Comments on: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence…” http://www.expressvous.com/?p=480 Communication with a difference Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:31:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: aldo1963 http://www.expressvous.com/?p=480&cpage=1#comment-174 aldo1963 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:09:25 +0000 http://expressezvous.wordpress.com/?p=462#comment-174 I don't wish to sound like G.W. answering a reporter's question, but... The reason they call fossil fuels "fossil fuels" is, well uhh, umm because they're fossils. From Wikipedia "Fossil Fuels" "Fossil fuels or mineral fuels are fuels formed by natural resources such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. The age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years.[1] These fuels contain a high percentage of carbon and hydrocarbons." The earth has been capturing and safely storing away carbon for millions of years. Just in the last few hundred years however, we have returned approximately one half of those carbon stores back into our atmosphere. Our planet is a finite object with finite natural resources and a very complex system of symbiotic interrelationships. As with any type of complex-- hence delicate, system, any prolonged periods of unusually high rates of stress will cause it to crash. As they say "never touch a running system." Simply put we have been touching our system way to hard, and if we're not careful, nature may need to do a reboot. As far as I'm concerned, and you mileage may vary, climate change denial is the bad science. I don’t wish to sound like G.W. answering a reporter’s question, but…

The reason they call fossil fuels “fossil fuels” is, well uhh, umm because they’re fossils.

From Wikipedia “Fossil Fuels”

“Fossil fuels or mineral fuels are fuels formed by natural resources such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. The age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years.[1] These fuels contain a high percentage of carbon and hydrocarbons.”

The earth has been capturing and safely storing away carbon for millions of years. Just in the last few hundred years however, we have returned approximately one half of those carbon stores back into our atmosphere. Our planet is a finite object with finite natural resources and a very complex system of symbiotic interrelationships. As with any type of complex– hence delicate, system, any prolonged periods of unusually high rates of stress will cause it to crash. As they say “never touch a running system.” Simply put we have been touching our system way to hard, and if we’re not careful, nature may need to do a reboot.

As far as I’m concerned, and you mileage may vary, climate change denial is the bad science.

]]> By: John Bear http://www.expressvous.com/?p=480&cpage=1#comment-169 John Bear Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:04:57 +0000 http://expressezvous.wordpress.com/?p=462#comment-169 Does one need certainty to take out insurance on a substantial asset? The arguments advanced citing the lack of "conclusive" proof are facile! Perhaps the real driver behind the unwillingness to take the actions required to mitigate the impact of climate change is that of protection of vested interests by the elites. Unless a technological means to counter the already output gas is found it is to late to prevent massive disruption. Let us hope that we can prevent a population colapse. Does one need certainty to take out insurance on a substantial asset? The arguments advanced citing the lack of “conclusive” proof are facile! Perhaps the real driver behind the unwillingness to take the actions required to mitigate the impact of climate change is that of protection of vested interests by the elites. Unless a technological means to counter the already output gas is found it is to late to prevent massive disruption. Let us hope that we can prevent a population colapse.

]]>