On Jan 27, 2:28Â*am, literal
wrote:
In ,
on Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:43:29 -0800 (PST), john fernbach,

wrote:
We END all human-generated CO2 and methane emissions, and END human
involvement in tropical deforestation, etc., on the grounds that this
ALSO means working for "some sort of artificial man-controlled
climate" -- just not a stable one.

Does that work for you?

Â* You do realize that after we inhale oxygen, we
exhale COâ‚‚. Â*Seems sort of extreme, but I guess there
are those of you who believe that humans are a blight
on the earth and deserve to be the next extinct species.

Â* Since you seem to be volunteering... what's your
prefered method for your own extinction?

Huh? I suggest that we work for a "Goldilocks" world, neither too hot
nor too cold, because that's best for human civilization, and you're
interpreting that as my preferring my own extinction?

Get real. Or if you're sincere here and not simply making a fake
argument, please get educated.

As Marcodeast writes, one reason that humans don't promote "global
warming" when we exhale CO2 is because we aren't eating fossil fuels
to produce it.

CO2 obviously is a good thing in its place and is essential to life as
we know it. AGWers as well as AGW Deniers recognize that.

But the risk is that when we dig up buried carbon deposits -- coal,
oil, natural gas, peat etc. -- that have been "sequestered" from the
global carbon cycle for millions or tens of millions of years, we
have the effect of increasing the total concentration of CO2 in the
global carbon cycle. This has the effect of increasing the total
atmospheric concentration of CO2 (and let's not forget about
atmospheric concentrations of carbon embedded in methane, another GH
gas).

And in turn, this increasing concentration of carbon and methane and
other greenhouse gases in the air is the fact that the AGWers think is
now driving changes in the global climate.

When human beings eat food containing carbon, metabolize it in our
bodies and breathe out CO2, however, we're just taking carbon that's
already flowing through the global carbon cycle and moving it to the
next phase in the cycle.

We're not unlocking that buried carbon that's been deposited in the
earth in the form of fossil fuels, and so we're not putting CO2 back
into the air that's been absent from the air since roughly the time
that the dinosaurs and their favorite vegetation died out.

So I don't suggest that human beings stop breathing in order to fight
"global warming." What we need to do is to stop burning fossil fuels
and releasing methane; also we need to halt and maybe reverse
deforestation around the world.

We don't need the "extinction," voluntary or otherwise, of human
beings, IMHO. We need the "extinction," voluntary or otherwise, of
fossil fuel companies.