>>> Animals also
>>> put more CO2 into the atmosphere than the combined human activity put
>>> together.

>

>> Got a scientific consensus that supports that, or that it is relevant to
>> the
>> global situation and would therefore negate any claims that current and
>> future trends in GHG emmissions by humans is NOT a problem in need of
>> attention today and ongoing?

>
> Since it's all carbon neutral it has no impact on any AGW conclusions
> but it is interesting that the biomass of insects is several or many
> times that of all humans and insects have a much higher metabolism.
>
> A person eats 2,000 k cals/day or 1/60th of a gallon of oil, vegetable
> or crude ~ 1/2520 barrels.
>
> 8 billion people X 1/60 X 1/42 => 3 million bbs/day.
>
> Crude oil production is 90 million bbs/day. Coal might be about the
> same order of magnitude of carbon.
>
> Assuming we didn't need the food web eliminating insects would have a
> significant impact on CO2 emissions.
>
> . . .
>

>>> There is not one shread of evidence to say why CO2 is thought to have
>>> the mytstical quality of increasing the temperature of air when the
>>> concentration of CO2 is only measured in parts per million.

>

>> Maybe, if your interested, you could read more about the subject?

>
> A lot of people have never done any basic engineering calculations.
>
> They've never heard of transistors or op amps.
>
> They've never heard of the lever.
>
> The concept that a "small" absolute change -- actually trillions of
> tons a year here -- can be highly leveraged is beyond them.
>
> I think about scientific ignorance and politics and peak oil and I
> feel like reality is crushing the life out of me.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>

>
>
>