Posted on 03/02/2008 10:18:39 AM PST by milwguy
If we really want to combat climate change, how much carbon can we reasonably generate? How much will still push temperatures up? The current presidential candidates are all calling for serious carbon reductions over the next 40 years, but according to researchers at the Carnegie Institution for Science, it's not enough. To really stabilize our planet's climate, we need to get away from carbon forever. Although eliminating carbon dioxide emissions seems like a radical idea, the researchers see it as a reasonable goal.
"It is just not that hard to solve the technological challenges. We can develop and deploy wind turbines, electric cars, and so on, and live well without damaging the environment. The future can be better than the present, but we have to take steps to start kicking the CO2 habit now, so we won't need to go cold turkey later."
(Excerpt) Read more at universetoday.com ...
What? And have Al Gore walk?
It is not worth the CO2 that I just exhaled to respond to this fool. I guess that his solution is to kill off all animal life—of course the plant life would soon follow, so maybe he should just move to the moon....
LOL!
It isn’t.
It’s just another way to SCARE people into doing something that would not normally endorse or want to do.
Even KIDS are being intellectually abused ... recall the commercial TICK, TICK, TICK, ... .
The Loons of the Left continue their insanity and redefinition of the earth and its science. The faux world of the left continues to proliferate.
The tree huggersd want to return to the caves. Ugh! Me no like cave. Me want car and air-conditioned house! Go away, Tree Huggers!
What? “Universe Today”??? I suppose Big Bang happened because of SUV backfire...
99% plus CO2 is from mammals breathing. But don’t hold your breath waiting for these turds to acknowlege it. It’s fraud, bunko burn em.
I’ve got an answer that’ll help cut down on all those dangerous carbon dioxide emissions. Why don’t all of the enviro-wackos in Algore’s religion just stop breathing out?
Imagine how much cleaner, and greener our planet would be!
We will have to go cold turkey anyway, as the suns nuclear fuel runs out the sun will go cold and so will we. What are we
doing about that?
Richard
So true, so true. I will take the liberals a percent more serious when I see them ELIMINATE BEER in their efforts to cut down on CO2 emissions. It'll never happen.
We could burn all the organic carbon there is, and not move the temperature more than a degree or so. All the claims to the contrary are junk science, based on correlation not causation, mythical amplifying "sensitivities", and unspecified mystery power sources. Direct CO2 greenhouse cannot cause significant increases in global mean temperature. It is therefore silly to worry about it, and beyond silly to trash human economic development to do so.
The actual purpose behind all of this is to find an excuse to suspend capitalism in favor of worldwide socialist central planning, directed by a priesthood of green acolytes, who are religiously opposed to the existence of industrial civilization, and for that matter to the existence of 95% of the human race. There is no reason whatever to listen to these genocidal monsters.
The writer is taking action on an unsupported assertion that mankind can affect climate change. Climate change is caused by the Sun on Earth, Mars, and Venus, et al. Taking action to reduce carbon emissions is an act of incredible stupidity!
Please go back to the "drawing board" and better understand the role of our Sun in climate change!
Hey, if all these nuts would stop breathing we could cut CO2 significantly.
First question? : Does that Near-Zero Carbon Emissions include breathing out carbon after we inhale oxygen
Question #2 : Are the global alarmist willing to eliminate their carbon output first?
As I see it, their whole argument flies in the face of basic science.
They don’t believe in science.
Actually, there is no such thing. Don't even accept the premise of these loons.
The world needs to aim for zero environmentalist-wackos. They are more dangerous than Communists and NAZIs ever were.
“The hubris of these nuts leaves me speechless. To think that man can ‘stabilize our planet’s climate’ is the height of arrogance. When in the history of the earth has the climate been stable? NEVER!!”
Agreed.
They are exploiting peoples ignorance, fears and guilt.
Taking advantage of the tiny human perspective of our short lifespans.
The grand big picture belittles anything we can ever dream of causing.
Who is going to enforce this in China? They have some of the most polluted air and water in the world.
Wouldn't have anything to do with the kind of studies the Carnegie Museums Board supports, would it?
CARNEGIE MUSEUMS OF PITTSBURGH BOARD OF TRUSTEES David M. Hillenbrand President & CEO Suzanne W. Broadhurst Chair Mark A. Aloe John A. Barbour Raymond T. Betler Doreen E. Boyce Robert P . Bozzone Howard J. Bruschi Esther L. Bush John C. Camillus Twanda Carlisle Jared L. Cohon Judith M. Davenport Daniel J. Deasy John DeFazio Mark Evans David Fawcett III Lee B. Foster Evan S. Frazier Henry J. Gailliot Joseph C. Guyaux Teresa Heinz William E. Hunt William H. Isler James R. Johnson Marshall P . Katz Jane M. Kirkland Barbara D. Logan Martin G. McGuinn J. Kevin McMahon Alice Birmingham Mitinger Jacqueline C. Morby James A. Motznik Ralph J. Papa Tonya D. Payne Sean D.S. Sebastian Juliet Lea H. Simonds R. Damian Soffer Jane A. Thompson Peter G. Veeder Milton A. Washington James A. Wilkinson Emeriti Paul G. Benedum, Jr. Mary M. Berger Milton Fine Edith H. Fisher James A. Fisher Marcia M. Gumberg Henry L. Hillman Henry P . Hoffstot, Jr. J. Sherman McLaughlin Richard P . Mellon Emily F. Oliver Frank Brooks Robinson, Sr. Arthur M. Scully, Jr. William P . Snyder III Cecile M. Springer Hugh G. Van der Veer James M. Walton Ann P . Wardrop Konrad M. Weis Joshua C. Whetzel, Jr. James L. Winokur Ex Officio JoAnne E. Burley Oliver Byrd Roy G. Dorrance, III Honorable Frank J. Lucchino Betsy H. Watkins Honorary Helen M. Billak Drue Heinz David G. McCullough Honorable Edward G. Rendell
It seems that these people do not understand that we are all carbon based life forms.
You are spot on. Of course those who would have us living at the level of Zimbabwe believe that they will never have to suffer the same fate. 95% of humans gone? “Deep Ecology” would love it since surely they would be in the remaining
5%. What a bottomless well of amorality.
Congratulations - here's a FReeper who gets it. I've started Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism", and quickly realized that a major flaw in his thinking is that he doesn't believe the American Left is as capable of violence and repression as any Nazi or Stalinist ever was. These people are dangerous as hell, as you note. See the website in my tagline for proof.
They ran various scenarios through the climate model...
Ah-ha. Once again there's that infamous "Climate Model".
1) That 'climate model' was proved bogus. Incorrect data was input when making the program for 'the model'.
2) There is no '2'. Garbage in, garbage out.
Gotta run.
There's a 'Rain Forest' (aka: Jungle) in the Amazon I have to clear cut. /s
Then we need to kill all animal and plant life, because just rotting leaves gives SOME carbon emmission, doesn’t it?
Not to mention farting cows?
Better build up the nuclear stockpile, it is going to take one heck of a war to kill everything off...right down to the last oxygen breathing bacterium.
This is the liberal way of defeating capitolism.
Dirty coal plant at that
What a freaking retard!
Are you and your posse going to put cuffs on all the volcanoes, Fraser, you dimwit?
"Howdy! Ah'm Fraser, an' Ah'm wit' the Volcano Police! We're gonna hafta cite ya fer that there ash-spewin', Mister Vol-Can-O! Gollee!"
Nossir - I believe Fraser and his pals are trolling for money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.