Stop-Oil in London today.

[Born Hunter 17,798]

8 minutes ago, Francie said:

Yes but we're not talking about nitrogen in rivers,we're talking of co2 born.

What will higher co2 do to the envoirment?

An sugar is not a nutrient,its a carb,there is no essential carbs lol

Sugar is a carb which is a macronutrient. If you’re going to deny it then we are literally talking different languages.

Yes we are talking about CO2, which as you claim is a plant nutrient, just like nitrogen. Your premise that because it’s a nutrient it’s inherently good is flawed, hence why I used nitrogen as an example.

If you don’t understand what the impact of high CO2 levels are then is there really any point continuing?

[Francie 6,368]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Sugar is a carb which is a macronutrient. If you’re going to deny it then we are literally talking different languages.

Yes we are talking about CO2, which as you claim is a plant nutrient, just like nitrogen. Your premise that because it’s a nutrient it’s inherently good is flawed, hence why I used nitrogen as an example.

If you don’t understand what the impact of high CO2 levels are then is there really any point continuing?

But it's not an essential daily requirement for humans like fat an protein born.

Iv not said its inherently good but its good for the plants,vegetation an trees,and makes them grow bigger therefore a bigger output of oxygen?

Do you understand the high impacts of co2 could you explain it to me because from what I gather the theories are there but we haven't actually observed what the say high co2 will do,have we?

[shaaark 10,896]

34 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Sugar is a carb which is a macronutrient. If you’re going to deny it then we are literally talking different languages.

Yes we are talking about CO2, which as you claim is a plant nutrient, just like nitrogen. Your premise that because it’s a nutrient it’s inherently good is flawed, hence why I used nitrogen as an example.

If you don’t understand what the impact of high CO2 levels are then is there really any point continuing?

 

24 minutes ago, Francie said:

But it's not an essential daily requirement for humans like fat an protein born.

Iv not said its inherently good but its good for the plants,vegetation an trees,and makes them grow bigger therefore a bigger output of oxygen?

Do you understand the high impacts of co2 could you explain it to me because from what I gather the theories are there but we haven't actually observed what the say high co2 will do,have we?

[Nicepix 5,650]

4 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

On a personal and selfish level I'm much more concerned with us as a species polluting and destroying nature than I am of carbon emissions.

Given that co2 emisions from Chian, India, Brazil............  are unlikely to be controlled anything the UK does is just pi$$ing in the wind farm.

[Born Hunter 17,798]

1 hour ago, Francie said:

But it's not an essential daily requirement for humans like fat an protein born.

Iv not said its inherently good but its good for the plants,vegetation an trees,and makes them grow bigger therefore a bigger output of oxygen?

Do you understand the high impacts of co2 could you explain it to me because from what I gather the theories are there but we haven't actually observed what the say high co2 will do,have we?

So only essential nutrients are harmless? Shall we consider the impacts of unlimited fat consumption or the myriad of essential micronutrients?

Mate, I’m not getting into such a big science based debate with you. Let’s focus on simple things like your implication that nutrients are nothing but good.

[Born Hunter 17,798]

9 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

Given that co2 emisions from Chian, India, Brazil............  are unlikely to be controlled anything the UK does is just pi$$ing in the wind farm.

I haven’t said different 

[shaaark 10,896]

34 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

So only essential nutrients are harmless? Shall we consider the impacts of unlimited fat consumption or the myriad of essential micronutrients?

Mate, I’m not getting into such a big science based debate with you. Let’s focus on simple things like your implication that nutrients are nothing but good.

obtuse. 

[Born Hunter 17,798]

6 minutes ago, shaaark said:

obtuse. 

[shaaark 10,896]

7 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Just being a tad jocular, fella lol.

You make some very good points, as does francie. 

[DIDO.1 22,844]

Your arguing about fck all. It doesn't matter if co2 is good, bad or indifferent. China just built 3 more coal fired power stations while we continued to fill their order books for things we could produce, only now it also needs transporting around the world.

Smoke and mirrors 

[tatsblisters 10,149]

I know a lot don't agree with Arthur Scargill but when he said years ago we should invest in clean coal burning technology maybe we would not be in this predicament now with rising fuel costs.

[dai dogs 1,551]

I couldn’t be f****d reading all the comments but at least they are trying to make a statement unlike most 

[WILF 47,398]

6 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

Just because something is a nutrient doesn't mean that it only does good and therefore the more the better. Nitrogen is a plant nutrient and look what unlimited quantities of that does to river systems. Sugar is a nutrient for us, a look what unlimited sugar intake does to us.

Reducing CO2 won't stop plants growing. Reducing atmospheric CO2 to nothing would, but no one is suggesting we do that. 

There’s a difference between soluble chemical nitrogen in the river and plant that fix nitrogen in the ground I believe mate…..but you are way better educated than me so I am happy to be corrected 

[Born Hunter 17,798]

3 minutes ago, WILF said:

There’s a difference between soluble chemical nitrogen in the river and plant that fix nitrogen in the ground I believe mate…..but you are way better educated than me so I am happy to be corrected 

My point was though that an excess of that nutrient causes ecological damage. The fact it’s a nutrient doesn’t make it intrinsically good. Nature is about balance, tipping that balance causes a cascade.

I’m not going to change anyones mind on climate science or climate politics, just like I wasn’t with vaccination etc. Such big science topics are pointless endeavours on here. They go round in circles. But much simpler topics can be more easily discussed. 

[Nicepix 5,650]

31 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

My point was though that an excess of that nutrient causes ecological damage. The fact it’s a nutrient doesn’t make it intrinsically good. Nature is about balance, tipping that balance causes a cascade.

I’m not going to change anyones mind on climate science or climate politics, just like I wasn’t with vaccination etc. Such big science topics are pointless endeavours on here. They go round in circles. But much simpler topics can be more easily discussed. 

Like .177 or .22 or is a whippet beddy up to red stags?