1. Should CO2, the product of respiration, be considered a "greenhouse" gas? If so, why?
2. If, instead of cattle covering the plains eructing gases, we still had buffalo covering the same area, would the environmentalists be complaining that belching buffalo were causing global warming?
3. If Fred Thompson had not entered the race for the Presidency, would Mike Huckabee have won in South Carolina and thus be in a better position to capture the Republican nomination?
4. Why doesn't the government cut our taxes rather than offering a rebate as a stimulus to the economy?
5. Is cryogenic preservation in anticipation of future resuscitation when medical and scientific advances might extend life provide realistic expectations of at least temporarily overcoming death? Does such a belief preclude belief in a soul -- in life-after-death?
6. Do the Giants have a chance at winning the Super Bowl?
7. Are the current "deep-freeze" weather conditions across the U.S. a result of Global Warming?
8. Will China eventually invade the Middle East in a quest for energy resources?
9. If a Democrat wins the Presidential race, will we move further toward socialized medicine over the coming four years?
10. Do you believe there is intelligent life somewhere in this universe? I'm beginning to doubt its presence here on earth....
6 comments:
All that on your mind wow - I seriously doubt there is intelligent life herewhen I see the way this election is shaping up..Durn it
1. no
2. no
3. No - Thanks Fred - Mike is still in the race.
4. Should be done - Cut gasoline tax at the pump
5. Huh!
6. No
7. No - Global Warming is fiction in Al Gores Mind.
8. No
9. Yes - Obama and Hillary are concerned about themselves not America
10. Arkansas Ozark Rednecks - Intelligent Life
10-4 Willy
the last question is well put. Yes there is, I think. Because God, in the Quran, said "I am the creator of all worlds" .. notice that he mentions "worlds" .. which is plural.
I am reminded of a little card I found in a stationary store in about 1971 -- it said "Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life here." I used to keep that to stick on my office door on those days when students seemed to only ask the most idiotic questions the answers to all of which could easily been found in the syllabus!
Regarding question #1: Knowing how thoughtful your writing is, I suspect that you just "misspoke" in phrasing your question. There certainly is no scientific doubt that carbon dioxide (as well as methane) are naturally occurring "greenhouse" gases. It has been well established experimentally for at least a hundred years that CO2 holds heat. Indeed without its wonderful greenhouse effect, earth would be cold and forbidding like Mars. Howevever, as I suspect you meant to ask, whether one should consider a naturally occurring and obviously beneficial greenhouse gas a "pollutant" is a valid and important question worthy of discussion.
One has little doubt when speaks of poisons like mercury in electric plant emissions, or ozone at ground level from auto emissions, that one is speaking of pollutants. I personally am uncomfortable with labeling carbon dioxide as a pollutant (and having it be regulated as such by the EPA). My reaction to that is similar to hearing people talk about "bad" foods or "bad" calories. Food and calories are essential to life. However, I recognize that medical science has determined that there can be too much of a good thing, when it comes to food and calories. And medical science can actually define fairly precisely what the line between healthy and unhealthy is today.
It seems to me that the real debate is about whether or not climate science has progressed to a point that it, like medical science, is ready to say that too much of the good thing CO2 is damaging to climate health. Even more worthy of question is whether climate science has progressed to the point where it can determine what the line between healthy and unhealthy levels of CO2 are.
Sue: Sometimes the phrasing of a question is intended to gain information not necessarily apparent in the question itself. If my question was presented to a group of say, meteorologists, I would not have phrased it as I did. Or again, sometimes the phrasing may be intended to stimulate a certain thought process rather than a specific answer.
Understanding the readership/audience sometimes determines the approach. Thank you for your thoughtful and informed response.
Post a Comment