...you've been warned.

Air pollution helps plants blunt climate change: study (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.3bb1cb136038ab4034b51162ec256bcc.281&show_article=1)


Cleaning up skies choked with smog and soot would sharply curtail the capacity of plants to absorb carbon dioxide and blunt global warming, according to a study released on Wednesday.
Plant life -- especially tropical forests -- soak up a quarter of all the CO2 humans spew into the atmosphere, and thus plays a critical role in keeping climate change in check.

Through photosynthesis, vegetation transforms sunlight, CO2 and water into sugar nutrients.


Common sense would suggest that air pollution in the form of microscopic particles that obstruct the Sun's rays -- a phenomenon called "global dimming" -- would hamper this process, but the new study shows the opposite is true.

"Surprisingly, the effects of atmospheric pollution seem to have enhanced global plant productivity by as much as a quarter from 1960 to 1999," said Linda Mercado, a researcher at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Britain, and the study's lead author.




All they ever had to do was ask a greenhouse man. We add C02. We pull shade curtains to protect plants from TOO much sun. The only greenhouse gas we emit is clean AIR. ####tards.

It would be awful nice if FACTS got in the way of this idiotic man made global warming/climate change/evil human activity/don't exhale or fart non sense.

:tap:

I can most likey dig up my posts on this from the past, but in short I have said many times that when al bore is showing his pretty lines that indicate an increase in CO2 that run along with emissions, he fails to also run a line that shows the depletion of the rain forests at the same time.

Since we were all taught back in science that the rain forests play a major part in the worlds climate, it only made sense to me to contribute climate change to rain forests being cut down for grazing and farming.

but what do I know?

I can most likey dig up my posts on this from the past, but in short I have said many times that when al bore is showing his pretty lines that indicate an increase in CO2 that run along with emissions, he fails to also run a line that shows the depletion of the rain forests at the same time.

Since we were all taught back in science that the rain forests play a major part in the worlds climate, it only made sense to me to contribute climate change to rain forests being cut down for grazing and farming.

but what do I know?

How about all the trees being cut down in Southern MD for yet another shopping center/restaurant complex?

How about all the trees being cut down in Southern MD for yet another shopping center/restaurant complex?

Incredibly insignificant compared to the rain forest. :shrug:

The trees are fine, did you all see King and Queen Obama planting new trees the other day? They are sooooo great!:diva:

Incredibly insignificant compared to the rain forest. :shrug:

There are more trees, far more, on this continent now than the year 1900.

It would be awful nice if FACTS got in the way of this idiotic man made global warming/climate change/evil human activity/don't exhale or fart non sense.

:tap:

Did you see this (http://forums.somd.com/environment-green-living-alternative-energy/175082-more-things-change-more-they-stay.html) by any chance?

Some people anaylze observed data to figure out where it leads. Some people decide where they want to go, and interpret observed data in whatever manner they need to, to get there.

The former people are scientists by their nature. The later, well, they aren't. There are a lot of people who are scientists by their profession or their education, but not by their nature - those are the people that are especially dangerous.

Did you see this (http://forums.somd.com/environment-green-living-alternative-energy/175082-more-things-change-more-they-stay.html) by any chance?

Some people anaylze observed data to figure out where it leads. Some people decide where they want to go, and interpret observed data in whatever manner they need to, to get there.

The former people are scientists by their nature. The later, well, they aren't. There are a lot of people who are scientists by their profession or their education, but not by their nature - those are the people that are especially dangerous.

Yes. I apologize for not commenting. I have a real hard on for this 'man controls nature' arrogance. It completely invalidates EVERYTHING the left in this country claims to be; scientific, practical, fact oriented, just seeking the truth.

Did you see this (http://forums.somd.com/environment-green-living-alternative-energy/175082-more-things-change-more-they-stay.html) by any chance?

Some people anaylze observed data to figure out where it leads. Some people decide where they want to go, and interpret observed data in whatever manner they need to, to get there.

The former people are scientists by their nature. The later, well, they aren't. There are a lot of people who are scientists by their profession or their education, but not by their nature - those are the people that are especially dangerous.

And the former have been under implied assault to conform, or else, for over a decade. They have been silenced, at peril to their careers, to the Gore-ites.

Yes. I apologize for not commenting. I have a real hard on for this 'man controls nature' arrogance. It completely invalidates EVERYTHING the left in this country claims to be; scientific, practical, fact oriented, just seeking the truth.

:killingme You don't need to apologize for not commenting. Not much comment needed - it just illustrates the point that people, even people who consider themselves scientists, can interpret whatever they see to mean whatever they want it to mean.

And yes, arrogant is one of the best ways to describe the current 'man is killing the planet' ideology. We are not going to destroy the planet. At some point, she might decide she doesn't want to be suitable for human life anymore, but that's the kind of thing she decides from time to time and there is little we can do about it. And, any problems we do face are generally a result of human over-population - and need not be a specific result of specific human behaviors.

Did you see this (http://forums.somd.com/environment-green-living-alternative-energy/175082-more-things-change-more-they-stay.html) by any chance?

Some people anaylze observed data to figure out where it leads. Some people decide where they want to go, and interpret observed data in whatever manner they need to, to get there.

The former people are scientists by their nature. The later, well, they aren't. There are a lot of people who are scientists by their profession or their education, but not by their nature - those are the people that are especially dangerous.
Nothing new about that. You can make any set of numbers or facts represent what you choose it to represent with sight of hand. Special interest groups do this all the time.

Nothing new about that. You can make any set of numbers or facts represent what you choose it to represent with sight of hand. Special interest groups do this all the time.

Absolutely. Real science is agenda-less. And, the presence of agenda, mutates science into something with very little positive social value, and significant harmful potential.

Absolutely. Real science is agenda-less. And, the presence of agenda, mutates science into something with very little positive social value, and significant harmful potential.

Worth repeating. Over and over and over. :buddies:

How about all the trees being cut down in Southern MD for yet another shopping center/restaurant complex?

~250 years ago there were virtually no trees in the the entire area of St. Mary's, Charles, Calvert or Prince Georges County. This was due to the slash and burn policy to open land for Tobacco production, plus add in lumber cut for homes, ships and heat! There is only one small grove of Old Forrest growth in the area. </title> </head> <body> <html> <head> <title>Save Chapman Old Growth Forest (http://www.chapmanforest.org/bigtrees.html)

And yes there are more trees in North America (including Canada) than 200 years ago, due to planting in the great plains, southwest, and the conversion of farm land to housing and parks.

How about all the trees being cut down in Southern MD for yet another shopping center/restaurant complex?

Still no Lowes or Home Depot in PF. :tantrum

There are more trees, far more, on this continent now than the year 1900.

Really? Who's been counting them?