Politiscience....Global Warming

I personally don't think it is an endorsement to continue what we are doing. Rather, the argument that should be gained from the evaluation Gechmir gave us is that pinning our environmental efforts one something as definitely vague as global warming is misguided.

Personally, I'd rather see the platform for reducing emissions and such be based on conservation and pollution control which have much more immediate and easily quantifiable results. Cutting our output of CO2 and using less fossil fuels to improve our air quality and make our resources last longer would be a more sound philosophy to work with than something like global warming (or the new term to replace it, climate change), which lately has been a vehicle for scare-mongerers and sensationalists. There is nothing sexy about pollution or conservation but impending global disasters gives you Hollywood attention and media publicity.

Then again, I'm a geology major. I get all sorts of weird looks from the meteorologists and climatologists when I state my opinions on human effects on the global climate.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Plants can aspire CO2, and their decay also releases carbon in various forms. I think that's what Unfortunate meant.

Vegetation sequestering is one of the largest sinks of carbon as are producers of carbonates. The effect and scale to which they can offset the increasing output of carbon in the atmosphere is still under investigation.

Still, people need to approach this issue with a clear head and not be swayed by those who wish to manipulate you emotionally, whether it is the doomsday prophets or the people who think it is inconsequential. If one is steered by either complacency or panic, nothing good will come out of it.

It would be interesting to see what GFF thinks of Peak Oil. I wonder if a thread should be made for that.

There's nowhere I can't reach.