UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There are DEAD SPOTS in the oceans. This can in no way be seen to be a natural phenomena or a good thing.

Of course there are. Just as some places have a lot more sealife than others. A lot of the deep ocean is fairly desolate compared to continental shelfs.

Desolate areas are not dead spots. Amazingly, there is a myriad of single cell organisms etc in the 'deep ocean's' they are not lifeless like the moon. The man made 'dead spots' are just that, and are in general on the surface of the oceans. However, head in sand - jam as you wish Alien.

Never claimed the deep ocean was lifeless but I did clear stately that shallower waters held more biodiversity than the open sea.

"The largest ecosystems in the major ocean basins are subtropical gyres, large-scale regions of winds and currents with low chlorophyll for plant and animal growth. These areas cover 40 percent of Earth's surface and in nine years have expanded 10 to 25 times faster than global-warming models predict, the scientists said."

Obviously, there was a huge amount of ocean with a lot less life before the expansion of these "deserts" but my guess is you haven't looked at a globe lately, if ever.

http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/02/2...ws/story02.html

So what point were you making then?

The point was that a lack of biodiversity in most of the deep oceans is the norm for 40% of the Earth's surface BEFORE global warming.

Deep oceans = depth. Less photosynthetic biomass. AS for shallow zones, there tends to be less biomass much in the same way you see less land animals grazing in the middle of an open field. This is because of the existence of something most of us learned in grade school: the food chain. Or late grade school/early middle school: nutrient cycles.

And what measures of global warming are we referring to- since some folks refute it altogether?

Also I thought that the dead spots were related almost exclusively to agricultural fertilisers.

[NickD 203]

So even if, let's just say the sun is to blame, or the position of the planet and the poles, well, that does not erase nor negate man's pollution-making destructive ways.

We should use clean sources of energy and not polute. I have always said that. I probably recycle the most on VJ.

The only thing you and I recycle is garbage so why aren't you asking the question as to why we are buying a ton of garbage? I will more than happy to return a perfectly reusable glass container and that Chinese electronic ####### our stores are loaded with, well, they can send that back to China and keep it there. Replacement parts are extremely unreasonable, some cost more than what you originally paid for the appliance, so why aren't you screaming?

First thing about global warming and what mother earth spews out as to be understood. We don't even know if what we consider pollutants are necessary for the earth to survive. After all, we are new to this 5 billion year old earth and it managed quite fine without us.

Do object to importing crude oil, however, costing our nation not only in bucks, but causing wars and the deaths and injuries to our young. We have plenty of alternative sources here like natural gas and methane, like over a six thousand year supply and much cleaner that crude oil. Ever look inside of an engine, then you know what I am talking about. Perhaps in 6,000 years, we could develop a good battery and nuclear fusion for an infinite supply of energy. But not with an oil controlled government. That is the key problem.

The plastics we get from crude are not biodegradable.

[joelunchbox 0]

Thought they were going to talk about global warming but it appears to be more about economic development of third world countries. i.e. Opportunities for their countries to make a profit off of someone else.

And their basic argument appears to be: Man is too small to effect the ecological system of the earth.

so, let's cut down all the trees, keep spewing pollutants into the atmospere because apparently WE DON'T MATTER IN THEIR EQUATION.

Does anyone see the illogic in that besides me?

Forget the term Global Warming, let's think of something to represent leaving the earth in good shape for our kids and grandkids.