Comments on: Reduce CO2 Emissions - Conservation International (CI)

By: SmartIntelligentNerd

SmartIntelligentNerd — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:39:11 +0000

i have a question: …
i have a question: several people state that humans cause 2% of total CO2 emmisions. yet scientinsts say human activites are causing global warming. so how can we cuse global warming if humans only cause 2% of the co2

By: FluorescentColours

FluorescentColours — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:39:11 +0000

Wooooo! save the …
Wooooo! save the world x

By: HonestBollocks

HonestBollocks — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:39:11 +0000

you what would be …
you what would be the solution abolishing technology, then everything would be fine but since humanity is too selfish to do that, and since you’re soooooooooo worried about the CO2 emissions here’s an idea shut your mouth and stop ing breathing, also if CO2 is such a big factor in global warming don’t you think the world would have melted by now with ppl yacking on nonstop, also CO2 is natural and i think nuclear energy is affecting the climate a lot more than CO2

By: ort777

ort777 — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:39:11 +0000

No reasonable …
No reasonable alternative source of energy is inexpensive. Wind is unreasonable and untested completely. People living near turbines are complaining of various illnesses - here we go again! Even if water was determined to be a source of energy, I’d probably hear that water is limited, am I correct?

By: laurens890

laurens890 — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:39:11 +0000

uranium is also …
uranium is also limited, just as fossil fuels. Also, to enrich uranium costs a lot of fossil fuels, so I think it isn’t the good solution.

By: ort777

ort777 — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:39:11 +0000

A quick question: …
A quick question: what is your stance on nuclear power?

By: ort777

ort777 — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:39:11 +0000

Since links are …
Since links are spammed, I would suggest you go to the most popular search engine out there and type in climate audit as one word. This is one of the many sites I visit and they’ve done a great job of picking this theory to pieces. For instance, the hockey graph - wrong. The nice placement of thermometers on parking lots or at or near exhaust vents to inflate temps - pics included! I have more sites and countless articles so I’m quite confident you’ll learn a few things.

By: SteveNordqu

SteveNordqu — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:39:11 +0000

Well, back it up …
Well, back it up counter to my interests then. Quick, before refineries all go to weeds and the Hillary Rock-Bleaching Council is on the march….

By: ort777

ort777 — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:39:11 +0000

Firsthand reports? …
Firsthand reports? Newsweek abstracts? Are we delving into deep science here? My partisan statements are done for a reason - this is a political issue. GW is also a religion. I’ve read up on this well enough to know that the pundits have changed from GW to climate change because the evidence isn’t on their side. Playing with the timelines to their advantage is just plain manipulative but honest scientists have shot this to pieces. I’ll back it up but you’re not interested, I know.

By: SteveNordqu

SteveNordqu — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:39:11 +0000

Sometimes I read or …
Sometimes I read or make more firsthand reports and evidence lines up much better than it would from conflicting Newsweek abstracts. Your close back there was partisan and declarative with no merit or aim, so your statements about Gore, who -is- an ad hoc legislator, sort of blow back on you.
Keep an eye on the roll of temperatures and fauna, and read actual working documents so lousy fixups do not land near you. A useful thing by you? Occasionally a common cause?