The global warming scam is just another scheme to impose a socialist dictatorship on the entire world. The facts support the existence of the scam not the climate change.

The global warming scam is just another scheme to impose a socialist dictatorship on the entire world. The facts support the existence of the scam not the climate change.

#1 | Posted by Constuct at 2009-11-11 12:09 PM | Reply |

Let me put to you this notion.

That climate change/global warming is real. And yet the solutions presented thus far is a scam.

"Climate change" ought to be a no brainer. And is yet another area where the Chinese are way ahead of us. Even despite being just about the biggest polluters on the planet.

But what a sad state of affairs we have. The left believes the scam is the solution, and the right doesn't believe.

All I ever see on these subjects is a bunch of people missing the mark.

Arctic ice lowest ever for this date,
nsidc.org

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#2 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-11-11 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

you laugh at the strangest shit

...a new study says newly-exposed areas of sea are now soaking up some of the carbon gas that causes the problem.

The key word here is 'some'. Unfortunately carbon accumulation in the atmosphere is still on the rise.

We can't even win a little war in Iraq and these paranoid lunatics think they are trying to impose a socialist dictatorship over the entire planet????

Hilarious.

It's all BS, one month they will scream bloody murder, Global Warming, and next month the so called XXXperts will scream we are going to have another Ice Age, all propaganda and warped polotics created by lying DEMS.

Since there is no global warming, but in fact a new ice age, we think Obama stole the ice.

Rush and the Limbettes.

It's all BS, one month they will scream bloody murder, Global Warming, and next month the so called XXXperts will scream we are going to have another Ice Age, all propaganda and warped polotics created by lying DEMS.
#7 | Posted by Dr_Feelgood

Only if you have time machine going back to well before the use of computers and believe that the term "all" means "10% of the scientists in the 60's and 70's". Otherwise you are a moron.

you laugh at the strangest shit

#4 | Posted by boojiboy at 2009-11-11 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag
You are the strangest shit!

Only if you have time machine going back to well before the use of computers...

You can't expect a doctor of pot to understand the dimension of time.

There is a down side to CO2 absorption in sea water. It is food for phytoplankton but it also creates carbonic acid which kills off the krill or the food of the whales and many other sea creatures. The net effect is definitely on the down side.

#10 | Posted by reinsurelaw at 2009-11-11 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag: I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?

just ask al bore how much money can be made on this scam,i think when al's done he will have reaped about a billion $

just ask al bore how much money can be made on this scam,i think when al's done he will have reaped about a billion $

#14 | Posted by semtex111 at 2009-11-11 06:14 PM | Reply |

In another instance, I'm lead to believe by his haters that no one is buying his BS and thus hes not making money.

Pick a side of the fence and stick with it.

What I'm curious about though is how is he making money on this? Is it all that documentary? And books? Is he personally selling carbon credits?

A Gore is a capitalist investor. He makes money by investing in green technology. Now guess who is paying attention? The oil companies!!!

al gore will come and give you a speech on global warming for 200,000 dollars a pop.

^.^

"The global warming scam is just another scheme to impose a socialist dictatorship on the entire world. The facts support the existence of the scam not the climate change."

Global warming is BS. Climate change happens all the time, both warming and cooling, and it is stupid to assume that a): the climate will not change in the future, b): that the climate that humans have experienced since the Little Ice Age are the norm, and finally, c): that humans have much impact on the global climate.

The science and weather patterns over the past few years have indicated that the global temperatures have levelled off, and started to cool down, yet the climate change fanatics, I call them environuts, still rant about the scientific "consensus" and how we're running out of time to save the planet. I've got news for ya folks, as George Carlin used to say, "The planet's fine ... the people are fucked."

And yet, Obummer and his ilk will go over to Copenhagen and sign an environment bill that will do a LOT of damage to the American economy, while both China and India do nothing. All for a hoax.

JEB

al gore will come and give you a speech on global warming for 200,000 dollars a pop.

Palin will give you a speech on her ability to lie like a cheap rug for half that. And she's got better tits. John MCain will pay you 200,000 if you promise to listen to him and stay off his damn lawn.

You could get the entire GOP caucus to have sex with barbed wire for 200,000 and still have enough left over to buy them bandages.

This just in.

Al Gore is finally exposed as a charlatan!

There is no proof of this. You do not know this to be true and it cannot be tested using the scientific method.

A website or person saying so doesn't make it proof of it's existence. "ie God".

just ask al bore how much money can be made on this scam,i think when al's done he will have reaped about a billion $

And how much does ExxonMobil reap from oil? Their revenue for 2008 were half a trillion dollars. Of course oil isn't a "scam." It's a proven source of energy and also the reason behind 9/11 and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which cost us another half a trillion and then some.

Apparently you're okay with somebody making billions of dollars in the energy market so long as there's war and thousands of dead Americans too.

Fuck off and die.

Snoofy easy on the language!!!

Goodness.

ANOTHER ARTICLE BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE POLLUTERS OF THE WORLD.

Bullshit writers bending conclusions from bullshit paid-off 'scientists' to make you keep driving SUVs and voting republican.

Same writers and scientists who were telling you 20 years ago that cigarettes arent so bad.

Climate change happens all the time,

The question is why is it changing so much quicker now than in the past?

and even the Little Ice Age was in part manmade:
Anthropogenic influences

William Ruddiman has proposed that somewhat reduced populations of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during and after the Black Death caused a decrease in agricultural activity. He suggests reforestation took place, allowing more carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere, which may have been a factor in the cooling noted during the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further hypothesizes that a reduced population in the Americas after European contact in the early 1500s could have had similar effect.[44] A 2008 study of sediment cores and soil samples further suggests that carbon-dioxide uptake via reforestation in the Americas could have contributed to the Little Ice Age.[45]

Boojiboy, now there's a clever boy. Learned everything he knows from the onion. Bahahahahah!

Ringmaster!!!!

They wouldn't print it if it wasn't true!!!!!!!

More from those purveyors of absolute truth:

But seriously folks:

Northguy. As I understand things (qualifier)

1. when plants are young, they tend to absorb CO2. Its food to a growing plant. When a plant gets older, like me, they stop absorbing CO2 and actually start contributing to CO2 in the air. So wouldn't the cycle of farming actually take in CO2 rather than give off CO2? Thereby decreasing the warming?

2. Now the human population world wide at the time of the little ice age was roughly 300 million, or 4% of what it is today, and there was NO industry and NO burning of fossil fuels at the time, is this guy really claiming that a disease which effected Europe and the middle eastern portions of that population actually changed the weather?

I don't know. Same date, different interpretation I guess.

Fuck off and die.

Good grief. How angry can the libtards get?

Liberalism is like a disease. It already has done in California as that state is flat out of money. New York is not far behind as they also are on the verge of going bankrupt. These problems were all created by liberal "spend like crazy and tax the shit out of everything" policies! Liberal politicians are leeches that suck the blood out of productive American people and businesses!

What Global Warming!???? The earth has been cooling for the last 10 years and we are all freezing our asses off. If these hoaxsters pull this off and tax and regulate us out of existence, it will be our own faults! The weather changes and none of us will be around to know that we were totally taken in by these Chicken Littles bent on making a WHOLE LOT of MONEY on our stupidity. Follow the money... all the way to Al Gore's bank (even as he lives large in his mansions and flys all over the world in his jet).

The old liberal mantra: "You do as I say, and I will do as I please. . . cuz I'm just so much better and so much smarter than you are." Inconvenient fact: Al Gore almost flunked science in college.

...when plants are young, they tend to absorb CO2. Its food to a growing plant. When a plant gets older, like me, they stop absorbing CO2 and actually start contributing to CO2 in the air.

ZZZZZZt---wrong! They continue to absorb CO2 as long as they are alive. It isn't until they are cut down and rotting or burnt that they give up that CO2.

Also, 300,000,000 million people burning wood and coal for all their energy needs could indeed influence the weather in heavily populated areas. Have you ever looked into the cause of London fog and the recent rapid decline of that?

Inconvenient fact: Al Gore almost flunked science in college.

OK, if you say so.

kissntell flunked vice president class. So what?

It's funny that even today, with all the resources at hand, people still think Al Gore is claiming to be a scientist. He never did. He's just a good actor and ex-vice president which makes him an attractive spokesman anywhere he speaks.

Conservative bloggers hate this because nobody ever pays them shit to mouth off and half of them get told to fuck off every other post.

until there's ice more ice to melt.

and in a few billion years the sun will turn into a red dwarf and evaporate all the water into outer space. then what will we do? I better buy some insurance.

Uuuuhh rimjob, I mean ringmaster no you are fucked on that one. Plants stop absorbing CO2 as they age. That is fact

Also its 300 million, not billion as you just posted. I agree, london was a shit hole.

Uuuuhh rimjob, I mean ringmaster no you are fucked on that one.

Another shining example of the republican mind.

Also its 300 million, not billion as you just posted.

A billion is a thousand millions. We were both wrong, but I think you knew exactly what I meant...on second thought maybe not.

I do have to wonder why every time a discussion on science matters comes up, the right wing nuts always turn it into a cussing match. I can only think it must be extremely humiliating to always be wrong about even the simplest science concepts.

I do have to wonder why every time a discussion on science matters comes up, the right wing nuts always turn it into a cussing match.

You do realize a match has two sides, right? So if one side are the right wing nuts, the other side must be the left wing nuts.

And you said it was the right wing nuts who turned it into a cussing match. Reviewing this thread, I see the first cuss word was in post #22 from snoofy, a liberal. The next one was in post #24 from speaksoftly, a liberal. The next one was from you in post #35. Then finally in post #38 a conservative uses a cuss word, but it is describing London as a shithole.

So tell me, ringo, how do you back up your claim thatI do have to wonder why every time a discussion on science matters comes up, the right wing nuts always turn it into a cussing match.

You do realize a match has two sides, right? So if one side are the right wing nuts, the other side must be the left wing nuts.

And you said it was the right wing nuts who turned it into a cussing match. Reviewing this thread, I see the first cuss word was in post #22 from snoofy, a liberal. The next one was in post #24 from speaksoftly, a liberal. The next one was from you in post #35. Then finally in post #38 a conservative uses a cuss word, but it is describing London as a shithole.

So tell me, ringo, how do you back up your claim that

...every time a discussion on science matters comes up, the right wing nuts always turn it into a cussing match.?

I hope that by now, (after all, it is 2009) you do not believe in that Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW) nonsense. Logically, from AGW hysteria follows another exercise in politically correct stupidity, namely carbon trading shell game. It is obvious that, at least as far as the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) is concerned, neither the Democrat Party, nor the media, have the interest of Americans at heart. The ETS, amended or not, could bring great benefits to bankers, trial lawyers, pseudoscientists and other charlatans and bureaucrats, not to mention China and India, but only misery to American citizens/voters.

We need to do whatever is necessary to stop the ETS idiocy and protect our economy. Conservatives must insist on dominance of at least a basic science education in K-12 or this republic is doomed.

#3 | Posted by KnightHawk

Excellent post - it highlights my biggest gripes with the alarmist crowd: The solutions being proposed.

Absurdities like Kyoto and Cap and Trade will have an infintessmial (sp?) effect on warming (assuming the accuracy of the warming computer models). So, why shed our wealth when these measures won't do dick?

Bjorn Lombord, in his book Cool It offers up countless, common-sense measures to address the effects of warming that are far more effective AND far cheaper than shit like Kyoto. The premise is: Ok, the globe is warming, man is causing it, and said warming will have some bad effects (and some good effects) - so, how do we best address the bad effects?

Great premise - unfortunately said premise doesn't play well with the hyper-emotional crowd.

Uuuuhh rimjob, I mean ringmaster no you are fucked on that one. Plants stop absorbing CO2 as they age. That is fact

#37 | Posted by boojiboy at 2009-11-12 12:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Link?

Plants stop absorbing CO2 as they age. That is fact.

That's an unbelievably stupid thing to say.

First, you're just flat wrong. Plants absorb CO2 until the day they die. The availability of nitrogen is the only limiting factor of CO2 absorption in plants. Some large trees may get to a point where their growth rate slows while they lose limbs so they are both absorbing and emitting CO2. But as long as photosynthesis is happening CO2 is being used. This is third grade Eearth science.

Second, to presume to know any "fact" on instinct alone--because there is no way you've been taught that or read it in any credible publication--is so mindboggling arrogant you must have picked it up from some talking head and ran with it.

You and the pea-brained, reptilian douchbag you heard that from will serve Mother Earth much better when you're fertilizer. Hurry up already! The valuable resources of our closed system have been wasted on you. We need 'em back as soon as possible.

countless, common-sense measures to address the effects of warming

Well said. I agree we environmentalists tend to be absolutist. The prevailing idea is that all solutions must begin with limiting our CO2 output and anyone who disagrees tends to be shouted down. In our defense it is sometimes hard to tell the falt-earthers from the economically prudent yet aware.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, here's my take from a few days ago:

CO2 shouldn't be our biggest concern. Slowing down CO2 output is expensive and results are decades away even if we started yesterday. Plants can take care of the CO2.

If we aggressively attack deforestation, land erosion, and poor land management; (none of which cost a dime or threatens the economic status quo) the CO2 will take care of itself.

The problem isn't that we're pumping 27 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. OK, that is a problem but not something we can do a lot about. It is that we're doing it while cutting old-growth forests to turn into golf courses or corn fields, then the top soil erodes and we need massive amounts of petrochemicals to grow anything.

2,190 acres of woodland will be cut by day's end. Every mature tree we cut represents 27grams of carbon that would have been absorbed every day for the next 50/100/200 years. Plants are the O.G. "green energy". Their eradication at an industrial pace is our second biggest problem.

If only we could easily recycle the morons who think (don't read too much into that word choice) man is incapable of destroying the planet, thus ourselves into 2x4s or a nice nitrogenous fertilizer, we'd be set.

Blusky,

You are far too rational for this debate! :-)

Arctic ice lowest ever for this date,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#2 | Posted by Zatoichi

That said with only 30 years of data.

How did the WWII planes that were forced to land on the ice in Greenland get under 100 feet of ice in 60 some years?

Blusky--It is deeper than that. They aren't turning the rain forests into golf courses. They are using the wood to build for human habitation and economic growth. Their logic is that it is in their country, and they should be able to do with the rain forests as they please. Hard to fight logic like that. But the bottom line is that the rain forests are disappearing, and they won't be back. The soil that supports them is to thin for anything else.

The valuable resources of our closed system have been wasted on you. We need 'em back as soon as possible.

#46 | Posted by BluSky at 2009-11-12 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is not a closed system. The sun is an important factor, and its input is critical to survival. Take away the sun, and you have a closed system--for about a week, then you have a dead system.

It isn't the carbon dioxide that will do us in, it is the frozen methane hydrates that will be the killer. It has already started to thaw, and it may be too late to stop its progression.

buf, has that chunk of sky that fell hit you on the head?

#46: Blusky: Go fuckyourself genius:

To greatly oversimplify, true GHG offset calculations shows that a tree has a carbon lifecycle that includes CO2 absorption, CO2 storage, then CO2 emissions. Very roughly, in the first third of it's life, a tree will absorb CO2. The tree does not destroy or catalyze that CO2 to another compound or its basic elements.

In it's middle age, a tree will not absorb significanlty more CO2, nor will it emit CO2.

In what is roughly the final third of a tree's normal life, it will emit all the CO2 it consummed.

They are using the wood to build for human habitation and economic growth.

Not necessarily. Most deforestation is for the sake of commercial cattle ranching, one of the most unsustainable human endeavors imaginable. The resources of what was once a forest are just burned for cheap phosphorous.

At this rate the only thing left on Earth will be poorly managed grasslands, scrawny cattle, crows, cockroaches, corn, humans, and seasonal flu.

We're a resilient bunch. Humans will still be here when the CO2 is at 3000ppm and it's 102 degrees in February. I truly think our only hope is to find another planet to fuck up before it is too late.

Go NASA!

This is not a closed system.

I'm speaking of the carbon cycle. Dupont isn't manufacturing new organic molecules for distribution. Everything results from recycling.

And Blusky, the majority of deforestation going on in Brazil, Indonesia and Madagascar is not for cattle, its for palm plantations to produce palm oil. Because some fucking nutjobs thought biofuels were a good idea.

What a tool you are.

Booj,

Seriously. Just apologize and move on. I promise not to rub your nose in your own shit anymore.

CO2 absorption during photosynthesis has been basic scientific knowledge for well over 100 years. The fact that after searching to prove me wrong all you can muster is an anonymous post from another blog should be a clue.

Photosynthesis can't occur without CO2 uptake. [Full Stop]

Your ignorance is tragic.

Perhaps you have a child in the fifth grade? If you don't, ask someone else's child to explain this to you, I'm done.

Photosynthesis can't occur without CO2 uptake. [Full Stop]

#56 | Posted by BluSky

PLANTS; co2 in oxygen out.
ANIMALS; oxygen in co2 out.

Damn!!!

Conservatives must insist on dominance of at least a basic science education in K-12 or this republic is doomed.

Too late. If Americans had the same basic science education as the rest of the modern world we might actually see progress on this topic.

Your call for scientific education is quite ironic considering conservatives plug their ears and scream "AL GORE!" whenever the issue of climate science arises.

It's very well documented, in this and countless other threads.

And Blusky, the majority of deforestation going on in Brazil, Indonesia and Madagascar is not for cattle, its for palm plantations to produce palm oil. Because some fucking nutjobs thought biofuels were a good idea.

Remind me, when was the last time terrorists flew planes into buildings in Brazil?

I am opposed to producing food for fuel, but there is a certain geopolitical logic to it. And we do it here in America too. Though we tend to eradicate our old growth just for the wood and then replant it with more wood.

Let me put to you this notion.
That climate change/global warming is real. And yet the solutions presented thus far is a scam.

I thought this was the most intelligent comment in the thread.

Real solutions haven't been presented because industry is terrified of change and shouts down new ideas every chance they get.

It's no different than MPAA President Jack Valenti testifying before Congress in 1982 with his famous statement: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone."

He said that because he was protecting the status quo of a business unwilling to adapt to advances in science and technology. But he was wrong. Hollywood now makes more money from home movie sales than box office sales.

Liberalism is like a disease. It already has done in California as that state is flat out of money. New York is not far behind as they also are on the verge of going bankrupt. These problems were all created by liberal "spend like crazy and tax the shit out of everything" policies! Liberal politicians are leeches that suck the blood out of productive American people and businesses!

Does anyone see a pattern here? This is a typical right wing response. It is repeated over and over throughout the internet is some form or another, but it always has the same message and never ever hints at an original thought by the posterboy behind it. It's as if these people are driven by some inner voice that keeps reminding them that if they just keep repeating it over and over and click their heels three times like Dorthy in the Wizard of Oz they will magically be whisked back to Kansas.

Intelligent people see right through these pointless ramblings and know immediately that the writer knows nothing about the subject. It is merely the ramblings of yet another net-zombie.

It's like a rash that never goes away and can't be itched.

When the hell are you idiots ever going to come up with an original thought? Stick to the subject you dead men walking!

if they just keep repeating it over and over and click their heels three times like Dorthy in the Wizard of Oz they will magically be whisked back to Kansas.

And somehow when they get back to Kansas they don't notice the green energy wind turbines popping up like mushrooms all over the landscape.

How did the WWII planes that were forced to land on the ice in Greenland get under 100 feet of ice in 60 some years?

#49 | Posted by Sniper

How bout it zat, gonna answer that?

How did the WWII planes that were forced to land on the ice in Greenland get under 100 feet of ice in 60 some years?
#49 | Posted by Sniper

How bout it zat, gonna answer that?
#63 | Posted by Sniper | Flag: Challenging Himself To Answer His Own Question

We're a resilient bunch. Humans will still be here when the CO2 is at 3000ppm and it's 102 degrees in February.

#54 | Posted by BluSky at 2009-11-12 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag

There won't be 6 billion when that happens---or 1 billion. I doubt there would be more than 100,000. Whatever plants and animals necessary would have to be contained in an enclosed environment. Plants and animals aren't nearly as resilient as humans, however, human survival relies on plants and animals.

Bluesky #46 is an excellent post. Right now the only practical way to filter the CO2 from the atmosphere is plant propagation and ending the practice of wasteful deforestation practices. There are three practices concerning plants and forests that need to stop immediately on this subject and would help tremendously.

1-Stop all production of bio fuels. It's a vicious cycle of CO2 in and CO2 out. It never was a green solution. That was a Bush snow job to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Conservation methods are far more sustainable and SUV's or 4 thousand pound pickups for 90% of a family's transportation needs is ridiculous. That is a real problem.

2-Outlaw new golf courses. They offer no real green space for the masses and the chemicals used to keep them green is bad for the water resources downstream. In the case of Hawaii it is devastating to the reefs here. Why fence off millions and millions of acres of forest just so rich people can bat a ball around in a controlled environment? Screw them. They didn't hesitate to screw everyone else.

3-End the practice of building homes out of wood. When wood rots it releases all the carbon back into the atmosphere. Worse then that, wood framed houses are only designed to last for 30 or 40 years with the cheap construction methods used today. Building codes need to be changed to allow only steel framed housed or masonry construction. The use of wood should be limited to cosmetic surfaces and interior furnishings.

This will help with the stabilization of the planets forest resources.

But back to the subject of this thread. It was planted by another ignorant republican that can't see the forest because the trees are in the way, as the cliche goes. The planet is not going to heal itself. The article is nothing but wishful thinking with a "see, I told you so" attitude that's not even on the mark. Our future sustainability is at stake here. We need to plan how we will support a projected 10 billion people in the next century and that will take an effort by liberals and conservatives working together, and everyone in between.

How did the WWII planes that were forced to land on the ice in Greenland get under 100 feet of ice in 60 some years?

Stupid quote of the day. WTF are you talking about?

Planes going under a hundred feet of ice in 60 years?

It's a question nobody could answer. It that your point?

It that your point?

The only point Snippy has ever had is currently busy holding what little brain matter he didn't sacrifice in the last batch of his wife's head-cheese sausage.

Sometimes I think he is actually a liberal experimenting with the parameters of Poe's Law.

How did the WWII planes that were forced to land on the ice in Greenland get under 100 feet of ice in 60 some years?

G-d peed on them, because they're Nazis, and it froze.

#56 | Posted by BluSky at 2009-11-12 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag: You are not paying attention fuckface.

The 'net' absorption goes to zero as a plant gets older and becomes diseased. Yes wingnut, of course the individual leaves continue with photosynthesis throughout the plants life until its death.

Big revelation, wow! But it is offset by what the plant naturally sheds as it gets older, effected by disease, loss of limbs. Have you ever walked through a forest and seen the difference between the quantity of active growing foliage between the younger trees and older trees. Or seen a huge old oak that is mostly limbs with very little active foliage intact?

That is scientific fact asswipe. Its a natural life cycle that is well documented. And if you'd get off your computer once in a while and get outside and look at things you may actually see this for yourself

My point is that crops are cut down and then replaced before the plants full life cycle is experienced. Therefore if you continue harvesting relatively young plant life on a seasonal basis you are constantly renewing that agressive growth whereby more CO2 absorption occurs.

Anyway you should see a doctor. You have a serious case of fuckface-itis going on there.

And Ringmaster, the localized weather patterns around cities such as Rome, London, Paris et al were certainly effected by the coal burning and wood burning occuring there. But I can't see that a population at 4% of todays total losing 1/4 of its total population in Europe and the Middle East could have produced a fluctuation as great as the little ice age in the middle ages.

That is a stretch.

Ringmaster, by the way, your commentary on building materials is bang on. metal studs are constructed with 60% recycled materials. Every time I go past an apartment construction project with bay after bay of wood framing it makes me sick.

But the lumber industry has some very powerful lobbyists who perpetuate the cycle.

Lets see if our democratic administration can remain true to its ideals and shift the cycle.

That is scientific fact asswipe....Anyway you should see a doctor. You have a serious case of fuckface-itis going on there.

Intelligent debate at it's right wing finest.

Here's what you said that started this discussion, Dummy:

When a plant gets older, like me, they stop absorbing CO2 and actually start contributing to CO2 in the air.

That's foolish and I explained to you why.

Now you're coming around to the same conclusion I gave you in post #46:
Some large trees may get to a point where their growth rate slows while they lose limbs so they are both absorbing and emitting CO2.

Show some respect old man. You've learned something today. A little appreciation wouldn't be out of line.

You're welcome.

Therefore if you continue harvesting relatively young plant life on a seasonal basis you are constantly renewing that agressive growth whereby more CO2 absorption occurs.

So what? You think that's going to absorb the amount of CO2 we put out? Obviously not since CO2 levels are at 380 ppm and rising.

Global Warming is caused by liberal flatulence.