Seriously folks, grab an axe and gets to chopping -- trees that is, not broccoli. -- donk.
"TREES are good. Good enough to hug. Trees have a nifty biochemical strategy called photosynthesis that enables them to take carbon dioxide in through their leaves, and swap that nasty gas for oxygen, a nice one. They use the carbon thus sequestered to make molecules like cellulose, and thus more tree.
That is why some rich people who love to burn things containing carbon, such as petrol and aircraft fuel, have recently started paying others to plant trees on their behalf. Burning adds oxygen to carbon, making carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide makes the world warmer. A warmer world will mean higher sea levels. So if people burn things without offsetting the carbon dioxide thus produced, their holidays in the Maldive islands will disappear, along with the islands themselves.
This chattering-class environmental picture is not necessarily wrong, but it does include many assumptions. One of them, that planting trees will make the world cooler than it would otherwise be, is the subject of a newly published study by Govindasamy Bala, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in California, and his colleagues. Dr Bala has found, rather counter-intuitively, that removing all of the world's trees might actually cool the planet down. Conversely, adding trees everywhere might warm it up."
economist.com
13 comments:
Have you ever hugged a tree? It definitely makes you feel better...I'm not sure how it makes the tree feel? Better call SVU...
I hate the world today so I am taking an off day. We live in a world of hypocrisy.
Last night I was watching SNY's Daily Sports News Live rountable. One of the guest, a brother, called Don Imus a wrinkly old white guy. If I was in the studio I would have smacked him right across the face and said, "hey dumbass, don't you realize that you just did what he did!?" It sickens me that we have to live in a world of hypocrites. To MS-NBC & CBS I say, "hey morons, do you realize that in the name of decency you took a risk that you would be killing children with cancer & helping suffocate children with SIDS?" It is a sad day in this country.
Stop being victims...All RU did was act like victims. They should have just said Don Imus is irrelevant and his comments were ignorant.
Instead they went on Oprah.
Fucking bullshit.
I don't like Don Imus, Howard Stern or Opie and Anthony but be honest and admit that we all say things in jest. Is it right? No but it certainly isn't important either...unless you make it important. We are a country of pussy victims and we are fast becoming a joke.
I came across an interesting article on Richard Lindzen, the anti-global warming meterologist you linked to recently.
"The positions advocated by Richard Lindzen, the paid-by-OPEC opinion writer commenting in Newsweek -- he's also written op-eds for a number of other publications including the Wall Street Journal -- appear to be the diametric opposite of those held by Richard Lindzen, the serious meteorologist, when he's writing peer-reviewed scientific texts.
Specifically, Lindzen co-authored the 2001 National Academy of Science's report on climate change. It concluded that despite some scientific "uncertainties," there is "agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years."
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/50494/
hold on... are you saying that there are two Richard Lindzens!?!?!
that the second one has been completely fabricated by the morally bankrupt anti-global warming crowd merely so they could fabricate a supposed expert and gain credibility?
or is this like that twilight zone episode where the guy calls his own apartment and he picks up?
will the fake richard lindzen gradually take over the life of the real richard lindzen, until he's a shell of a man wasting away in some seedy dive?
or is there only one richard lindzen--a man plagued by multiple and competing personalities his entire life?
find out next week on the aurora!
by the way, can we find some fat puerto rican named albert pujols who we can use for similar purposes?
(actually, that may have happened already.)
Do you ever argue the science or are you really that afraid?
Reading your link has led to me to believe that you either...
-didnt read the story
-have no idea what the debate is about
-dont know the meaning of "diametric opposite"
-are a moron
My vote is for all of the above.
Or Lindzen is a hypocrite who may do good science on his day job, and then is a paid hack for the oil interests on the side.
So since you can not argue the science of my post how there are numerous factors besides mans contribution affecting the current warming trend you attack a scientist that I cited days ago whose data who are unable to explain or rebut.
Keep up the weak work jackass.
And for the record the hit piece that you linked attacking Lindzen is about the stupidest thing Ive read from you in some time. There is no inconsistency to Lindzens position. He does not argue against the current warming trend and he does not argue that man has an impact on the environment, so I dont know what your point is. Maybe you if you had actually read what I linked and what you linked as opposed to your usual ad hominem attacks courtesy of sourcewatch you would have seen that.
Then again what should I have expected from a site you linked that is funded by the anti-American Soros Group.
Why do you persist in maintaining that your position on global warming is based on scientific evidence? Clearly it is not. Lindzen apparently supported the National Academy of Science report that accepted anthropogenic global warming, whatever he mantains in op-ed pieces.The fact that most global warming skeptics are on Exxon's payroll is clearly not just a coincidence.You dance with the one that brung you.
I believe that your position is political (accepting the wingnut arguments) rather than scientific. Most liberals and moderates accept the consensus on this issue. Conservatives are now divided. Newt Gingrich has come around, as have others.
I cannot explain every alleged fact in every link you cite. You have cited 10 year old studies. You have on one occassion cited a study that actually supported my position.
You are the conspiracy theorist on this issue. Global warming is a Hoax or Plot of some sort. Does not that argument attack the motives of the scientists rather than the science? The 2000 scientists of the IPCC, as well as the National Academy of Sciences, must be in on the plot.
As I recall, you do not believe in the theory of evolution either. Am I supposed to be impressed with your grasp of either the scientific method, or the scientific evidence? Clearly, the science is in on evolution, and there is not a single scientist who disputes it, unless he is a religious fundamentalist.
You keep linking to articles by skeptics. Fine, it's your blog. I could link to 100 x as many articles by scientists to support my position, so what?
I see you have once again refused to debate the merits of my post. Why do you fear science so much?
I link skeptics because it is a hoax. Man's activity will not destroy the planet (barring thermonuclear war that is)
I link a 10 year study because it is settled science. North America is a "carbon sink". Fact, you cant debate it so you scream Exxon. I suppose you would argue the theory of relativity because it is over 100 years old?
You have never argued the science behind a god damn thing we have said here... its always about Exxon with you, which proves nothing... well besides that you are a sheep that can read protest placards.
The case I continually try to make is not that global warming doesnt exist or that man is not contributing to it, which seems to be lost on you, but rather that there are many contributing and significantly greater factors besides man, that the current warming trend is historically proven to be cyclical, and most importantly that the scaremongering alarmists are ignoring key evidence to make their point for legislating human behavior and industry.
Stick to the grassy knoll kid.
I said that the "carbon sink" article was interesting but it doesn't disprove global warming.
All you do is link to articles by global warming skeptics. Should I link to some articles by global warming believers? Would that satisfy your insistence that I debate the science? Maybe I should just link to the IPCC report.
You cant really be this stupid. Nobody is trying to disprove global "warming". You obviously have no clue what the debate is even about. Im done wasting my time with you.
Obviously I meant anthropogenic global warming which you have called a hoax.
gary, dude.
it's absolutely clear that these guys do not grasp the scientific method.
why continue to bang your head into a wall?
let's just all agree to consider our opponents intellectually stunted conspiracy theorists and be done with it!
Post a Comment