The consumption of energy needed for CO2 emission reduction
in [Physics]
|
Prev: weight
Next: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
From: Eric Gisse on 18 Apr 2007 04:59 On Apr 17, 11:13 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <Alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 8:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Apr 17, 7:43 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > > > > Tthis article is a large list of unsupported statements. > > > No one who calls himself a 'skeptic' should buy a word > > > of it. > > > So if I say that just the CO2 from the burning of the trees in the > > tropics is 1/4 of all anthropogenic CO2 or 1/3 as much as all the CO2 > > from industrialization, is that false??? > > > If I point out that in the natural cycle, plants recycle around 440 > > billion tons per yr, while the CO2 from all of human sources is about > > 20 billiion without the 7 billion tons from the burning of the trees, > > is that unsupported?? > > > Everything absorbs CO2, such as the ocean which absorbs 200 billion > > tons annuallyhttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html > > > Nature would entirely absorb man's input as it does that from > > volcanoes if it weren't for the reduction of the conversion of the > > dense jungle of the rainforest. > > > Since industrialization, 20% of the worlds forests have been lost. > > Most important of the worlds forest is the Amazon. This dense jungle > > converts 20% of the worlds oxygen from CO2. Some estimate this at 50%. > > > Tthese are facts you can ignore, Roger, as you insist that other > > people endure depravation and suffering and death in your mad idea > > that the CO2 from the fuels they use to live is heating the > > atmosphere, and your conscious intent to destroy their economy. > > > So display the correct figures in comprehensible array for all of this > > CO2 you are so devastatedly concerned with. > > > Good luck in hell, as you ignore these pertinent and accurate facts. > > Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed > Rainforests", then point them out to me. > > Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot > more than any piddling little forest. > > Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the > solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them > subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly. Caarreeefull. > > IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and do > some thinking on your own? > > Mark L. Fergerson
From: kdthrge on 18 Apr 2007 07:54 On Apr 18, 1:13 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <Alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: l> Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed l> Rainforests", then point them out to me. l> > Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot > more than any piddling little forest. > > Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the > solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them > subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly. > > IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and do > some thinking on your own? > CO2 causes no warming of the earth. This is absolutely junk science. I apologize for even arguing about CO2. But it is a point that one can show the fraud of this entire movement of AGW. They will not give even an accurate evaluation of CO2 in the natural environment, as they likewise fudge and falsify each point of their theory. CO2 abatement is very energy costly. They hide these facts also, as it is a point of their propaganda to associate CO2 reduction to energy conservation, which are completely contradictory in reality. It is a very clear fact that 1/4 of all anthropogenic CO2 is from simple burning of the trees in the tropics. This is renamed 'change of tropical land use', to hide this fact. This is a cumulative loss of the important conversion of CO2 to oxygen and is primarily responsible for the increasing concentrations of CO2. This is 1/3 as much as that from fossil fuels and cement. At every point the theory of anthropogenic causes of global warming is a fraudulent theory, and this fraud should be revealed. It is utterly ridiculous to attempt the reductions they propose and this would be utter suicide for our economy and the free enterprise which we rely upon for a healthy economy. The Bush administration fought the recent case in the sumpreme court, on the grounds that CO2 is a grenhouse gas but is not pollution. The court had to rule that it is harmful. This is all about a law that was imposed in 1970. The burden of proof should be met that shows CO2 to affect the climate, which it has not. This attempt to gain control over our free use of energy is a crime of the highest proportions and is invalid science. At some point, it must be challenged directly. Hopefully, before these insane fanatics are given any credibility with their determination to gain control over our economy and use of energy. Kent Deatherage
From: Big Glob on 18 Apr 2007 14:16 On 18 Apr 2007 04:54:17 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Apr 18, 1:13 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <Alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >l> Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed >l> Rainforests", then point them out to me. >l> >> Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot >> more than any piddling little forest. >> >> Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the >> solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them >> subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly. >> >> IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and do >> some thinking on your own? > >CO2 causes no warming of the earth. This is absolutely junk science. I >apologize for even arguing about CO2. But it is a point that one can >show the fraud of this entire movement of AGW. They will not give even >an accurate evaluation of CO2 in the natural environment, as they >likewise fudge and falsify each point of their theory. The scientific data on all greenhouse gases is available on a number of edu and gov sites, but the Goofy Whackos inconveniently ignore truth. >CO2 abatement is very energy costly. They hide these facts also, as it >is a point of their propaganda to associate CO2 reduction to energy >conservation, which are completely contradictory in reality. Tearing down and building all new has been a common agenda of the far left for long before the AGW hoax was thought up, they fail to appreciate the value and amount of work, materials and energy required to rebuild. This is evident in all aspects of the economy, from low income federally funded apartment buildings that tenants trash within 10 years which the liberal lawmakers have torn down and rebuilt instead of training maintenance men to keep them in condition; to public transport, where they rationalize having right of way and equipment worth thousands of times what personal vehicles cost to carry the same number of people. >It is a very clear fact that 1/4 of all anthropogenic CO2 is from >simple burning of the trees in the tropics. This is renamed 'change of >tropical land use', to hide this fact. This is a cumulative loss of >the important conversion of CO2 to oxygen and is primarily responsible >for the increasing concentrations of CO2. Perhaps few realize the scope of saving and converting, trees away from population centers are a wonderful example of capital as organic machinery that does things no man made machine can do. >This is 1/3 as much as that from fossil fuels and cement. At every >point the theory of anthropogenic causes of global warming is a >fraudulent theory, and this fraud should be revealed. It is utterly >ridiculous to attempt the reductions they propose and this would be >utter suicide for our economy and the free enterprise which we rely >upon for a healthy economy. Talk in a world wide newsgroup may appear more significant than it really is, the leftist shouting from OZ has no bearing on the rest of the world, like the old joke, everybody knows it's down there, but nobody cares. All of Europe has been far left at one time or another and would likely be fighting each other still/again except that technology has made war very uneconomical. Most of the old leftists know the failures, it must be the dumb or the young that propose the extreme government actions that are not at all realistic, they don't know enough to know what is possible and what is not. >The Bush administration fought the recent case in the sumpreme court, >on the grounds that CO2 is a grenhouse gas but is not pollution. The >court had to rule that it is harmful. This is all about a law that was >imposed in 1970. The burden of proof should be met that shows CO2 to >affect the climate, which it has not. That's ok, any government can sign treaties and pass laws and goals of any percentage reduction in 2050, that is so far in the future that none of the people in government will be alive or active. >This attempt to gain control over our free use of energy is a crime of >the highest proportions and is invalid science. At some point, it must >be challenged directly. Hopefully, before these insane fanatics are >given any credibility with their determination to gain control over >our economy and use of energy. >Kent Deatherage The Goofy Whacko movement will just fade away, with some laughing and others angry, depending on the fate nature will deal them. The smart money will simply take the middle road, no matter what the climate change, if any, there won't be enough effect to change any investment or project. Chances are the struggle by most countries to develop alternate sources of energy because of shortages and not CO2 emissions, will have more of an effect than any treaty, law, or the stupid graft scheme called carbon credits.
From: Bill Ward on 18 Apr 2007 14:07 On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:16:25 -0900, Big Glob wrote: > On 18 Apr 2007 04:54:17 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >>On Apr 18, 1:13 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <Alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: l> Put >>Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed l> Rainforests", >>then point them out to me. l> >>> Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot >>> more than any piddling little forest. >>> >>> Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the >>> solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them >>> subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly. >>> >>> IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and do >>> some thinking on your own? >> >>CO2 causes no warming of the earth. This is absolutely junk science. I >>apologize for even arguing about CO2. But it is a point that one can show >>the fraud of this entire movement of AGW. They will not give even an >>accurate evaluation of CO2 in the natural environment, as they likewise >>fudge and falsify each point of their theory. > > The scientific data on all greenhouse gases is > available on a number of edu and gov sites, but the Goofy Whackos > inconveniently ignore truth. > >>CO2 abatement is very energy costly. They hide these facts also, as it is >>a point of their propaganda to associate CO2 reduction to energy >>conservation, which are completely contradictory in reality. > > Tearing down and building all new has been a > common agenda of the far left for long before the AGW hoax was thought up, > they fail to appreciate the value and amount of work, materials and energy > required to rebuild. > This is evident in all aspects of the economy, > from low income federally funded apartment buildings that tenants trash > within 10 years which the liberal lawmakers have torn down and rebuilt > instead of training maintenance men to keep them in condition; > to public transport, where they rationalize having > right of way and equipment worth thousands of times what personal vehicles > cost to carry the same number of people. Cost is no object when you're spending someone else's money. Leftists always know how to spend your money better than you do, so they feel obligated to take it from you for your own good. But they always say they'll take it only from the rich, which is defined as everyone who makes more money than you do, and split the loot with you, if you'll vote for them. Bill Ward
From: Lloyd on 18 Apr 2007 14:20
On Apr 18, 3:13 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <Alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 8:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Apr 17, 7:43 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > > > > Tthis article is a large list of unsupported statements. > > > No one who calls himself a 'skeptic' should buy a word > > > of it. > > > So if I say that just the CO2 from the burning of the trees in the > > tropics is 1/4 of all anthropogenic CO2 or 1/3 as much as all the CO2 > > from industrialization, is that false??? > > > If I point out that in the natural cycle, plants recycle around 440 > > billion tons per yr, while the CO2 from all of human sources is about > > 20 billiion without the 7 billion tons from the burning of the trees, > > is that unsupported?? > > > Everything absorbs CO2, such as the ocean which absorbs 200 billion > > tons annuallyhttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html > > > Nature would entirely absorb man's input as it does that from > > volcanoes if it weren't for the reduction of the conversion of the > > dense jungle of the rainforest. > > > Since industrialization, 20% of the worlds forests have been lost. > > Most important of the worlds forest is the Amazon. This dense jungle > > converts 20% of the worlds oxygen from CO2. Some estimate this at 50%. > > > Tthese are facts you can ignore, Roger, as you insist that other > > people endure depravation and suffering and death in your mad idea > > that the CO2 from the fuels they use to live is heating the > > atmosphere, and your conscious intent to destroy their economy. > > > So display the correct figures in comprehensible array for all of this > > CO2 you are so devastatedly concerned with. > > > Good luck in hell, as you ignore these pertinent and accurate facts. > > Put Google Earth on your desktop and find these "destroyed > Rainforests", then point them out to me. > A lot of Brazil has been deforested. Ditto Indonesia. > Besides which, oceanic surface plankton transpire a hell of a lot > more than any piddling little forest. > > Oh, and please explain why so many other planets and moons in the > solar system are warming much more than Earth is. Are all of them > subject to "natural" fluctuations _except_ Earth? That's just silly. > Please explain how people died in China yesterday if a college student didn't shoot them. Gee, can something have one cause in one place and another cause in a different place, do ya think? > IOW how about you stop sockpuppeting for George Soros et. al. and do > some thinking on your own? > OK, I'll choose the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, EPA, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and thousands of articles in scientific journals. Now, who's doing your thinking, doofus? > Mark L. Fergerson |