More climate change propaganda

More climate change propaganda

Debates

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
25 Sep 14

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Carbon neutral maybe, but we transform biomass into CO2 when we eat it and breathe it out. We're not CO2 neutral.
Its relative. If we did not eat the food, something else would.
Of course if we did not grow the food, then the soil (in some locations) would contain more carbon.

Insanity at Masada

tinyurl.com/mw7txe34

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26660
25 Sep 14
1 edit

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its relative. If we did not eat the food, something else would.
Of course if we did not grow the food, then the soil (in some locations) would contain more carbon.
Not necessarily. Petroleum is carbon that was never eaten by anything.

The carbon in plants comes from the air, not the soil.

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
25 Sep 14

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Carbon neutral maybe, but we transform biomass into CO2 when we eat it and breathe it out. We're not CO2 neutral.
Over a lifetime (plus a bit for decomposition!) we are Carbon neutral.
Over a lifetime we have no net effect on CO2.

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
25 Sep 14

Originally posted by whodey
Do you deny that dinosaurs emitted more CO2 a year back in the day than humans do today?
Irrelevant.

If you have to ask that question you clearly do not understand
the Carbon Cycle and should not be participating in Climate
Change discussion as if you knew something.

Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78221
25 Sep 14
1 edit

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Over a lifetime (plus a bit for decomposition!) we are Carbon neutral.
Over a lifetime we have no net effect on CO2.
Agreed, but each new CO2 producing unit that is added also adds it's own CO2 to the atmosphere.

The only way you could argue humans (regardless of fossil fuels) did not add CO2 to the atmosphere would be if the pop was static or that each new human removed some other critters from the equation.

Edit: To clarify, there isn't one carbon cycle each CO2 producing unit (human or otherwise) has it's own cycle.

n

The Catbird's Seat

Joined
21 Oct 06
Moves
2598
26 Sep 14

Originally posted by Wajoma
Agreed, but each new CO2 producing unit that is added also adds it's own CO2 to the atmosphere.

The only way you could argue humans (regardless of fossil fuels) did not add CO2 to the atmosphere would be if the pop was static or that each new human removed some other critters from the equation.

Edit: To clarify, there isn't one carbon cycle each CO2 producing unit (human or otherwise) has it's own cycle.
All things considered, it is just about the height of arrogance for humans to presume they can manipulate or alter the weather intentionally, when nobody can truly agree on the extent that man's previous actions had an effect on the climate, which has varied from before man is know to have existed.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
26 Sep 14

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Irrelevant.

If you have to ask that question you clearly do not understand
the Carbon Cycle and should not be participating in Climate
Change discussion as if you knew something.
So the mere fact that dino's were producing more carbon is irrelevant?

Thanks for the heads up. 😵

Guppy poo

Sewers of Holland

Joined
31 Jan 04
Moves
87930
26 Sep 14

Originally posted by whodey
The climate has always changed Shav.

It's like trying to sell the notion that the sky is blue. It's blue, but not because of what any of us have to do with it.

I concede that living organisms have some effect on the never changing weather. For example, dino's created more cabon emissions than humans. Did their passing gas kill them all off? I've not ...[text shortened]... creation of a "big pot of money" created by political leaders around the world, at our expense.
How do you know dino's created more carbon emission?
And you do realize that if the perma-frost in Siberia melts, we're all gonna die by mammoth dung, don't you?

Yes. The climate has always changed.
To think that the current state of affairs doesn't affect it in any way is contradicting rationality and every single scientific report.

K

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
26 Sep 14

Originally posted by Wajoma
Agreed, but each new CO2 producing unit that is added also adds it's own CO2 to the atmosphere.

The only way you could argue humans (regardless of fossil fuels) did not add CO2 to the atmosphere would be if the pop was static or that each new human removed some other critters from the equation.

Edit: To clarify, there isn't one carbon cycle each CO2 producing unit (human or otherwise) has it's own cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

n

The Catbird's Seat

Joined
21 Oct 06
Moves
2598
26 Sep 14

Originally posted by shavixmir
How do you know dino's created more carbon emission?
And you do realize that if the perma-frost in Siberia melts, we're all gonna die by mammoth dung, don't you?

Yes. The climate has always changed.
To think that the current state of affairs doesn't affect it in any way is contradicting rationality and every single scientific report.
You know what would happen if bullfrogs had wings?

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
26 Sep 14

Originally posted by shavixmir
How do you know dino's created more carbon emission?
And you do realize that if the perma-frost in Siberia melts, we're all gonna die by mammoth dung, don't you?

Yes. The climate has always changed.
To think that the current state of affairs doesn't affect it in any way is contradicting rationality and every single scientific report.
That is what scientists say silly so it must be true!

Obviously, they farted themselves into extinction. I've personally come close a couple of times.

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
27 Sep 14

Originally posted by Wajoma
Agreed, but each new CO2 producing unit that is added also adds it's own CO2 to the atmosphere.

NO NO NO

That "unit" as you call it can only get Carbon from food. The Carbon
in that food came from CO2 in the atmosphere. If you don't get that
it's pointless carrying on a discussion.

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
27 Sep 14

Originally posted by whodey
So the mere fact that dino's were producing more carbon is irrelevant?

Producing Carbon? 🙄

Presumably you mean exhaling CO2 as part of the Carbon cycle?
And yes, it is irrelevant.

Die Cheeseburger

Provocation

Joined
01 Sep 04
Moves
78221
27 Sep 14

Originally posted by wolfgang59
NO NO NO

That "unit" as you call it can only get Carbon from food. The Carbon
in that food came from CO2 in the atmosphere. If you don't get that
it's pointless carrying on a discussion.
If we didn't consume the food then how does it get into the atmoshere.

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
27 Sep 14

Originally posted by Wajoma
If we didn't consume the food then how does it get into the atmoshere.
I think you are joking.

Decay, decomposition, bacterial action. Ultimately its back to CO2.

There are some Carbon sumps but food isn't one!