A brain dead person is smarter than John Boehner, if Boehner say he is smart, then he is simply an American traitor and should be in prison for corruption.
Isnt this issue kinda simple? If we keep burning coal and oil, far more $ are generated. Even if you believe their are negative health effects,it becomes a $ maker for someone right? Not to mention military spending. With 2 wars going now America is reaping huge benefits and lots of jobs supplying the army with the tools of the trade. With solar or wind its kind of a dud. Too cheap and clean to add much to the overall prosperity right?
Not every scientific organization has supported that claim. The APS certainly hasn't, and the Geological Society certainly hasn't. As far as the carcinogenic aspect, read the left wing blogs, they seem to think it is a carcinogenic. I think JB was trying to make the point that nature creates the vast majority of CO2, not man. Man produces 5% of 0.004% of the atmosphere. Trees breathing, yes breathing, alone create 8x more CO2 than man does.
"Trees breathing...alone create 8x more CO2 than man does."
What? Did you you go to the John Boehner school of science? Trees "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen. Trees only release CO2 when they're burnt or decompose.
But as WWLinkMasterX rightly noted in the comments, human and plant breathing is irrelevant because it simply recycles the existing carbon in the atmosphere (thus the process is ultimately carbon neutral).
I am so glad that you responded that way. Go back to botany 101. All living organisms exhale CO2, including trees. It is true that photosynthesis takes in CO2 and releases O2, but that ignores almost 100% of the cells of a tree. The bark doesn't undergo photosynthesis, none does the entire tree during winter when it has no leaves. Do yourself a favor, go learn the basics about the topic before you act like an expert.
Prior to my initial response, I took a moment to search for any information that would confirm your assertion that "trees...breathing...create 8x more CO2 than man does." I did not find any (but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not true). If you insist this is true, please provide a link to a credible source to verify this claim. If you do so, I will duly apologize. However, I should not that this whole discussion is moot per WWLinkMasterX's point.
I was messages by another user who did confirm that plants do produce CO2 in a respiration process. So I do owe CO2islife an apology...with a caveat.
By definition, plants photosynthesize more CO2 than they respirate, thus a living plant net reduces CO2 in the atmosphere. So, no, living trees do not (net) produce 8x more CO2 than humans.
But again, per WWLinkMasterX, plant/animal respiration is ultimately carbon neutral. The alleged problem is introducing NEW carbon into the atmosphere.
you forgot to note that we exhale carbon neutral. That carbon is basically already part of the atmoshpere and constantly circulating. The idea of global warming through burning fossil fuels is that you're taking carbon out of the ground and putting it in the atmoshpere.
A brain dead person is smarter than John Boehner, if Boehner say he is smart, then he is simply an American traitor and should be in prison for corruption.
daveusaz1218 3 months ago
god bless you *tear*
MrWildkat88 2 years ago
Isnt this issue kinda simple? If we keep burning coal and oil, far more $ are generated. Even if you believe their are negative health effects,it becomes a $ maker for someone right? Not to mention military spending. With 2 wars going now America is reaping huge benefits and lots of jobs supplying the army with the tools of the trade. With solar or wind its kind of a dud. Too cheap and clean to add much to the overall prosperity right?
foxnewsdupe 2 years ago
Not every scientific organization has supported that claim. The APS certainly hasn't, and the Geological Society certainly hasn't. As far as the carcinogenic aspect, read the left wing blogs, they seem to think it is a carcinogenic. I think JB was trying to make the point that nature creates the vast majority of CO2, not man. Man produces 5% of 0.004% of the atmosphere. Trees breathing, yes breathing, alone create 8x more CO2 than man does.
CO2islife 2 years ago
"Trees breathing...alone create 8x more CO2 than man does."
What? Did you you go to the John Boehner school of science? Trees "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen. Trees only release CO2 when they're burnt or decompose.
But as WWLinkMasterX rightly noted in the comments, human and plant breathing is irrelevant because it simply recycles the existing carbon in the atmosphere (thus the process is ultimately carbon neutral).
Newsish 2 years ago
I am so glad that you responded that way. Go back to botany 101. All living organisms exhale CO2, including trees. It is true that photosynthesis takes in CO2 and releases O2, but that ignores almost 100% of the cells of a tree. The bark doesn't undergo photosynthesis, none does the entire tree during winter when it has no leaves. Do yourself a favor, go learn the basics about the topic before you act like an expert.
CO2islife 2 years ago
Comment removed
Newsish 2 years ago
Source?
Newsish 2 years ago
Prior to my initial response, I took a moment to search for any information that would confirm your assertion that "trees...breathing...create 8x more CO2 than man does." I did not find any (but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not true). If you insist this is true, please provide a link to a credible source to verify this claim. If you do so, I will duly apologize. However, I should not that this whole discussion is moot per WWLinkMasterX's point.
Newsish 2 years ago
I was messages by another user who did confirm that plants do produce CO2 in a respiration process. So I do owe CO2islife an apology...with a caveat.
By definition, plants photosynthesize more CO2 than they respirate, thus a living plant net reduces CO2 in the atmosphere. So, no, living trees do not (net) produce 8x more CO2 than humans.
But again, per WWLinkMasterX, plant/animal respiration is ultimately carbon neutral. The alleged problem is introducing NEW carbon into the atmosphere.
Newsish 2 years ago
"I think JB was trying to make the point that..."
If that was Boehner's point, he should have said that instead of the random non-sense that he did.
Newsish 2 years ago
"Man produces 5% of 0.004% of the atmosphere."
What's your source for this?
Are you in anyway qualified to predict what effects, if any, a 5% increase in CO2 will do? I'm not, so this looks like a number without a context.
Newsish 2 years ago
"read the left wing blogs, they seem to think it is a carcinogenic."
LITERALLY NO ONE THINKS THAT, especially my 7th grade science book.
the only ones who think that are Boner's fictional leftwingers which are all in his mind.
it's called a straw man:
en . wikipedia . org /wiki/Straw_man
regger099 2 years ago
I'm glad I sybscribed to you.
you forgot to note that we exhale carbon neutral. That carbon is basically already part of the atmoshpere and constantly circulating. The idea of global warming through burning fossil fuels is that you're taking carbon out of the ground and putting it in the atmoshpere.
WWLinkMasterX 2 years ago
Global warming is BS and not man made!
Browns32fan 2 years ago
KEEPEM COMING
darkchocosinger 2 years ago