There is a dependence between Planet and Animal life. Humans need oxygen to breath. What is exhaled by human after breathing is CO2. Planets need CO2 which they take in and planets give back oxygen. This is all part of the grand scheme of thing. What has happened over the last 50 years is a disruption of the delicate balance of our natural order.
Fossil fuels and other carbon based energy has been buried under the surface of the earth for millions of years, where it lay harmless to the environment. In the relatively short period of only 50 years, much of the fossil fuel has been extracted from beneath the earth, and converted into CO2 as it was used for energy. This has produce a flood of CO2 into our atmosphere and environment in a relatively short period of time, and is causing all kind of problems. To make matters worse, the growth in world population has increasing the need for oxygen by all species of animal, including us. Also, as the world population increased, it has encroached on lands that were wilderness and rural, where abundant planet life previously existed. The flood of CO2 which has been released over the last 50 years has disruption the order of things, causing all kinds of problem like allergies and asthma in our kids, increases in disease like bronchitis and emphysema. Also, it has reduced the immune system of our people. The global warming has allowed virus and other germ to thrive at our expense. Rare virus that previously took the lives of 5 or 6 people per year have increased and are becoming a greater threat to our families. The increase in severe weather has caused all kinds of grief. If the ocean raises, because of melting ice in the earths polar regions, millions of people could be displaced. Drought and flood could lead to a decrease in the world food supply as regions that previously produced food are changed into deserts and swamps. Our action have consequences, and don't be fooled into thinking you can escape the consequences of global warming, or that global warming will only harm the poor and weak. It's not nice to mess with Mother Nature for she will find a way to get to you, regardless of the social-economic factor, or any other factors. It's best that we all insist that something be done about the problem of humans destroying the planet, and thus themselves. Regards, LelandJ Robert Calco wrote: > When I explained this to my son, Chris (in fourth grade), he grasped > the threat of all this "Global Warming" hooey almost instantly. > > Naturally he came home with the "good citizen" views which he imbibed > from his teachers, that man is indisputably causing global warming. > He actually made the argument that I need to find some other way to > get to work than drive my car because my car was destroying the > planet. That's what got our discussion going. > > I told him about the (IMHO horrible) Supreme Court decision that > basically said his lungs were polluters, and the government (via the > EPA) could now regulate the byproduct of his lungs as such, and I > explained what CO2 was in the ecology of things. I explained the > alternative scientific views of the significance of CO2 increases/ > decreases and the cyclical nature of the earth's climatology over > hundreds of thousands of years (not just the last hundred years). > > Once he got the idea that the government now views CO2 as a > "pollutant" and the absurdity of the situation (what we breath out is > a pollutant, and what plant's breath in is a pollutant) he "got it". > His question: How can stopping people and plants from breathing save > the planet? > > Of course I took him from the precipice of this extreme argument, and > pointed out that it was just a "reductio ad absurdum" (and what that > was). He understood. He asked, "Why didn't my teacher explain it that > way?" > > I explained that it was because the real target of the politics of > Global Warming is to shut down factories and the engine of wealth > creation that is our system because for some reason some people thing > its wrong. The seemingly simple argument about CO2 they were pushing > had policy implications that they were trying to achieve, and those > trumped the science. "But how can we end poverty if we shut down > wealth?" he wondered. > > There is hope as long as we teach our kids to ask intelligent questions. > > - Bob > > On Apr 16, 2007, at 6:40 PM, Michael Madigan wrote: > > >> CO2 isn't a polutant, it is plant food. >> >> One way of lowering CO2 production is to tape the nose >> and mouths of liberals who are constantly converting >> O2 to CO2 >> >> >> >> >> --- "Wolfe, Stephen S YA-02 6 MDSS/SGSI" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> <snip> >>> You see, even if man's irresponsible behavior in >>> polluting the planet is >>> not responsible for global warming, why not pass >>> laws that require good >>> stewardship of the planet's environment. The cost >>> of being good citizen >>> of the planet is money well spent. >>> <snip> >>> >>> I can't argue with you there concerning stewardship. >>> >>> >>> v/r >>> >>> >>> //SIGNED// >>> >>> Stephen S. Wolfe, YA2, DAF >>> 6th MDG Data Services Manager >>> 6th MDG Information System Security Officer >>> Comm (813) 827-9994 DSN 651-9994 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> Behalf Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA >>> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:16 PM >>> To: ProFox Email List >>> Subject: Re: [OT] Global Warming Test >>> >>> Are you willing to bet the farm that the danger of >>> global warming is a >>> myth, and the current global warming of the planet >>> will self correct >>> itself at the end of the current warming cycle? I >>> would rather take >>> measure now that would act as a kind of insurance >>> policy to ensure man >>> is not responsible for the current accelerated >>> global warming. >>> >>> After all, what is wrong with switching off fossil >>> fuel to alternatives >>> >>> like wind, sun, biofuel, and thermal energy? What >>> is wrong with >>> requiring industry act responsible by cleaning up >>> their pollution to the >>> >>> environment.? >>> >>> You see, even if man's irresponsible behavior in >>> polluting the planet is >>> >>> not responsible for global warming, why not pass >>> laws that require good >>> stewardship of the planet's environment. The cost >>> of being good citizen >>> >>> of the planet is money well spent. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> LelandJ >>> >>> Wolfe, Stephen S YA-02 6 MDSS/SGSI wrote: >>> >>>> Wow, Leland you have taken the Global Warming Myth >>>> >>> 'hook, line and >>> >>>> sinker' and no I don't have a PhD in a field of >>>> >>> science; I only have a >>> >>>> masters in Physics and what I have seen so far >>>> >>> from the Global Warming >>> >>>> crowd is very lack luster, very unconvincing. >>>> >>>> v/r >>>> >>>> >>>> //SIGNED// >>>> >>>> Stephen S. Wolfe, YA2, DAF >>>> 6th MDG Data Services Manager >>>> 6th MDG Information System Security Officer >>>> Comm (813) 827-9994 DSN 651-9994 >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> >>>> Behalf Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA >>>> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 1:25 AM >>>> To: ProFox Email List >>>> Subject: Re: [OT] Global Warming Test >>>> >>>> Michael Madigan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> That's completely not true. >>>>> >>>>> The vast number of METEOROLOGISTS DO NOT believe >>>>> >>> in >>> >>>>> man-made global warming. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Meteorologists report on the effects of global >>>> >>> warming like sever >>> >>>> weather in the form of floods, hurricanes, >>>> >>> drought, etc. They know >>> >>>> little or nothing about the cause of global >>>> >>> warming, which in turn is >>> a >>> >>>> cause directly related to increased sever weather. >>>> >>> Also, >>> Meteorologists >>> >>>> have a very small local area of focus on which >>>> >>> they report, rather >>> than >>> >>>> a big picture study of warming a the >>>> >>> global/World/Planet level. >>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> LelandJ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> This is a political movement, not a scientific >>>>> movment. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The same people who are against intelligence >>>>> >>> design as >>> >>>>> being junk science, believe in the junk science >>>>> >>> of >>> >>>>> man-made global warming. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- "Leland F. Jackson, CPA" >>>>> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The scientific argument about global warming is >>>>>> >>> over >>> >>>>>> with the vast >>>>>> majority of world scientists agreed global >>>>>> >>> warming >>> >>>>>> has been accelerated >>>>>> by CO2 pollution to the planet and is the number >>>>>> >>> one >>> >>>>>> greatest threat to >>>>>> humanity. All that is left now is the political >>>>>> argument to be decided >>>>>> in 2008. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> LelandJ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert Calco wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/Q1.html >> >>>>> >>>>>>> There are 10 questions in all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Bob >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
