On 5/13/2011 2:59 AM, John Smith wrote:

2~3 Peaks as High or Higher.

Once to 297 PPM 300,000 years ago. Still nowhere near what we have today.

ROFLOL!

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/libr...18/dioxide.htm

We are at the lowest PPM of Co2 we have ever been at, a couple of
hundred PPM +/- is virtually insignificant!

Regards,
JS

You seem to want to think Co2 is a big thing. Only, in the complete
scheme of things, has Co2 never been so low. At twice the PPM it is not
going to kill us or mankind. Plants will flourish, since plants feed
all life, either directly, or by feeding the food sources which serve as
food sources to other species ... it is a good thing.

Your time frame is only going back hundreds of years, in our realistic
knowledge of it. Since the oldest civilization in existance (china), at
this time, has only been in existence for ~5,000 years, no meaningful
data can be had as to whether this is a normal cycle of the earth, or
not -- no sufficient records were kept until recent times.

But then, it simply doesn't matter as far as the carbon tax goes.
Paying taxes to the government has nothing to do with Co2 levels in the
atmosphere. Indeed, if the example serves as any sort of predictor, the
higher the taxes, the higher the Co2. ROFLOL

A real non-event ... we simply need to deal with the changes which the
future brings ... this has always been true, this will always be true ...

Get a grip! Ohhh, look over there, it is a terrorist under the rock ...
scream fool, SCREAM! :-)

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:

You seem to want to think Co2 is a big thing. Only, in the complete
scheme of things, has Co2 never been so low. At twice the PPM it is not
going to kill us or mankind.

It may not 'kill us', but what effects may it have? If an increase on
CO2 causes a temperature rise that results in flooding major population
areas would that be a problem to be worried about?


Plants will flourish, since plants feed
all life, either directly, or by feeding the food sources which serve as
food sources to other species ... it is a good thing.

If a climate change reduces the ability to grow those plants (rice,
wheat, corn, etc.) that are a major food source, would that be a problem
to worry about?

If the climate changes so that major agricultural areas can no longer
produce the crops needed by civilization, would that be an issue to be
worried about?


Your time frame is only going back hundreds of years, in our realistic
knowledge of it. Since the oldest civilization in existance (china), at
this time, has only been in existence for ~5,000 years, no meaningful
data can be had as to whether this is a normal cycle of the earth, or
not -- no sufficient records were kept until recent times.


There is also no evidence to say the civilization can prosper if there
is significant climate change.

So while you can say CO2 was much higher in the past, you choose to
ignore the possibility that higher CO2 levels may cause problems that
could be serious.

You should be able to find instances where folks thought adding small
amounts of chemicals to the air or water was thought to be insignificant
but later had to be dealt with at a major expense.

I'd rather err on the side of caution rather than have my head in the
sand and find out the implications were much more serious.

joe wrote:

John Smith wrote:

You seem to want to think Co2 is a big thing. Only, in the complete
scheme of things, has Co2 never been so low. At twice the PPM it is not
going to kill us or mankind.

It may not 'kill us', but what effects may it have? If an increase on
CO2 causes a temperature rise that results in flooding major population
areas would that be a problem to be worried about?

Plants will flourish, since plants feed
all life, either directly, or by feeding the food sources which serve as
food sources to other species ... it is a good thing.

If a climate change reduces the ability to grow those plants (rice,
wheat, corn, etc.) that are a major food source, would that be a problem
to worry about?

If the climate changes so that major agricultural areas can no longer
produce the crops needed by civilization, would that be an issue to be
worried about?


Your time frame is only going back hundreds of years, in our realistic
knowledge of it. Since the oldest civilization in existance (china), at
this time, has only been in existence for ~5,000 years, no meaningful
data can be had as to whether this is a normal cycle of the earth, or
not -- no sufficient records were kept until recent times.


There is also no evidence to say the civilization can prosper if there
is significant climate change.

So while you can say CO2 was much higher in the past, you choose to
ignore the possibility that higher CO2 levels may cause problems that
could be serious.

You should be able to find instances where folks thought adding small
amounts of chemicals to the air or water was thought to be insignificant
but later had to be dealt with at a major expense.

I'd rather err on the side of caution rather than have my head in the
sand and find out the implications were much more serious.

OK, so let us say we err on the side of caution. Thing is, the
Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Socialist plan with regards to all of this seems to
be taxing the crap out of us.

Spend, spend, spend and tax tax tax.

On 5/14/2011 8:58 AM, dxAce wrote:

OK, so let us say we err on the side of caution. Thing is, the
Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Socialist plan with regards to all of this seems to
be taxing the crap out of us.

How convenient of you to overlook the fact that your REPUBLICAN governor
is personally taxing YOU (your pension). To add insult to injury, he is
giving your pension tax as a -gift- to BUSINESS.

Finally, don't overlook that your guv *lied*; he said the whole point
was to whittle down the deficit -- and not one nickel of your pension
tax is going against the deficit, it's ALL going towards Business.

Feel cheated? Feel lied to? Don't want your pension taxed? Then feel
free to sign the recall petition.

On 5/14/2011 6:02 AM, joe wrote:
John Smith wrote:

You seem to want to think Co2 is a big thing. Only, in the complete
scheme of things, has Co2 never been so low. At twice the PPM it is
not going to kill us or mankind.

It may not 'kill us', but what effects may it have? If an increase on
CO2 causes a temperature rise that results in flooding major population
areas would that be a problem to be worried about?


Plants will flourish, since plants feed
all life, either directly, or by feeding the food sources which serve
as food sources to other species ... it is a good thing.

If a climate change reduces the ability to grow those plants (rice,
wheat, corn, etc.) that are a major food source, would that be a problem
to worry about?

If the climate changes so that major agricultural areas can no longer
produce the crops needed by civilization, would that be an issue to be
worried about?


Your time frame is only going back hundreds of years, in our realistic
knowledge of it. Since the oldest civilization in existance (china),
at this time, has only been in existence for ~5,000 years, no
meaningful data can be had as to whether this is a normal cycle of the
earth, or not -- no sufficient records were kept until recent times.


There is also no evidence to say the civilization can prosper if there
is significant climate change.

So while you can say CO2 was much higher in the past, you choose to
ignore the possibility that higher CO2 levels may cause problems that
could be serious.

You should be able to find instances where folks thought adding small
amounts of chemicals to the air or water was thought to be insignificant
but later had to be dealt with at a major expense.

I'd rather err on the side of caution rather than have my head in the
sand and find out the implications were much more serious.

Error-ing on the side of caution is just another way to say you wish to
indulge your unfounded fears, you wish to force your personal opinions
on others. You would pay taxes based on rumors.

Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES! And, repeal the BS ones on the books now!

A flat tax or no tax at all ...

Regards,
JS