It appears, that available data show that CO2 level is rising.

 

The nitwits claim that reason for that is industrial and car-produced poluton.

 

Assumingly, atmospheric CO2 rise is the main cause of observed warming.

 

But it is known, that influx of CO2 is almost precisely balanced by plant photosythesis.

 

It is much more likely that decline in forestation is the reason of CO2 rise, not the fossil fuels.

 

So, the right way to prevent global warming is to have more forestation and more other plants.

 

But the proponents have anti-capitalist agenda.

 

They want to stick it to US, that it is guilty of global warming.

 

The reality is that the poor countries that destroy their forestation are the most likely culprits.

 

ES

but are not responsible for there action to make money if there poor .

 

I think this is capitalist exploitation .

capitalist exploitation .

By the way, there is no such thing. Marx've get it all wrong.

[b']The nitwits claim that reason for that is industrial and car-produced poluton.[/b]

Come on now, just because they can't spell pollution doesn't give you any reason to assume they are nitwits.

How is the decline in forestation supposed to increase CO₂? Trees are virtually carbon-neutral.

How is the decline in forestation supposed to increase CO_{2[/sub']? Trees are virtually carbon-neutral.}

 

_{According to data I assume to be correct, about 100pct of CO2 withdrawal from atmosphere, is due to photo synthesis:}

 

_{http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html}

 

_es

I'm not interested in what "bobg" says in his FAQ - trees respire as well as photosynthesising. You can't claim one affects CO₂ levels and ignore the other.

with regard to Global Warming (and subsequent Cooling), it`s also part of a VERY LONG but natural cycle too. I agree, mankind has made a contribution to this in measurable quantities, but lets not forget that according to "Mother Nature" this cycle has happened a few times before Man was out of Diapers!

 

and AFAIK we are somewhat overdue for an "ice Age" anyway!?

If we're gaining CO2 due to loss of photosynthesis, the main reason for that is the pollution of the oceans which reduces the level of photosynthetic life in them.

It appears' date=' that available data show that CO2 level is rising.

 

[b']The nitwits claim that reason for that is industrial and car-produced poluton.[/b]

 

Assumingly, atmospheric CO2 rise is the main cause of observed warming.

 

But it is known, that influx of CO2 is almost precisely balanced by plant photosythesis.

 

It is much more likely that decline in forestation is the reason of CO2 rise, not the fossil fuels.

 

So, the right way to prevent global warming is to have more forestation and more other plants.

 

But the proponents have anti-capitalist agenda.

 

They want to stick it to US, that it is guilty of global warming.

 

The reality is that the poor countries that destroy their forestation are the most likely culprits.

 

ES

 

The poor countries burn and cut their forests for lumber and farming which is exported to industrialized nations.

I'm not interested in what "bobg" says in his FAQ - trees respire as well as photosynthesising. You can't claim one affects CO_{2[/sub'] levels and ignore the other.}

_{You must then disagree with theory that oxigen in our atmosphere was set out by the plants. I do not know any alternative theory .}

 

_es

If we're gaining CO2 due to loss of photosynthesis, the main reason for that is the pollution of the oceans which reduces the level of photosynthetic life in them.

 

It is not what the data appear to say.

It is possible to some extent, but the decline of forestation is obvious, and its effect coincides with CO2 rise.

 

es

'']The poor countries burn and cut their forests for lumber and farming which is exported to industrialized nations.

 

Ok, we are all at it together.

Not farming although, they are not food exporters, rather importers.

 

The point is, that if we'll stop driving cars, heating houses and cooking food, the global warming will still continue on.

 

We must dedicate an effort to keeping greens and expanding greens.

 

es

It is not what the data appear to say.

It is possible to some extent' date=' but the decline of forestation is obvious, and its effect coincides with CO2 rise.

 

es[/quote']

 

O rly?

 

We now know that over 50 per cent of global photosynthetic activity takes place in the oceans.

You must then disagree with theory that oxigen in our atmosphere was set out by the plants. I do not know any alternative theory .

Well, you're wrong. Admitting you don't know whether you are wrong or not suggests that arguing the point would make you a bit of a nitwit.

 

See MrL's link.

 

 

It is not what the data appear to say.

It is possible to some extent, but the decline of forestation is obvious, and its effect coincides with CO2 rise.

You obviously didn't understand the data that was presented, or only read the line you liked.

It is not what the data appear to say.

It is possible to some extent' date=' but the decline of forestation is obvious, and its effect coincides with CO2 rise.

 

es[/quote']

 

Correlation is not causality.

and you must also realise that ALL the carbon that is on earth in whatever form has been here since dot!

 

nothing more has ever been added to us and very little has been taken away!

I think we're all agreed that this is bollocks.

 

Next!