Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Субъект: Re: You gave some examples but it's not clear if they are or were subsidized or not. And in case there is any misunderstanding, I'm talking about government subsidies... not investors capital.
(V): "When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming."
[[ ?? are you sure? I know the sulphur gasses given out by volcano's 'reflects' sunlight.]]
If that's true then those sulphur gasses would be reflecting sunlight away from earth, not reflecting the radiant energy back, which I presume is what some scientists are saying CO2 does.
The earth is a very complex system, and comparing water vapor and other gasses in the atmosphere to a greenhouse as the main or only cause of weather change is an oversimplification. And yes, when Ice core samples were taken they concluded carbon dioxide in the atmosphere preceded global warming. Later tests revealed the opposite, higher concentrations of CO2 followed periods of global warming. This makes sense, because during periods of warming there is more plant activity and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas.