jgoose71 0 #1 December 17, 2011 Quote By Dr. Ivy Greenstien, PhD, Natural Sciences EPA Regulations are killing the rain forests The EPA, which is best known for protecting the environment, is seeming to have a different effect now a days. The EPA, which has become more of a political animal than a neutral enforcers of regulations, has finally started to do the exact thing they have sworn to prevent, and that is the destruction of the environment. With the labeling of Carbon Dioxide as a green house gas, they have started to starve the rain forests of the much needed gas they need to thrive. As seen with this Hockey stick shaped graph, it is apparent that with the increase of EPA regulations, there is also a correlating decrease in square miles of rain forests. This trend can be seen going back to the formation of the EPA in 1970. The principal is quite simple to explain. Imagine a fish bowl with several gold fish in it. The gold fish need oxygen to live, just like trees need CO2 to survive. Without a water pump or aeration system, there isn't enough oxygen in the bowl to support all the fish, so some die until there is only enough fish to be supported without the aeration system. Same thing is going on on the planet earth. Rainforests are starving to death because we have reduced our Carbon Dioxide emissions. By increasing the amount of CO2 that we produce, we will create an environment that is welcoming to plant life, there by reinvigorating the rain forests and potentially saving thousands of endangered species. So I am encouraging you, do your part to save the rainforests. Drive everywhere, turn up the heat in the winter, turn up the air conditioning in the summer, and support items imported from across country. Yes, I just made it up. But at the same time, I'm trying to make a point. Anything can be argued when you are mining and manipulating facts, as Micheal Mann has done. Also, I think this is just plain funny. If you don't, go find a sense of humor."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #2 December 17, 2011 >Yes, I just made it up. Sounds like it, since it is factually incorrect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #3 December 17, 2011 Quote>Yes, I just made it up. Sounds like it, since it is factually incorrect. So what's incorrect? Trees need CO2? Fish need Oxygen? Rainforest have been shrinking since the EPA was formed in 1970? To many goldfish in a bowl will cause them to die? What's incorrect?"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #4 December 17, 2011 >So what's incorrect? "Rainforests are starving to death because we have reduced our Carbon Dioxide emissions." They are in fact increasing, and in fact rainforests do not need anthropogenic CO2 emissions to survive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #5 December 17, 2011 Quote>So what's incorrect? "Rainforests are starving to death because we have reduced our Carbon Dioxide emissions." They are in fact increasing, and in fact rainforests do not need anthropogenic CO2 emissions to survive. How can you be so sure? Can you prove that trees can differentiate between CO2 Sources?"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 December 17, 2011 it's funny for people who haven't figured out the difference between causation and correlation. It's a little too light on the wit to be that interesting. And as Bill notes, we have *NOT* actually reduced emissions, so we're not starving the forests. Frankly, planting more trees seems like an obvious easy start to improving our balance. Nicer to look at, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #7 December 17, 2011 Quoteit's funny for people who haven't figured out the difference between causation and correlation. It's a little too light on the wit to be that interesting. And as Bill notes, we have *NOT* actually reduced emissions, so we're not starving the forests. Frankly, planting more trees seems like an obvious easy start to improving our balance. Nicer to look at, too. And yet we see every day a whole slew of people in our government today that still have yet to figure out the difference between causation on correlation. I've said it before: Common sense, so uncommon it should be a super power. (My common sense is tingling....)"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #8 December 17, 2011 >How can you be so sure? See attached. >Can you prove that trees can differentiate between CO2 Sources? No, they cannot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #9 December 17, 2011 Quote >How can you be so sure? See attached. >Can you prove that trees can differentiate between CO2 Sources? No, they cannot. And as you stated earlier, Rainforests are increasing..... There is a correlation.... I win!!!!!"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #10 December 17, 2011 >And as you stated earlier, Rainforests are increasing..... No, rainforests are decreasing. Our CO2 emissions, however, are increasing. ============ Despite increased awareness of the importance of these forests, deforestation rates have not slowed. Analysis of figures from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) shows that tropical deforestation rates increased 8.5 percent from 2000-2005 when compared with the 1990s, while loss of primary forests may have expanded by 25 percent over the same period. Nigeria and Vietnam's rate of primary forest loss has doubled since the 1990s, while Peru's rate has tripled. ============= Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Earth Systems Research Laboratory, a 36 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities (IPCC, 2007). The current rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is about 1.9 ppmv/year. Present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 650,000 years (IPCC, 2007). =============== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 December 17, 2011 Quote >How can you be so sure? See attached. >Can you prove that trees can differentiate between CO2 Sources? No, they cannot. So trees can't, but climate evidently can - seems legit. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #12 December 17, 2011 QuoteRainforest have been shrinking since the EPA was formed in 1970? this is the only thing that may be factually correct, however causation and correlation are not definable nor provable either way. I just took a stats course so I am familiar with it, not an expert. state the fact, yes, but the meaning of the fact is bunk. you cannot in any way say that EPA regs are the cause of it. The cost of subway rides and pizza has risen at exactly the same pace since the 1970's. So one can predict the other, but other than that, they have no relationship whatsoever. CO2 emissions have caused the decline of pirates in the Caribbean. If you look at the amount of CO2 in the world and the number of pirates in the Caribbean over the past couple centuries it is obvious that industry causes pirates to go away.....right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #13 December 18, 2011 Quote -tropical deforestation rates increased... -Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased The problem is obvious. We are over-feeding the trees.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #14 December 19, 2011 Quote Quote -tropical deforestation rates increased... -Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased The problem is obvious. We are over-feeding the trees. So all the Obese trees in the rain forests are dying of the floral equivalent of a heart attack?"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #16 December 19, 2011 Quote Quote Quote -tropical deforestation rates increased... -Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased The problem is obvious. We are over-feeding the trees. So all the Obese trees in the rain forests are dying of the floral equivalent of a heart attack? ...with a woodie.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #17 December 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteRainforest have been shrinking since the EPA was formed in 1970? this is the only thing that may be factually correct, however causation and correlation are not definable nor provable either way. I just took a stats course so I am familiar with it, not an expert. state the fact, yes, but the meaning of the fact is bunk. you cannot in any way say that EPA regs are the cause of it. The cost of subway rides and pizza has risen at exactly the same pace since the 1970's. So one can predict the other, but other than that, they have no relationship whatsoever. CO2 emissions have caused the decline of pirates in the Caribbean. If you look at the amount of CO2 in the world and the number of pirates in the Caribbean over the past couple centuries it is obvious that industry causes pirates to go away.....right? Ding, Ding, ding,.... We have a winner. Global warming alarmists are all dealing in Correlation right now and not causation. There are a lot of things going on at the same time, but sense they don't understand how the earth react to input because of all the variables, there is nothing sound. Yes, they can show lots of theories on a micro scale in a fishbowl, but that does not account for everything on the planet in a macro scale. There are scientists that say that the earth has been through 5 ice ages so far, and with that comes at least 5 warming periods, all with out all the emissions of man. When we better understand the earth's warming and cooling cycle and it's causes, we will better know what's going on with "climate change" http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/11-iceages.htm"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #18 December 19, 2011 QuoteQuote>So what's incorrect? "Rainforests are starving to death because we have reduced our Carbon Dioxide emissions." They are in fact increasing, and in fact rainforests do not need anthropogenic CO2 emissions to survive. How can you be so sure? Can you prove that trees can differentiate between CO2 Sources? Can you prove that trees don't have souls? Or, for that matter, Soul? Run, forrest, run! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #19 December 19, 2011 Quote Can you prove that trees don't have souls? Or, for that matter, Soul? Run, forrest, run! Well, son of a beech. The birch society may have something to say about that. The alder I get, the more maidenhair appeals to me and my maleberries enlarge in conjunction with my musclewood when that cherry bustin' opportunity comes by.. My pawpaw always taught me to use the pecan but I found that a good shadbrush works just as well. Now, all you guys that pine for the ever poplar pussy willows take note that redwood is just as good as yellowwood or any other wood. You'll have more success if you spruce it up a little and clean your ash once in a while.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #20 December 19, 2011 QuoteThere are scientists that say that the earth has been through 5 ice ages so far, and with that comes at least 5 warming periods, all with out all the emissions of man. But those happened over hundreds if not thousands of years. We are changing the climate over a period of less than 100 years, which is abnormal except perhaps for an asteroid strike. Direct causation? No there is not. But there is plenty of evidence outside of the correlation. There's plenty of causation & correlation arguments to say that evolution did not happen either, but the evidence is to the contrary. When 95+% of the scientists in the world agree on something, i tend to listen to them. At least when they are found to be be slightly off course, they tend to adjust the correlations and/or causation theories and arguments. The non-believers simply have no evidence to support their claim except for the simple 'denial' of the causation. At any given moment in time there is a fixed amount of 'air' on the planet. And we can fairly accurately measure the amount of garbage that we are pumping into that 'air' at almost any moment in time as well. It ain't rocket science to come to a conclusion that damage is being done. Direct causation? No. Plenty of really good evidence? Absolutely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #21 December 19, 2011 Screw the trees! It's all about $$$$$$ If you make your life more efficient you will consume less energy and thus spend less $$$$ on energy. And every $$$$ in your pocket makes your life easier! yeah so what some trees don't get cut down. you now hoave more $$$$ in your pocket because you turned off the lights.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #22 December 19, 2011 >you now hoave more $$$$ in your pocket because you turned off the lights. Or just used better lights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 December 19, 2011 QuoteQuote CO2 emissions have caused the decline of pirates in the Caribbean. If you look at the amount of CO2 in the world and the number of pirates in the Caribbean over the past couple centuries it is obvious that industry causes pirates to go away.....right? Ding, Ding, ding,.... We have a winner. Global warming alarmists are all dealing in Correlation right now and not causation. There are a lot of things going on at the same time, but sense they don't understand how the earth react to input because of all the variables, there is nothing sound. You do realize that everyone else is treating this thread like a joke, no? It's intellectually dishonest, or wildly ignorant, to think that their level of modeling is remotely near pirates versus carbon dioxide. It's very easily demonstrated that adding CO2 to a closed system results in a temperature increase. This is not correlation, this is causation. The world has more variables - more C02 can mean more cloud cover and rain, which could ameliorate the change. Still, there's not much question that there has been some increase in temperature in the past century. There's more honest debate on the significance and quantity of the change. Which leads to the second answer - that this would happen anyway as we're exiting an ice age from a few hundred years back, or the major one 10000 years ago. Which starts to collide a bit with the first argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #24 December 19, 2011 Quote When 95+% of the scientists in the world agree on something, i tend to listen to them. At least when they are found to be be slightly off course, they tend to adjust the correlations and/or causation theories and arguments. Agreed. However, I wouldn't say 95% of the scientists out there agree with man made global warming. Maybe a little closer to 60-40 with 60% being pro and 40% being against. That can be broken down even further by who's funding the scientists. Before I start sacrificing my kids in the name of global warming, I do want a little more."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #25 December 19, 2011 Quote>you now hoave more $$$$ in your pocket because you turned off the lights. Or just used better lights. I use bee's wax candles...."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
