a position based on the evidence, knowledge and technology we have today.
    My faith lies with science...
     
    iamanonman likes this.
  14. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    18,798
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No!
     
  15. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    26,595
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well I will concede that they seem to vote the interests of the rich over their own interests. Not sure the interests of the rich are the same as the interests of the country.
     
  16. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,800
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interestingly AGW is even older than any of Einstein's theories. I do like your last point. No matter what the theory and how much evidence there is to support it you will always find a naysayer.
     
  17. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    26,595
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No are there any actual climate scientists that aren’t senile that you would like to suggest?
     
  18. Nonnie

    Nonnie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,463
    Likes Received:
    4,274
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Biochar

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar
     
  19. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    7,021
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Atmospheric carbon is plant food. Does water vapor need an "answer"?
     
  20. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,800
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. That's kind of the point of science...to provide answers for the world around us.

    Also, the fact that CO2 is plant food in no way precludes it from interacting with the infrared part of the EM spectrum.
     
  21. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    7,021
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We'll see. Even as we've seen many eco doomsdays come and go. We will not eliminate fossil fuels. We will not implement even the minimum recommendations to stave off even the very worst of the predictions. We will not, and then we will see.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019 at 6:46 PM

Share This Page