XX

[Snapshot]

X

[kidso]

I love how scientists who disagree with carbon dioxide linked climate change are typically labeled "skeptics" by politically correct politicians who know little to nothing about science in an attempt to discredit their research. I have researched and studied CO2-linked climate change for years and found no relationship. However, as a scientist, I am open to debate and readily agree that the door should not be completely shut on this climatological issue.

 

On the contrary, very little is ever discussed regarding the direct biological benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 levels on our planet, which is nearly undebatable. Go back to high school biology with me for a moment. Do you recall learning about photosynthesis? The process by which plants take atmospheric CO2 into their leaves and convert it into sugars to use for their growth and development? Well, in a nutshell, plants eat CO2. With a little more CO2 available for plants to consume in our air, guess what happens? They typically grow larger, quicker, and use less water while doing so.

 

Furthermore, because plants exist at the bottom of nearly all of earth's biotic food chains, what is best for plants is what is best for our planet. Biologically speaking, more CO2 in our atmosphere provides a stimulation at the lowest level of our food chains to create a greater superstructure for supporting all other life forms that depend upon plants, including us -we humans. Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are effectively providing an aerial fertilization effect that increases crop, fiber, and timber production which is helping to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for our increasing human population.

 

But, I guess arguing about debatable and non-proven CO2-linked climatic disasters is more important to our policy makers than spreading the positive and proven beneficial effects of increased CO2 on earth's vegetation and all the animal life it supports, including us. New "regulations" will likely be biting or chopping off the "biological" hand which feeds us. I love our country, and I support our Constitution, but our leaders are way off the mark when it comes to scapegoating increasing CO2 levels as the cause of climatological events.

[Coach]

Guys, let's all set our beer down. It isn't global warming or global cooling, it's about strange weather patterns we've seen that could not be predicted. Massive droughts in the midwest. Massive flooding in the NE. Yeah this kind of stuff happens every few years, old farmers are used to it. When it's time to sweat the ME farmers, they will sweat - when it's time to let them harvest, they will harvest. Nature provides and government takes.

[DesertBull]

and when the criticism mounts to unbearable proportions.......a shooting occurs to knock his failures off the front page.

[PRDATR]

I love how scientists who disagree with carbon dioxide linked climate change are typically labeled "skeptics" by politically correct politicians who know little to nothing about science in an attempt to discredit their research. I have researched and studied CO2-linked climate change for years and found no relationship. However, as a scientist, I am open to debate and readily agree that the door should not be completely shut on this climatological issue.

 

On the contrary, very little is ever discussed regarding the direct biological benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 levels on our planet, which is nearly undebatable. Go back to high school biology with me for a moment. Do you recall learning about photosynthesis? The process by which plants take atmospheric CO2 into their leaves and convert it into sugars to use for their growth and development? Well, in a nutshell, plants eat CO2. With a little more CO2 available for plants to consume in our air, guess what happens? They typically grow larger, quicker, and use less water while doing so.

 

Furthermore, because plants exist at the bottom of nearly all of earth's biotic food chains, what is best for plants is what is best for our planet. Biologically speaking, more CO2 in our atmosphere provides a stimulation at the lowest level of our food chains to create a greater superstructure for supporting all other life forms that depend upon plants, including us -we humans. Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are effectively providing an aerial fertilization effect that increases crop, fiber, and timber production which is helping to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for our increasing human population.

 

But, I guess arguing about debatable and non-proven CO2-linked climatic disasters is more important to our policy makers than spreading the positive and proven beneficial effects of increased CO2 on earth's vegetation and all the animal life it supports, including us. New "regulations" will likely be biting or chopping off the "biological" hand which feeds us. I love our country, and I support our Constitution, but our leaders are way off the mark when it comes to scapegoating increasing CO2 levels as the cause of climatological events.

 

I sure would like to know the PPM levels from a few hundred years ago. In the HVAC world ASHRAE gives us guidelines for Demand Ventilation levels in schools and businesses.

[kidso]

 

 

I sure would like to know the PPM levels from a few hundred years ago. In the HVAC world ASHRAE gives us guidelines for Demand Ventilation levels in schools and businesses.

Analysis of "air bubbles" trapped in ice cores drilled in the Antarctic have determined historic CO2 levels to be around 270-280 ppm (or 0.027%) between years 1600 to about 1850, after which began to rise with mankind's industrialization.

[DesertBull]

http://bearingarms.com/first-image-emerges-of-lax-shooters-ar-15-rifle-raising-disturbing-questions/

[DesertBull]

13 people were shot in Chicago last week. Not one story about it any of them on CNN, NBC, etc. One person gets shot in California, with a gun / magazine that is illegal to own in that state. Gun grabbers come out of the wood work.