We are burning fossil fuels which contribute to global warming, but instead of burning oil and gas, why don't we cut down all the trees and use that for fuel. It would save the planet and we wouldn't have to use as much oil.
Why haven't the scientists figured this one out?The answer to global warming and the oil crisis?
Excellent suggestion, but not the first time in print. Cut trees, use for fuel, replant, and repeat. Not only is it sustainable, it is zero impact on the carbon cycle (trees capture carbon, burning releases it, trees capture it again). Perfect under the current political climate. Let's talk about the particulars. A particularly fast growing tree (poplar or ';cottonwood';) would be a great choice for such an enterprise. I've seen poplar farms in Oregon, but that wood is used for paper. Do you think we could produce a profitable product? Wood pellets? Electricity from our own wood fired generators? Let's do it.The answer to global warming and the oil crisis?
Burning all the trees would result in not having them to absorb carbon dioxide and help restore oxygen.That is not saving the planet.Since the scientists claim that global warming is creating higher ocean levels I do not see why the coastal states especially do not use the resources of the ocean for water usage and electricity.I live in Corpus Christi Texas and they are always rationing water and our lakes are only half full,yet we have the ocean right here.Doesn't make sense to me.We pipe water from 200 miles away.
Also solar energy,the sun is usually shining here and sometimes it doesn't rain for months.
You can cut all the trees down but if you do this we won't have oxygen and all the carbon dioxide which is in the atmosphere will not be sucked up by plants.Also this is killing all the animals which live in trees and some animals eat what grows on trees so if we cut trees they won't have food and starve to death.
scientists have already figured that out but are having trouble delivering their ideas to the public.it costs a lot of money to get people to use things other than oil and gas. also, cutting down trees is a really bad idea because they change CO2(carbon dioxide) into oxygen that we breathe. i think that solar energy should be used. but that's just my opinion. i hope i helped. soory if i didnt. plz rate me 5*'s
- dr. B.
bc trees produce oxygen and the fumes that come from buring wood are harmful to the enviornment...why havent we figured out that we cuould put solar panels on almosat everything and run a great deal of things in a city off of solar enerygy? think of how much money and energy we would save if we just put a solar panel on street signs, street lamps, and billboards?
What oil crisis?? The only oil crisis is the fact that the environmental loons won't allow the U.S. to be energy dependent by tapping into our own resources. The earth is constantly producing oil. More oil is naturally being spewed out from the earth than man can spill.
Affordable and dependent energy is what made this nation great. Unfortunately some don't like that. You are being scammed.
Check this web site out:
http://www.prouty.org/oil.html
cutting down trees will only worsen climate change. Trees remove harmful greenhouse gases from the air and produce oxygen in return. they are very important in the functioning of this planet.. how about umm wind and solar power? that would produce no greenhouse gases. :)
Global Warming is a scam! It is all about getting more money out of people.
I do my part by burning trees. I'm warm and I get exercise.
Then the world would end up like Haiti, and I personally don't want my country to end up like Haiti.
wastage and ignoring the facts that we are going to have the shortage one day
There is no science proving ANY impact on the earth's temp from MMGW- as 32,000 scientists now agree!
There is no warming- the only warming in the last 70 years was from 1975 to 1998 as determined by all 4 global tracking org's:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mon…
Hence the transition to CC...
And since the buffoon Hansen's claim of 1998 as the hottest US year was a product of incompetant math (or outright lies), new dubious ';blended'; global data has been substitued by the tools:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/storie…
Slight CO2 escalation has FOLLOWED warming during every interglacial transition on record:
http://www.mises.org/story/2571
And exactly what has happened since the little ice 500 years ago.
Hence the transition to ';feedback loops';...
The ';consensus'; was actually FIVE UN tools whose corrections were ignored by UN politicians:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art…
UN IPCC Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, was not pleased by the disingenuous political tripe packaged as science:
“To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”
And many more:
Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, also a former expert reviewer with the U.N. IPCC, succinctly summarizes:
“It is all a fiction.”
Another UN IPCC expert reviewer, Dr. David Wojick:
“The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
Climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every draft of the IPCC:
“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these projections and estimates. It should be obvious that they are ridiculous.
After reviewing a new study to be released in the Journal of Geophysical Research, “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson of the Hubble Space Telescope Institute summarized:
“Anthropogenic global warming bites the dust.
Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl indicated in August of 2007 that recent research has reduced proponents of man-made climate fears to:
“Playing the children’s game to scare each other.
Dr. Oleg Sorochtin a scientist of the Institute of Oceanography at the Russian Academy of Sciences, author of more than 300 studies and nine books, concludes:
“Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact”:
The entire change in CO2 after 120 years in industrialized humanity is a MEANINGLESS 1/100th of 1 percent- .028-.038 of 1 percent:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbon…
Meanwhile- nearly all credible scientists willing to place their rep on the line call MMGW a fraud:
Hence the MMGW marionettes fake ';studies'; of anonymous scientists...
More than 31,000 scientists have signed this petition demonstrating direct correlation between solar irradiance and earth's temp. They- and many others also show that CO2 levels have been more than 400% higher BEFORE fossil fuels.
PR Research: http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_articl…
Qualifications include: Atmosphere, Earth, %26amp; Environment (3,803), Computers %26amp; Math (935), Physics %26amp; Aerospace (5,810), Chemistry (4,818):
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifica…
700 distinguished scientists have petitioned the Senate calling MMGW a fraud:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F…
Record_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9f…
!00 more leading scientists petitioned the UN- many of them claimed by Gore to be part of his nonsensical UN consensus:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php…
The real story is why none of this info has EVER been mentioned on CNN, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc. as the socialists in congress try to ram thru a $1,500/person tax on energy... It is important to inform your kids that these are not news organizations- they are propagandists.
MMGW is already the most expensive fraud in history and it’s about to get exponentially worse...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment