The 'Star Wars' Plan

RC, I was actually being sarcastic. CO2 causing Global Warming, or the Greenhouse effect as we were taught, is basic GCSE.

Just pick up a one of those Science books and it will go thorough it for you.

Well brainiac, those THEORIES have been questioned of late by various scientific bodies who are concerned that the CO2 theory may be errornious and that reductions in the global CO2 level may actually do more hard that good.

I don't know which theory is right and which is wrong, whcih is fine because even the scientists can't agree right now...

GCSE's? Oh yeah, the simple form of GCE's!!! 😂

I don't suppose you could point me in the direction of those new theories? I just hope they weren't funded by the Bush administration 🙄

I'll have to dig em out. Basically, it is something to do with vegitation development in the Amazon or someplace and how cutting global C02 would cause so many trees and plants in that area, which covers a fair sized part of the planet, to die from not recieving enough CO2. This would lead to a decrease in the worlds oxygen supply and other life would suffer.

I can't remember what this had to do with global warming, but it sounded pretty catastophic on it's own.

I think it was on Discovery or something. I'll look.

They would die if there is zero CO2 (although plants can survive with Oxygen aswell), the plan as I understand it is to reduce the amount of CO2 produced to a more suitable level. Although since the US decided not to implement Koyoto the EU decrease in CO2 won't really make much difference IMO.

I think the point was that the ecosystems had addapted to produce enough oxygen for the way the planet is populated, amounts of CO2, etc now and a rapid drop off would find them starved of vaulable CO2 to sustain themselves. Most plants deprived of CO2 in high enough quantities will die. Less trees, etc would mean less oxygen production which could lead to a mass extinction, including us...

I think my basic point that it is an error to auotmatically assume that the 'greenhouse' lobby is definitely correct in this area is an error before they work the damn science out now stands...

...and like I said you won't get the science right until you see the results, which would be too late.

Anyway, no-one is saying that ALL CO2 should be stopped. Only countries that produce TOO MUCH CO2 should cut down.

And like RC and myself have said, shutting down the CO2 production may do more harm than good- certainly as much evidence either way, so there is still no reason to back one side.

I think the point was, on that bit, that the production would have to be cut slowly in a reverse of the ramp up in CO2 to allow the global eccology to re-adjust.

Still looking for the other bit on GW though.

Ushgarak, if you could, explain to me why TOO MUCH CO2 is good and a moderate amount is bad.

I agree that too much is a bad thing, I was merely commenting on the GW thoeries.

Ush?

As far as we can prove, Raz, there is no such thing as 'TOO' much.

Meanwhile, the economic problems involved in cutting production will alkmost certainly xost some lives and badly affect many thousnads (or more) of others.

You do NOT leap itno these things on the off-chance. People's lives are at stake; they may be at stake the other way as well but you must PROVE it.

Peoples lives are NOT at stake. There IS such a thing as too much, if we have too much CO2 it creates the greenhouse affect i.e. reflecting heat back down to earth, ineffect causing global warming, leading to melting icecaps and so forth.

THAT IS NOT PROVEN! Absolutely it is not, regardless of what you say. Scientists far more qualfiied than us have said so, and the debate continues.

THERE IS NO PROVEN 'TOO' MUCH!

The economic issues at stake with cutting CO2 production in the way suggested by Kyoto, though, are very real and affect many many lives.

Seriosuly, Raz, there are huge counter-arguments against all this that you seem to dismiss out of hand.

[ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: Ushgarak ]

Hmm..its funny how these "Scientists far more qualfiied than us" didn't say anything when the Koyoto was being signed.

Also a scientists view can be changed if he/she was paid the right amount of money.

Unless you can disprove the theory that CO2 DOES cause greenhouse effects, don't tell me I'm being arrogant.

Cutting CO2 levels doesn't have to result in unemployment. These "super-scientists" could help develop methods other than those that cause lots of CO2 emmissions.

BTW, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse producing gas.

[EDIT]Closing Topic as this debate will never end[/EDIT]