Pitfalls from speeding

Well, they are predicting New Orleans will be underwater in 50 years. That happens when polar ice caps melt and the ocean rises.....

 

Likely a throwback to the 55 mph national speed limit days...that state's way of abiding by the federal mandate while still having a real-world 65 mph limit. Speed limits got raised, but that law was never repealed.

 

So a class in ecosystems allows you to call out climate scientists, how?

 

Your one degree does not overrule the degrees and actual science behind NASA and NOAA. The actual scientists from the entire world all agree. All countries agree. If you're so smart, what are you doing in the trucking industry? They obviously need you at EXXON.

 

Those old growth forests may LOOK magnificent, but they are stagnant and terribly inefficient at processing the CO2 to make sugars and sequester the carbon as they release O2 into the atmosphere. Why? Because they are old, and not doing much growing. A young, vigorously growing stand will out-perform that old-growth stand any day of the week cleaning up the air.

 

Hate to do it but back to the original subject...

It looks like Dianetane is either getting bad advice or passing along things that he made up.

In regard to the EPA, in and of itself, fining individual drivers for speeding...it's not happening. Some local jurisdictions may be using that as an excuse to raise their own fines.

My friend has been with EPA for many years and he seems to think that going after multi-million dollar judgements against major polluters is a lot more cost efficient than nickle and diming Joe Trucker.

 

That's actually been proven to be false old outdated info. A 20 foot diameter tree will take on tons of new wood from carbon sequestration yearly whereas a 20 year old tree will only take on a few pounds of carbon.

 

Until recently it was believed only young forests sequestered atmospheric carbon in early growth and that old-growth forests were only sinks in which the carbon was stored. Recent studies, however, have identified that intact old-growth forests continue to take up carbon from the atmosphere even past the point at which they reach maturity. By measuring growth rates, researchers have identified that carbon sequestration in trees increases continuously because the overall leaf area increases as they grow, enabling bigger trees to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere. Older, larger deciduous trees reproduce more new leaves, thus capturing the most carbon from the atmosphere.

Source: The Role of Old-Growth Forests in Carbon Sequestration - Future Directions International

 

So what is YOUR background? Let me guess...ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/facebook/youtube? The problem with your alleged "science" is that there IS NO actual science behind it. There is no such thing as "consensus" in science. Science requires repeatable tests and actual proof...of which there has been none. What there has been no shortage of, however, are wild predictions (none of which have come true), forged data (NASA and NOAA, not to mention the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit's whole "climate-gate" email scandal), and many other problems with the data that you choose to ignore as they push hard for societal changes that just so happen to fit into their political agenda. These alleged "scientists" that you speak of, are professors and researchers at universities which receive their funding through government grants...given out by politicians pushing for the changes justified by these very unscientific predictions.

Hell, the Alaskan caribou population was supposed to have been decimated by the construction of the pipeline...and instead, it flourished. Why? Because the heat from the pipeline melted the ice and allowed food to be readily available for more of the year. The "scientists" were proven wrong, which fits quite well given their history. The world isn't flat, either, despite that being the "consensus among scientists" centuries ago. Consensus doesn't equal science...never has, and never will.

REAL science doesn't NEED consensus because it can be proven through repeatable tests. In fact, when a "scientist" attempts to silence opposition, it is a clear indicator to everyone that their claims are NOT based upon scientific practices because if they were, they'd have no problem backing up their claims to disprove the naysayers.

Funny thing, though, the more devoted to the cause a climate-change believer is, the harder he tries to silence and discredit the opposition rather than presenting facts to back up his belief. Kind of hard to do the latter, though, when the facts simply don't support your beliefs.

 

That's because New Orleans was build on sediment from the Mississippi River. It's been sinking since the first building was put up.

How Humans Sank New Orleans