Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (190651)	7/2/2006 1:36:50 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) of 281500

When you say the rise in CO2 is due to human activity, isn't there a more obvious culprit than burning fossil fuels, ie, breathing? There didn't used to be six billion of us on the planet a hundred years ago, let alone the hundreds of billions cows, sheep, pigs, etc that we raise. Everyone one breathing out carbon dioxide. I read somewhere on the net an estimate that give 20% of the rise in co2 to respiration, and only 7% to fossil fuels. If those estimates are anywhere close to reality, it means that changes in fossil fuel usage are unlikely to have a siginifant effect on greenhouse gases. Yet the people pushing 'global warming' act like respiration is not a factor. That's because you don't want to. That's ok; anything else would be too scary, eh? I can understand that. Eh, why don't you just tell me I'm falling for stooges of Exxol Mobil? That's Al Gore's line. But am I? Was there anything wrong with the article I linked? It came out in Science.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next