Actually, while I don't want to debate climate change ...
If the recent trends to solar farms prove to be cost justified, wouldn't Apple and others implement this on a much larger scale -- thousands or millions of acres of solar farms, NIMBY ...
I suspect they would -- and eventually solar farms could outweigh the current contributors to climate change.
All I am suggesting is that we should consider the consequences -- lest we create a solution that is worse than the problem.
I am not suggesting that we do nothing -- rather, that we proceed carefully, and evaluate the impact of the changes as we go!
That area has already been used for mining and oil exploration, and over areas far greater than 1,300 acres. Much of the land in that part of Monterey County is far from pristine.
It's even worse than that. I have a few friends who get all of their "news" and scientific "knowledge" from talk radio. I've listened to some of those shows, and they just lie on the air. I'm amazed sometimes. But their audience believes everything they hear, because it's what they want to hear, it's bolstering their own beliefs.
It's what they want to hear, true, but also they have no knowledge to balance against what they hear. Ultimately it goes back to poor education. It is easy to con an uneducated person, however bright, than an educated one.
Data doesn't lie, but science lies all the time. I agree that it's the most pure thing, but it's by no means pure. If you've studied science, as I have, and analyzed research, it's easy to see how easy it is to get something wrong, or to manipulate data either deliberately or through subconscious bias.*
I would imagine that this is particularly true when creating mathematical models (where one fraction of a decimal point makes a huge difference), and when these models are dealing with something that has an incredible amount of variables (the entire earth ecosystem), and especially when extrapolating those models out to decades (meteorologists can't even reliably predict the weather more than a day or two out).
The scientific thing to do, regarding these climate predictions, is to be skeptical, not make proclamations every two days that the world is coming to catastrophe.
*Here's a concrete example of science being manipulated. Not just any science either, but science that is supposed to predict more climate change doom and gloom. You're probably aware of a study that came out a few months ago that was interpreted and promoted as "Climate Change to Result in Less Nutritional Food." This was a completely misleading interpretation of actual data. There was no explanation of why this is the case, it was just portrayed as climate change somehow magically reducing the protein and minerals in food. But in actuality, the reason for this is that the increased CO2 (i.e. plant food, i.e. ingredient for starch) increased crop yields in general, as you would expect. Of course, since this growth was promoted by more CO2, there is more starch relative to the other components of the food. In this case, a positive of increased CO2 was actually framed as a negative through the (willful) manipulation of data.
I find it hard to believe that you work in a scientific setting. The data is pretty substantial, and you should,d know that. The interpretations of that data are pretty solid, again, as you should know.
The concept that food will become less nutritional, has been shown to be pretty likely, though not yet definately in all aspects. It's been shown with a number of well done experiments that more carbon dioxide causes more plNt growth, in most, but not every case. However, most of that growth involves woody matter, and fruiting has been shown to be less optimal. Numbers pants have now been tested, and yes, problems are showing up. I do t remember when the report came out, but there was one in Science that was pretty good.
The deniers in this topic will never be convinced, because it's a political and economic position being taken, not a scientific one.
It is interesting to me, the posts of people on this thread who, because of our age -- likely, will be least effected by the long-term effects. We'll be dead before the issues we're discussing have any effect ... Yet, we appear to be the most concerned, and advise to proceed with caution.
My reasons -- I've had a pretty good life, in a world left in pretty good shape by my forbearers ... I'd like to continue that process!
Now, I must go ... I have an appointment with Jaques Daniels ...
I find it hard to believe that you work in a scientific setting. The data is pretty substantial, and you should,d know that. The interpretations of that data are pretty solid, again, as you should know.
The concept that food will become less nutritional, has been shown to be pretty likely, though not yet definately in all aspects. It's been shown with a number of well done experiments that more carbon dioxide causes more plNt growth, in most, but not every case. However, most of that growth involves woody matter, and fruiting has been shown to be less optimal. Numbers pants have now been tested, and yes, problems are showing up. I do t remember when the report came out, but there was one in Science that was pretty good.
The deniers in this topic will never be convinced, because it's a political and economic position being taken, not a scientific one.
I blame Al Gore
Had he stated 'there is no such thing as Global Warming' we'd have Congress acting by now!
You are totally correct, it has to be a balanced judgment call and it's a tough one. However, I would wager the desert areas exhibit less potential loss of fauna and flora than some of the areas being used, that is all i am saying. Weigh that against mass pollution and catastrophic climate change.
Hopefully scientists will come up with far more efficient energy producing alternatives in the near future. That is if politics and medieval religious beliefs don't stop them.
Desert areas have a very complex and vigorous environment. Yet, they are among the most endangered of all environments because the balance is delicate. There is just enough food to keep everything stable. The slightest imbalance, and the whole thing can run down.
The big change moving forward will be replacing this 1300 acre panel farm with higher density cells per square meter that will drastically increase energy density collection.
I'm sorry but the amount of land destroyed, due to arson, in 2014 alone dwarfs the land that could ever be used for solar energy collection. I won't waste time debating the hundreds of millions of acres destroyed to half-life decay in pursuit of nuclear deterrence, or fossil fuel toxicity.
That is a good point. The area lost is trivial in the broader picture. Not to mention these things can be removed and replaced when they make them x10 more efficient in a few years. That said, are we really placing these arrays where there is the most sunlight per square meter/day?
It's what they want to hear, true, but also they have no knowledge to balance against what they hear. Ultimately it goes back to poor education. It is easy to con an uneducated person, however bright, than an educated one.
That's true too. But giving them information doesn't help, because they've made up their minds. As I said in another post, this is a political and economic position, not a scientific one.
When I do show graphs and charts along with articles they can understand, I get; "I don't believe it, it's a lie." Why does this happen? Because they're told that if it doesn't agree with what they're being told, it's a lie from the environmental movement and industry.
This isn't a scientific debate, it's a political one.
Desert areas have a very complex and vigorous environment. Yet, they are among the most endangered of all environments because the balance is delicate. There is just enough food to keep everything stable. The slightest imbalance, and the whole thing can run down.
Ok back to my ocean currents .
I agree there is no good choice but the areas needed compared to the areas of pretty desolate land east of the Rockies that would be damaged pales compared to the not too far off effects of climate change. When the interaction of the ever hotter mid global areas interact with the polar air in another decade the wind speeds alone could be like something off another plant let alone the snow fall.
That is a good point. The area lost is trivial in the broader picture. Not to mention these things can be removed and replaced when they make them x10 more efficient in a few years. That said, are we really placing these arrays where there is the most sunlight per square meter/day?
And what would tell all of those people who live in those areas that do have the greatest energy density and fewest cloudiest days? Sorry, we're going to
put all of our plants here?
I find it hard to believe that you work in a scientific setting. The data is pretty substantial, and you should,d know that. The interpretations of that data are pretty solid, again, as you should know.
The concept that food will become less nutritional, has been shown to be pretty likely, though not yet definately in all aspects. It's been shown with a number of well done experiments that more carbon dioxide causes more plNt growth, in most, but not every case. However, most of that growth involves woody matter, and fruiting has been shown to be less optimal. Numbers pants have now been tested, and yes, problems are showing up. I do t remember when the report came out, but there was one in Science that was pretty good.
The deniers in this topic will never be convinced, because it's a political and economic position being taken, not a scientific one.
I find your comment to be fairly condescending. I pointed out numerous reasons why we should be skeptical of this data (in various posts), particularly when there is so much cost associated with what it is being used to promote: economic costs, individual financial cost, and the cost of ignoring other, more immediate environmental issues that we actually have the ability to do something about.
I'm not trying to pick at you too much, but I want to point out that I find it completely ridiculous that anyone who dares question the dogma that humans are causing catastrophic climate change is dismissed as a "denier." That is not only condescending, but intellectually dishonest. I have been making efforts to put up concrete points with which to debate so as to avoid things like this. Also, I'd like to point out that it is unlikely that one group is motivated by politics and economics while the other is not.
As for the crop yield studies, that was my point, that the increased CO2 results in more starch (and cellulose, i.e. woody matter). And furthermore, if that is the case, that would actually by good for the CO2 induced global warming model, as it would take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
That's true too. But giving them information doesn't help, because they've made up their minds. As I said in another post, this is a political and economic position, not a scientific one.
When I do show graphs and charts along with articles they can understand, I get; "I don't believe it, it's a lie." Why does this happen? Because they're told that if it doesn't agree with what they're being told, it's a lie from the environmental movement and industry.
This isn't a scientific debate, it's a political one.
I totally agree, but surely had these folks been better educated they would not be so easily swayed? Then again I know educated people who close their minds and repeat what they were told to think. So I guess you are right.
It's just so damned depressing. I stared to a school when I was 4 and remember children with polio. If they had a leg iron not an iron lung they were the lucky ones. Vaccinations were the greatest single leap in mankind's history. Within half of my lifetime I saw almost all viruses beaten, from smallpox to measles in the first world. Now i have to hear some dumb woman quoting a discredited British doctor who faked his data for fame, claiming she doesn't think vaccinations are a good idea! It is very, very depressing.
I find your comment to be fairly condescending. I pointed out numerous reasons why we should be skeptical of this data (in various posts), particularly when there is so much cost associated with what it is being used to promote: economic costs, individual financial cost, and the cost of ignoring other, more immediate environmental issues that we actually have the ability to do something about.
I'm not trying to pick at you too much, but I want to point out that I find it completely ridiculous that anyone who dares question the dogma that humans are causing catastrophic climate change is dismissed as a "denier." That is not only condescending, but intellectually dishonest. I have been making efforts to put up concrete points with which to debate so as to avoid things like this. Also, I'd like to point out that it is unlikely that one group is motivated by politics and economics while the other is not.
As for the crop yield studies, that was my point, that the increased CO2 results in more starch (and cellulose, i.e. woody matter). And furthermore, if that is the case, that would actually by good for the CO2 induced global warming model, as it would take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
I redacted my initial response. I'm going for the Jack Daniels too.
And what would tell all of those people who live in those areas that do have the greatest energy density and fewest cloudiest days? Sorry, we're going to
put all of our plants here?
Well I'd rank those areas and a populated one would be a no go area.
Your open views and willingness to see all sides is refreshing. I agree there are extremists on all sides but far more science backs that humans are really messing with a very thin atmosphere on a pretty small sphere of rock. Two hundred years of pumping many, many trillions of tons of carbon gases into that thin wrap we breath cannot be simply wished away.
Thank you. But just to be clear, I'm not wishing anything away, just saying that these models are problematic, have been wrong many times in the past, but are still being promoted as if they're religious dogma, and we're all headed for certain doom.* That, and it is being promoted at the great expense of diverting resources and attention away from other environmental concerns. I truly believe that, for this reason, the global warming hysteria has done more harm to the environment than good.
*Funny, it (climate change) has a lot of parallels with Christianity; we are all born with original sin (evil carbon emitters), we cannot question the validity of the book (scientific studies) or consider alternative implications/belief systems (focus on climate change comes at the expense of other environmental issues), and our only chance of salvation is to do good (buy expensive LED lightbulbs, drive a Prius) and die.
I agreed he ice melts there is no good choice but the areas needed compared to the areas of pretty desolate land east of the Rockies that would be damaged pales compared to the not too far off effects of climate change. When the interaction of the ever hotter mid global areas interact with the polar air in another decade the wind speeds alone could be like something off another plant let alone the snow fall.
Personally I think it's all too little too late.
It's too late to prevent global warming, but not too late to mitigate it. But if we don't do something drastic fairly soon, there will be nothing we can do. Then, it's will run away. As more snow and ice disappears, less light is reflected back, and warming speeds up.
What is the worst result from warming? Well, if all the ice melts in Antarctica, which is happening, with hundreds of miles breaking off, and all from Greenland, and other areas, then the seas will rise by 300 feet! 300 feet! Know why the Midwest has some of the most fertile farmland? It's because it used to be several feet underwater. Most of the USA will disappear. The same thing for the rest of the world.
The thing that bothers me the most is that the political position being taken here is that some jobs might be lost, and the big energy companies will lose business. But they ignore long term effects. They can't see that they're taking a major chance that may be wrong. And if so, they doom everyone.
I know a guy, who, when I told him that Florida will be gone if the ocean rises much more than a dozen feet said; "So what, I never liked Florida anyway." I've seen a lot of this kind of attitude.
Just what do you think you're doing? You're not supposed to use logic. You're not supposed to think outside the box. You can only look at the science, and the science has spoken! Denier!
That's like arguing the world might not be a sphere just because scientists say it is, hey it be might be flat if talk radio says so.
It's too late to prevent global warming, but not too late to mitigate it. But if we don't do something drastic fairly soon, there will be nothing we can do. Then, it's will run away. As more snow and ice disappears, less light is reflected back, and warming speeds up.
What is the worst result from warming? Well, if all the ice melts in Antarctica, which is happening, with hundreds of miles breaking off, and all from Greenland, and other areas, then the seas will rise by 300 feet! 300 feet! Know why the Midwest has some of the most fertile farmland? It's because it used to be several feet underwater. Most of the USA will disappear. The same thing for the rest of the world.
The thing that bothers me the most is that the political position being taken here is that some jobs might be lost, and the big energy companies will lose business. But they ignore long term effects. They can't see that they're taking a major chance that may be wrong. And if so, they doom everyone.
I know a guy, who, when I told him that Florida will be gone if the ocean rises much more than a dozen feet said; "So what, I never liked Florida anyway." I've seen a lot of this kind of attitude.
How did the wording of my quote get so changed? I wrote:
Ok back to my ocean currents
I agree there is no good choice but the areas needed compared to the areas of pretty desolate land east of the Rockies that would be damaged pales compared to the not too far off effects of climate change. When the interaction of the ever hotter mid global areas interact with the polar air in another decade the wind speeds alone could be like something off another plant let alone the snow fall.
I find your comment to be fairly condescending. I pointed out numerous reasons why we should be skeptical of this data (in various posts), particularly when there is so much cost associated with what it is being used to promote: economic costs, individual financial cost, and the cost of ignoring other, more immediate environmental issues that we actually have the ability to do something about.
I'm not trying to pick at you too much, but I want to point out that I find it completely ridiculous that anyone who dares question the dogma that humans are causing catastrophic climate change is dismissed as a "denier." That is not only condescending, but intellectually dishonest. I have been making efforts to put up concrete points with which to debate so as to avoid things like this. Also, I'd like to point out that it is unlikely that one group is motivated by politics and economics while the other is not.
As for the crop yield studies, that was my point, that the increased CO2 results in more starch (and cellulose, i.e. woody matter). And furthermore, if that is the case, that would actually by good for the CO2 induced global warming model, as it would take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
I stand by what I say. Scientific investigation is the willful attempt to find, and understand the facts. If something seems wrong, the further investigation is required. Looking at one article and denouncing it isn't scientific. There have been a number of experiments that show that increased co2 levels will be bad for agriculture, and even animal husbandry. We already see problems in wine grape growth. It's estimated that in 20 to 30 years, California wines will be close to a historical reference.
Weed growth will be enhanced, and more pesticides will be required to fight off the increased insect populations.
I could go on here. There's just too much that this is going to negatively impact.
Virtually all climate scientists agree that global warming is fact, and that human activities are a major factor in that. At this time, the evidence is overwhelming. The problem is that you, and others, say;
"...more immediate environmental issues that we actually have the ability to do something about."
That says that you are not looking at this with a sense that we can do anything, because, obviously, since we have nothing to do with it, we can't do anything about it. That's denial. You may want to deny that, but it's obvious by your own words.
That's like arguing the world might not be a sphere just because scientists say it is, hey it be might be flat if talk radio says so.
With due respect, that is a complete straw man argument, and again, the talk radio reference is a bit condescending.* The evidence that the earth is round is far more substantial than the evidence supporting global global warming catastrophe due to CO2. You're clearly a smart, intellectual fellow, so I'll chalk that up to the jack.
But let me reiterate, I'm not arguing that they are completely wrong, just that we shouldn't throw all of our eggs into one (unproven) basket, and we should focus on other environmental issues, rather than wring our hands about the gas that plants (and algae)** use for growth.
*I'm not trying to be whiny, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable either.
**By the way, blue green algae make 60-75% of the earth's oxygen. It stands to reason that our focus on global warming should be on optimizing their growth (as I mentioned in a previous post).
Not trying to be snarky here, but I'd like to see if anyone has any ideas about the points I'm making. I have put a lot of concrete arguments out there, but the only responses I seem to get is a reference to the general evidence of climate change.
Comments
Actually, while I don't want to debate climate change ...
If the recent trends to solar farms prove to be cost justified, wouldn't Apple and others implement this on a much larger scale -- thousands or millions of acres of solar farms, NIMBY ...
I suspect they would -- and eventually solar farms could outweigh the current contributors to climate change.
All I am suggesting is that we should consider the consequences -- lest we create a solution that is worse than the problem.
I am not suggesting that we do nothing -- rather, that we proceed carefully, and evaluate the impact of the changes as we go!
That area has already been used for mining and oil exploration, and over areas far greater than 1,300 acres. Much of the land in that part of Monterey County is far from pristine.
It's what they want to hear, true, but also they have no knowledge to balance against what they hear. Ultimately it goes back to poor education. It is easy to con an uneducated person, however bright, than an educated one.
I find it hard to believe that you work in a scientific setting. The data is pretty substantial, and you should,d know that. The interpretations of that data are pretty solid, again, as you should know.
The concept that food will become less nutritional, has been shown to be pretty likely, though not yet definately in all aspects. It's been shown with a number of well done experiments that more carbon dioxide causes more plNt growth, in most, but not every case. However, most of that growth involves woody matter, and fruiting has been shown to be less optimal. Numbers pants have now been tested, and yes, problems are showing up. I do t remember when the report came out, but there was one in Science that was pretty good.
The deniers in this topic will never be convinced, because it's a political and economic position being taken, not a scientific one.
Cheers
I blame Al Gore
Had he stated 'there is no such thing as Global Warming' we'd have Congress acting by now!
Desert areas have a very complex and vigorous environment. Yet, they are among the most endangered of all environments because the balance is delicate. There is just enough food to keep everything stable. The slightest imbalance, and the whole thing can run down.
That is a good point. The area lost is trivial in the broader picture. Not to mention these things can be removed and replaced when they make them x10 more efficient in a few years. That said, are we really placing these arrays where there is the most sunlight per square meter/day?
That's true too. But giving them information doesn't help, because they've made up their minds. As I said in another post, this is a political and economic position, not a scientific one.
When I do show graphs and charts along with articles they can understand, I get; "I don't believe it, it's a lie." Why does this happen? Because they're told that if it doesn't agree with what they're being told, it's a lie from the environmental movement and industry.
This isn't a scientific debate, it's a political one.
Ok back to my ocean currents
I agree there is no good choice but the areas needed compared to the areas of pretty desolate land east of the Rockies that would be damaged pales compared to the not too far off effects of climate change. When the interaction of the ever hotter mid global areas interact with the polar air in another decade the wind speeds alone could be like something off another plant let alone the snow fall.
Personally I think it's all too little too late.
And what would tell all of those people who live in those areas that do have the greatest energy density and fewest cloudiest days? Sorry, we're going to
put all of our plants here?
I find it hard to believe that you work in a scientific setting. The data is pretty substantial, and you should,d know that. The interpretations of that data are pretty solid, again, as you should know.
The concept that food will become less nutritional, has been shown to be pretty likely, though not yet definately in all aspects. It's been shown with a number of well done experiments that more carbon dioxide causes more plNt growth, in most, but not every case. However, most of that growth involves woody matter, and fruiting has been shown to be less optimal. Numbers pants have now been tested, and yes, problems are showing up. I do t remember when the report came out, but there was one in Science that was pretty good.
The deniers in this topic will never be convinced, because it's a political and economic position being taken, not a scientific one.
I find your comment to be fairly condescending. I pointed out numerous reasons why we should be skeptical of this data (in various posts), particularly when there is so much cost associated with what it is being used to promote: economic costs, individual financial cost, and the cost of ignoring other, more immediate environmental issues that we actually have the ability to do something about.
I'm not trying to pick at you too much, but I want to point out that I find it completely ridiculous that anyone who dares question the dogma that humans are causing catastrophic climate change is dismissed as a "denier." That is not only condescending, but intellectually dishonest. I have been making efforts to put up concrete points with which to debate so as to avoid things like this. Also, I'd like to point out that it is unlikely that one group is motivated by politics and economics while the other is not.
As for the crop yield studies, that was my point, that the increased CO2 results in more starch (and cellulose, i.e. woody matter). And furthermore, if that is the case, that would actually by good for the CO2 induced global warming model, as it would take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
I totally agree, but surely had these folks been better educated they would not be so easily swayed? Then again I know educated people who close their minds and repeat what they were told to think. So I guess you are right.
It's just so damned depressing. I stared to a school when I was 4 and remember children with polio. If they had a leg iron not an iron lung they were the lucky ones. Vaccinations were the greatest single leap in mankind's history. Within half of my lifetime I saw almost all viruses beaten, from smallpox to measles in the first world. Now i have to hear some dumb woman quoting a discredited British doctor who faked his data for fame, claiming she doesn't think vaccinations are a good idea! It is very, very depressing.
I redacted my initial response. I'm going for the Jack Daniels too.
Well I'd rank those areas and a populated one would be a no go area.
Your open views and willingness to see all sides is refreshing. I agree there are extremists on all sides but far more science backs that humans are really messing with a very thin atmosphere on a pretty small sphere of rock. Two hundred years of pumping many, many trillions of tons of carbon gases into that thin wrap we breath cannot be simply wished away.
Thank you. But just to be clear, I'm not wishing anything away, just saying that these models are problematic, have been wrong many times in the past, but are still being promoted as if they're religious dogma, and we're all headed for certain doom.* That, and it is being promoted at the great expense of diverting resources and attention away from other environmental concerns. I truly believe that, for this reason, the global warming hysteria has done more harm to the environment than good.
*Funny, it (climate change) has a lot of parallels with Christianity; we are all born with original sin (evil carbon emitters), we cannot question the validity of the book (scientific studies) or consider alternative implications/belief systems (focus on climate change comes at the expense of other environmental issues), and our only chance of salvation is to do good (buy expensive LED lightbulbs, drive a Prius) and die.
It's too late to prevent global warming, but not too late to mitigate it. But if we don't do something drastic fairly soon, there will be nothing we can do. Then, it's will run away. As more snow and ice disappears, less light is reflected back, and warming speeds up.
What is the worst result from warming? Well, if all the ice melts in Antarctica, which is happening, with hundreds of miles breaking off, and all from Greenland, and other areas, then the seas will rise by 300 feet! 300 feet! Know why the Midwest has some of the most fertile farmland? It's because it used to be several feet underwater. Most of the USA will disappear. The same thing for the rest of the world.
The thing that bothers me the most is that the political position being taken here is that some jobs might be lost, and the big energy companies will lose business. But they ignore long term effects. They can't see that they're taking a major chance that may be wrong. And if so, they doom everyone.
I know a guy, who, when I told him that Florida will be gone if the ocean rises much more than a dozen feet said; "So what, I never liked Florida anyway." I've seen a lot of this kind of attitude.
That's like arguing the world might not be a sphere just because scientists say it is, hey it be might be flat if talk radio says so.
How did the wording of my quote get so changed? I wrote:
Ok back to my ocean currents
I agree there is no good choice but the areas needed compared to the areas of pretty desolate land east of the Rockies that would be damaged pales compared to the not too far off effects of climate change. When the interaction of the ever hotter mid global areas interact with the polar air in another decade the wind speeds alone could be like something off another plant let alone the snow fall.
Personally I think it's all too little too late.
I'm signing off anyway.
Bye all ...
I stand by what I say. Scientific investigation is the willful attempt to find, and understand the facts. If something seems wrong, the further investigation is required. Looking at one article and denouncing it isn't scientific. There have been a number of experiments that show that increased co2 levels will be bad for agriculture, and even animal husbandry. We already see problems in wine grape growth. It's estimated that in 20 to 30 years, California wines will be close to a historical reference.
Weed growth will be enhanced, and more pesticides will be required to fight off the increased insect populations.
I could go on here. There's just too much that this is going to negatively impact.
Virtually all climate scientists agree that global warming is fact, and that human activities are a major factor in that. At this time, the evidence is overwhelming. The problem is that you, and others, say;
"...more immediate environmental issues that we actually have the ability to do something about."
That says that you are not looking at this with a sense that we can do anything, because, obviously, since we have nothing to do with it, we can't do anything about it. That's denial. You may want to deny that, but it's obvious by your own words.
That's like arguing the world might not be a sphere just because scientists say it is, hey it be might be flat if talk radio says so.
With due respect, that is a complete straw man argument, and again, the talk radio reference is a bit condescending.* The evidence that the earth is round is far more substantial than the evidence supporting global global warming catastrophe due to CO2. You're clearly a smart, intellectual fellow, so I'll chalk that up to the jack.
But let me reiterate, I'm not arguing that they are completely wrong, just that we shouldn't throw all of our eggs into one (unproven) basket, and we should focus on other environmental issues, rather than wring our hands about the gas that plants (and algae)** use for growth.
*I'm not trying to be whiny, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable either.
**By the way, blue green algae make 60-75% of the earth's oxygen. It stands to reason that our focus on global warming should be on optimizing their growth (as I mentioned in a previous post).
Not trying to be snarky here, but I'd like to see if anyone has any ideas about the points I'm making. I have put a lot of concrete arguments out there, but the only responses I seem to get is a reference to the general evidence of climate change.