Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle
No, what I imply and have explicitly stated elsewhere is that spending money to bury charcoal or any such carbon sequestration or reduction plan is money not spent toward any remedial action. By all accounts this is about the effect on people. We need to find energy sources other than fossil fuels because they're finite, they add particulates, carbon monoxide, sulphur compound, etcetera, bad stuff to who laid the chunk. How much less carbon in the air if Gore had them mail his trophy from Norway? Inconvenient truth indeed.  |
I wasn't discussing charcoal or sequestration. I know your views on fossil fuels and I certainly was not implying that you thought rampant coal burning was ok. Gore is a whole different topic as well.
Quote:
So your whole rebuttal is laying on an assumption based on facts not in evidence? 
|
My rebuttal was based on logic. We have certain factors that we can influence, certain factors we can't. We should act accordingly.
Quote:
|
Speaking of heat on the frigid bottom, and volcanoes aside, how many hydrothermal vents are on the ocean floor and what is their contribution to heating & chemical compounds directly? What of their newly discovered ecosystems? How many tons of carbon in these cycles now & historically?
|
Good questions.
Quote:
|
All of these rebuttals don't deny the Sun's role, volcanoes' roles, hydrothermal vent's roles, they just marginalize and minimize them with rhetoric.
|
Rhetoric that marginalizes and minimizes?
Quote:
|
The models are only as good as the data going in, and incomplete data is as good as bad data.
|
[Scottish accent]We're givin'er all she's got Capt'n[/Scottish accent]
Quote:
|
In mathematical terms, this is a 'complex system', as in 'complex system theory' previously know as 'chaos theory'. Claiming it's all about CO2 is like looking at the bulbous black outline of the Mandelbrot set and saying you know what it looks like.
|
Nobody serious can claim that "it's all about CO2", Turtle, and no one has made that claim here.
