It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former President of Greenpeace Explains Why The Science of AGW is DOA

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rickymouse
CO2 is only one of the players in the climate change, the other players are chemistries that are disrupting the earth's ability to reuptake things properly and to detox the toxins. Carbon dioxide is not the major issue, the combination of the other problems humans create is way more of a problem. Greed and wants and desire for prestige and an easy life are killing the world.

And yet CO2 is what all of the radical AGWs talk about... so why is that?


Because the people pushing AGW do not want to destroy the big chemical businesses because they are strongly tied to the businesses making the medicines to treat the diseases promoted by the chemicals they use on our foods.




posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Cool beans!

And it supports the need to stop clear cutting the Amazon rain forests.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: rickymouse
Endocrine disruptors that effect all the animals and many microbes in our ecosystem when concentrated.

I have been a very vocal proponent of holding polluters accountable (most importantly the large scale ones who are responsible for 98+% of it).

But pollution is an entirely different creature and has absolutely nothing to do with AGW.


The polution is killing the organisms that reintigrate the carbon into soils and into the sea bed. If we do not kill the bugs, the birds have food, they poop in the trees and the nitrogen makes the trees less susceptible to burning, but also it increases the uptake of carbon into the tree with the nitrogen cycle being higher.. It is way more related than people think. Our ecosystem if working correctly can make up for the extra carbon, except of course, there are no trees or plants up where the Jets fly, that stuff winds up going up higher.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS


And it supports the need to stop clear cutting the Amazon rain forests.
That would be nice, but it seems that old rain forests may not be as effective as younger forests when it comes to carbon sequestration.

Hot off the presses:

For 2001–2010 we find a carbon sink of 0.85 (0.66–0.96) Pg year−1 located in intact old-growth forest, primarily in the moist tropics and boreal Siberia, and 1.30 (1.03–1.96) Pg year−1 located in stands regrowing after past disturbance.

www.pnas.org...

Plant forests instead of crops? Replace pasture with trees?

edit on 2/27/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Plant forests instead of crops? Replace pasture with trees?

Trees are a crop, if properly managed.

A forest can provide a substantial income, but in order to maintain that income there must be multiple generations of trees growing. Oaks, for example, are a highly-sought hardwood, but they can take 100 years to grow to maturity. If one used the forests by cutting the older trees only, and allowing younger trees to replace them, enough trees could be taken out of that forest to provide a substantial renewable income (dependent, of course, on how large the forest is).

Unfortunately, people want money and they want it now. Not only is it nearly impossible to find anyone who will select-cut a section of forest (every logger I have talked to is adamant about clear cutting or no cutting, and clear cutting ain't gonna happen), but most people who are able to manage a forest will not go with hardwood because it grows too slowly. Slow growth means a longer wait for the next crop. One can get money faster by growing pine and cutting it premature than any other way; that's why most lumber is pine boards (and fairly rough ones at that).

Then we have the 'environmentalists' who think that any act to harm a tree is blasphemy. So they help ensure that old growth forests are left alone, reducing the amount of lumber available, reducing the carbon sink of the forest, and encouraging wildfires from buildup of the underbrush. Real Einsteins, those lot!

That's the same kind of thinking that drives this Global Warming debate: a lack of scientific background and a massive overdose of arrogance. "We don't know much about the science, but some scientists say trees are good so we have to mismanage them like the smart politicians say!" "We don't know much about the science behind Global Warming, but some scientists say it's real so we have to tax people for it cause smart politicians say so!"

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I was speaking of food crops. I thought that was obvious.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Sorry, no, it wasn't. All crops are not food. You can't eat cotton, but I see fields of white bolls every fall. They're a crop. Heck, a lot of the corn grown now gets burned in automobiles instead of eaten.

Trees are crops too, and we should be smart enough to do a much better job of managing them.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sorry for the confusion then.
I should have been more precise.


edit on 2/27/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

For quite a long period of time (in the history of earth) no organism could process lignin either. Yet life found a way. But I was reading a few months back about a bacteria that can decompose plastic. Sounds promising and terrifying at the same time.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join