On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:25:17 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 27/11/2019 15:21, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:26:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:26:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 10:22:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
trader_4 writes:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 8:03:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:42:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


No, he's saying that CO2 is now higher than it has been in 800,000
years, that it's increased by a third in just the last 100 years, that
it's caused by man burning fossil fuels, that previous rises of that
magnitude took hundreds of thousands of years. No amount of Trump,
Republican lying and denying can change that.

The world population is over 3 times what it was in 1920 too. You
can't deny that either. Most of those people are not going stop
burning the forest and plains to grow more food.

Irrelevant, of course. There is no question that man burning fossil
fuels is the overwhelming emitter. We could have the same population
and be using solar and wind energy and there would not have been the
rise.

The flaw in that theory is CO2 has tracked population growth for 8000
years.


There is no flaw, the rise in CO2 is being fueled by man burning
fossil fuels.

Which man has only been burning in any significant amount for
about 150 years. Not 8000 years (burning wood is carbon neutral
for all intents and purposes as it is not releasing carbon that
has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years).

Also factor in that for 95%+ of that period, whatever burning was going
on was to heat a small cave, a hovel, or a couple of ten by ten rooms.

Burning is not the problem, the loss of native vegetation and forest
land is. A farm that is bare dirt or emerging plants for most of the
year is not removing much CO2. When you plow everything under you
didn't eat it is the same as burning it and everything you eat is also
burned. 6.6 billion people belching out CO2 and farting methane is
also not an insignificant amount. That is before we start looking at
their animals.

That's your version. The accepted science from the overwhelming number
of scientists who have done the research and understand the numbers is
that the majority of the rise in CO2 over the last 100 years, with it
rising by about a third, is the direct result of man burning fossil fuels.
I'll stick with their opinion, thank you. What's next? Argue for
burning more coal because Trump says it's a great idea?

Don't forget the colossal loss of trees in the Amazon etc.
Known as the lungs of the Earth.

That is exactly what I am talking about although turf land also eats a
lot of CO2, some say, as much as trees.