Warning: Earth Needs More CO2

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Sinatra, Mar 29, 2009.

  1. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2009
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,579
    Thanks Received:
    5,903
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,995
    Obviously a paid stooge for some big oil company.
     
  3. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    my roses are doing very well this year......
     
  4. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Happer basically confirms everything that other scientists have said.

    That the increase in CO2 has caused the earth to warm about one degree in temperature.
     
  5. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    The evidence appears credible - the earth could in fact need MORE CO2.

    The implications are astounding!
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,579
    Thanks Received:
    5,903
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,995
    It further confirms that the effect of continued increases will NOT cause much more rise in temperature. And it further supports the claim that Man is not the main culprit at all.
     
  7. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    rain man chrissie will continue to say the same thing over and over again.
     
  8. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,563
    Thanks Received:
    5,425
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,374
    Yes, the George C. Marshall Institute is funded by big oil.
    George C. Marshall Institute - SourceWatch
    The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1984. The think tank's mission is to "encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations." The "program emphasizes issues in national security and the environment."[1]
    According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto Protocol upon national security. The Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies."[2]

    Contents [hide]
    1 Personnel
    1.1 Board of Directors
    1.1.1 Former Board members
    1.2 Staff
    2 Funding
    2.1 Petro-Dollars
    3 SEPP
    4 Contact information
    5 Articles and Resources
    5.1 Sources
    5.2 Related SourceWatch Articles
    5.3 External Articles

    [edit]Personnel
    [edit]Board of Directors
    William Happer, Chairman of the Board of Directors; also Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics, Princeton University
    Frederick Seitz, Chairman Emeritus (GMI); President Emeritus of Rockefeller University
    William O'Keefe, CEO (GMI); President, Solutions Consulting, Inc.
    Gregory Canavan, Scientific Advisor, Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
    Thomas L. Clancy, Jr., Author
    John H. Moore, President, Grove City College
    Rodney W. Nichols, Consultant on Science and Technology Policy
    Robert Sproull, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Rochester
     
  9. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    yes, old rocks is monomaniacal.
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,563
    Thanks Received:
    5,425
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,374
    Yes, the implications are astounding. A respected member of society becomes a whore for money. Same as for politicians. In this case it is a scientist.

    More CO2 means more warming, which will result in an adrupt climate change. The results of that will not be pleasant in the best of cases. We are seeing an example of this in the present droughts that will reduce the worlds food production as the population continues to increase.

    More CO2 means higher sea levels, which will result in some of the most productive farmland in the world being inundated with salt water. And the creation of hundreds of millions of refugees.

    More CO2 means the continued acidification of the ocean waters. Already we are seeing negative affects on the single celled organisms in the ocean that are the basis of the food chain.

    Sure, more CO2 is a good thing, just like flavoring your coffee with potassium cynide is a good thing.
     

Share This Page