By clicking “Accept All”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts
These cookies enable our website and App to remember things such as your region or country, language, accessibility options and your preferences and settings.
Analytic cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.
What on earth are you talking about?
ScotInvest
As has been pointed out - if it "costs" the "government" - what this really entails is public money, ie yours and mine via the via the various schemes and ruses they use to part you from your hard earned - to, in many cases,wee up walls.
considering the size of the earth.
then consider the amount of land .
then consider the amount of desert.
then consider the amount of ice.
then consider the amount of rocks (mountain ranges , and such )
then consider the cities.
then consider farm land.
after all that how much land is left for trees?
seems to me not much.
seems to me, considering the size of the earth land and sea mass then we have from the ground up to the limits of breathable oxygen in the sky ,we dont need many trees.
im not say cut them down as i dont think we should. but im just wondering how much oxygen they help make and how many trees it takes to make it?
considering the size of the earth.
then consider the amount of land .
then consider the amount of desert.
then consider the amount of ice.
then consider the amount of rocks (mountain ranges , and such )
then consider the cities.
then consider farm land.
after all that how much land is left for trees?
seems to me not much.
seems to me, considering the size of the earth land and sea mass then we have from the ground up to the limits of breathable oxygen in the sky ,we dont need many trees.
im not say cut them down as i dont think we should. but im just wondering how much oxygen they help make and how many trees it takes to make it?
There is oxygen from ocean plants in the atmosphere, hmmm, which some say makes up for 50 - 85% of all oxygen.
Im not so fussed about the idea of humans causing global warming anymore as it is so difficult for even scientists to tell. It seems that there is as little evidence for GW as there is for a god having created the earth.
I am more interested in governments looking at ways to reduce emissions in populated areas making society a more cleaner and healthier place. Not them looking at earth temparatures and contemplating whether or not little ants like us are warming the earth.
[FONT="]Global Warming is a serious problem for everyone.I think that We don't need to wait for governments to find a solution for this problem[/FONT].
I heard yesterday that the weather we are facing now is a result of the carbon footprint 10 years ago?
yes NSven, they need to build us an ark (just in case).
A would challenge the idea that GW research is actually science.Its unfortunate when science becomes politicised and lobbyists direct the flow of funding. These factors occlude the transparent nature of science.
Science is only the first issue. The second is statistics. Who the statisticians are and what they are told to find also influence the results. Then there are the news people that add their own spin on things. Similar to the planet, there are so many links in the chain contributing to the problem.
Here's a graph showing the rise of co2 in the past 50-60 years fro 305ppm to 395ppm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...their-highest-point-in-at-least-800000-years/
Remarkably, global warming activists are spinning the ongoing rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, along with the ongoing lack of global temperature rise, as evidence that we are facing an even worse global warming crisis than they have been predicting.
Are you a spinner?![]()