Republican Congressman Says God Will 'Take Care Of' Climate Change

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kittamaru, Jun 1, 2017.

  1. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Yes, I agree (my support for such research) . . . . . with this caveat - IF you or anyone else can ensure that IPCC (and related) research IS truly objective and unbiased toward a desired political agenda/goal. IPCC has reportedly falsified/misrepresented data in the past to meet desired funding/research expectations. I can locate online references to this when I get the time.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Observation one - we humans have removed something around 40% of the total forested area on Earth in the last few hundred years...

    That is a LOT of trees and plant life no longer removing CO2...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Good points, QQ!!

    If its NOT our fault "what the hell can we do"? . . . . other than DO some REAL focused scientific research to identify/resolve the issues. [e.g., how to create faster-acting CO2 sinks that operate on very large (global) scales? . . . . . genetically-designed crops to maximize /enhance photosynthesis? . . . CaO or CaOH (or other alkalines) 'traps' to sequester CO2 as CO3= ? . . . rejuvenating biogenic CO3 sinks (e.g., coral communities) . . . increased inorganic infrastructure construction? . . . and of course, minimizing CO2 emissions].

    Politics is always easier to swallow if we can blame the human race for (its own) misbehavior . . . its the ultimate 'guilt trip', I suppose.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Then perhaps REQUIRE long-term reforestation? or replace decommisisoned forest areas with proportional seasonal vegetation (i.e., food crops)? . . . . one could think of other (partial) corrrective resolutions.
     
  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Irrelevant though - the simple fact is, we have removed huge swathes of plant life (between logging, mining, housing development, farming) that has had no real replacement...

    So, I ask again - the fact that we have removed a large percentage of the worldwide forests - does that or does that not impart a rather large impact on CO2 removal, and thus impact climate change?
     
  9. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Please provide (if you have) any quantitative data that has been reported regarding such irrelevance and comparisons of earth CO2 sequestration sinks versus the increase in CO2 emissions. Thanks.
     
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    In other words, you are claiming the removal of a type of CO2 sink is not impacting the climate at all...

    Quit trolling Karen, or I will simply remove you from this thread. I am (and others as well appear to be) sick to shit of your obfuscation and honestly, I'm not having it anymore - either put up, or shut up

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Now, answer the damn question.

    To play along, because ya know what, I'm enjoying watching you shove your foot ever further down your throat:

    http://sciencing.com/deforestation-affect-air-10632.html
    http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

    Enjoy
     
  11. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Please provide (if you have) any quantitative data that has been reported regarding such irrelevance and comparisons of earth CO2 sequestration sinks versus the increase in CO2 emissions. Thanks.
     
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    So you double down on the trolling behavior.

    For the record - what is irrelevant was your proposal of replanting what was cut (since, ya know, that wasn't being done). I take your refusal to make so much as a counterpoint as an admittance that you concede the point.

    Maybe you will decide to actually argue in good faith at some point down the road...?
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,848
    You confuse them. You post geological time scale events as if they were relevant and comparable to AGW, for example.
    That doesn't make you an actual scientist, and nothing you have posted here so far supports your claim to be one.
    It's possible - guys like Behe are actually scientists, after all, doing creationism as a hobby of a kind, and there are the Judith Curries of the world - but so far not a hint. No idea, for example, what your field could possibly be.
    And if nobody can reassure you enough, you recommend cutting back on the research being done?
    No, it hasn't. Not "reportedly", either. There is no journalism involved in such media slander operations.

    The IPCC does not conduct research - to what "funding/research expectations" do you refer?

    Some fossil fuel billionaire funded media operatives floated accusations, as with a James O'Keefe video, and a whole lot of standard issue Republicans bought it just as they had James O'Keefe videos - there was even enough clout to force some official inquiry, as there was behind the James O'Keefe videos. But that was all for mass media delivery to the Republican voter - no scientist would be gulled that easily, one hopes.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,502
    That might work in many places. In other places, however, the climate no longer supports forests - which is one reason there are no easy solutions.
    The planting and harvesting of food crops requires far more CO2 than the plants absorb. This CO2 comes in the form of fertilizer and pesticide creation, fuel for tractors and harvesters and fuel for crop transport. Thus planting acres of corn makes the problem worse, not better.

    However, if you take cattle pens and grazing areas and replant them, then that helps a lot. Not because the absorbed CO2 goes up significantly, but because meat production is very CO2-intensive.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,502
    The vast majority is. Occasionally you see a scientist biased towards the political goal of warming mitigation (which, ironically, you support as well.) Occasionally you see a scientist biased towards the oil companies who are paying their salaries. But for the vast majority of climate change research, the researchers are "biased" towards accuracy - since, for a scientist, a track record of discovery, accuracy and repeatability leads to success in their careers.
     
  16. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Actually, I think doing nothing is the right approach. All our troubles have come originally by doing something. Let industrial society collapse, and the global warming problem will also go away.
     

Share This Page