Grizz and Global Warming?

Question

Argumentum ad Ignoratum doesn't just mean "Because we can't prove otherwise, it must exist". More like, "there is no use arguing opinion".

Can I PLEASE ask what logictics class said that? Argumentum ad Ignorantum is an Appeal to Ignorance... just...

Global Warming is a reality...
Did I deny that?

Tell us exactly how you are going to remove CO2 from the atmosphere without burning oil to do it?
Solar Power? How about a SP UAV? We've done it, we have CO2 scrubbers in spacecraft. Albeit this is an ineffiecent example, taking in air, compressing it, and running it thorough the filter isn't that far fetched.
Hell, we don't NEED fossil fuels to run the nation... all a man needs is a good horse and some land to live on.

And if you listen to Al Gore's propoganda, he specifically states we can reduce current emmissions well below our current line.

And why do people ask for my credentials first, ingenuity comes not in a bottle, but in the mind in which it was created.

Just for the point of needing a conclusion. Grizz, a YA user, has some seriously faulty information.

I never claim to be fully right, but simple because the stream is moving down hill doesn't mean I can't go up it, with determination.

The fact is Global Warming Propoganda has turned people into idiots, and now anything with the word 'scientist' and 'Global Warming' is an acrediable fact.

I, on the other hand, mearly question the rational behind said science. If I require a PhD in the field for my oppinion to count, then so be it, I'll aquire one. But all I do is refrence known science (I try to make sure everything is down to the 'bare roots') and apply it to current theorms in effort to destabalize them.

Grizz here seems to think that being a director of nuclear fuel and engineering department makes him more credited than I. So be it, at which I leave another philo.
Knowledge isn't power. Power is the ability to ration what you don't understand with what little you know

Answer 1

CO2 will eventually stabilize itself in the atmosphere assuming more isn't being added than is being taken out by natural sinks. This is currently not the case. So to remove CO2 from the atmosphere we would simply need to stop emitting more than can be removed by the oceans, trees, etc.

I suppose people might ask for your credentials because you make statements contrary to mainstream scientific opinion without backing them up with anything. So either you have some degree of credibility in the field, and should be able to demonstrate this, or you're just making stuff up, and should basically be ignored.

Answer 2

I guess the easiest way to reduce CO2 without oil would be to step outside, plant a seed and help it grow. Plants will bank carbon and emit the oxygen back out.

Answer 3

As with your previous question, I'm not sure where you're coming from. There are several ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere that don't require the burning of oil. If you'd like more info please post another question, if I see it I'll answer it.