De Blasio Announces ‘Meatless Mondays’ In NYC Public Schools Because Of Climate Change

[jc456]

to say that the 280 PPM of CO2 from the past has no contribution from man is the most stupid statement ever made in this forum. yet, the leftist warmers will tell you that man's contribution is only after the industrial age started. I merely ask you blind baby, do you believe that? At least you are being reasonable with your posts and I thank you for that. But to think that man didn't have fires burning every winter over the course of mankind is utterly stupid.

Holey Smokes Batman!

Burning wood does not increase the % of CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon in the wood as part of the carbon cycle, was pulled from from the atmosphere during its life. Burning, like decomposition, releases it back. Fossil fuel represent carbon that was sequestered from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. It's not the end of the world but we still need to plan to adapt.

Obviously the word isn't getting around.

EPA to give grants to fight cooking stove pollution

Science facts are non partisan. Stupid is just that, stupid. Burning wood does not add carbon to the carbon cycle like burning fossil fuel does.

post a link that backs your claim. I supposed the open sewers didn't add CO2 nor cow farts, horse farts or dung. I guess pre 1780 man didn't even breathe. wow.

Jesus, it not like it's hidden knowledge or anything......

"Carbon is continually cycling through all living plants and animals. Tree growth and wood decomposition represent a short-term carbon cycle, where growing trees convert carbon dioxide to woody biomass and decomposing trees release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Whether trees naturally decompose or burn, carbon dioxide is emitted back into the atmosphere, replacing what was just taken out. As long as global tree biomass production is at least as fast as wood is burned and it decomposes, the carbon cycle remains in balance; there is no net increase of carbon in the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere;"

Is burning wood carbon-neutral? - eXtension

In the article however they were wrong in their next sentence. "; most of it cannot be absorbed into the carbon cycle."

Observation proved otherwise. The biomass is absorbing about twice as much as they expected.

well sure it is added back in. it was burned. it made the CO2 level go up cause it was burned and there were hundreds of million burning it. adding back what it took out meaning that there wasn't intentions of adding it back until it was burned. no matter how you wish to spin it dude. I truly don't care. the fact is it places CO2 in to the air at an aggressive rate. when it is not expected. so again, what about the cows, horses, pigs and peoples poop? how is it that isn't counted for back then? ahh come on, you don't have to be skittish.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

but no evidence that man has anything to do with that.

Burning fossil fuel has been linked to the increase in CO2. However, the small increase in the earth's temperature that can be attributed to mankind so far is barely above the natural variability at this point. That increase can't be positively linked too as many natural disasters as the alarmist would like us to think.

to say that the 280 PPM of CO2 from the past has no contribution from man is the most stupid statement ever made in this forum. yet, the leftist warmers will tell you that man's contribution is only after the industrial age started. I merely ask you blind baby, do you believe that? At least you are being reasonable with your posts and I thank you for that. But to think that man didn't have fires burning every winter over the course of mankind is utterly stupid.

Holey Smokes Batman!

Burning wood does not increase the % of CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon in the wood as part of the carbon cycle, was pulled from from the atmosphere during its life. Burning, like decomposition, releases it back. Fossil fuel represent carbon that was sequestered from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. It's not the end of the world but we still need to plan to adapt.

Obviously the word isn't getting around.

EPA to give grants to fight cooking stove pollution

Science facts are non partisan. Stupid is just that, stupid. Burning wood does not add carbon to the carbon cycle like burning fossil fuel does.

Well they are making it a big enough deal.

I don't know how old you are, but we've been cleaning up our mess for decades, and today, environmentalists are more unhappy now than they were 40 years ago. I'm in the transportation industry, and what they've done to us the last ten years or so is unbelievable with all this green nonsense. I can only estimate that it has cost companies and individual billions of dollars collectively. And again, environmentalists are not the least bit pleased.

 

[BlindBoo]

Holey Smokes Batman!

Burning wood does not increase the % of CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon in the wood as part of the carbon cycle, was pulled from from the atmosphere during its life. Burning, like decomposition, releases it back. Fossil fuel represent carbon that was sequestered from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. It's not the end of the world but we still need to plan to adapt.

Obviously the word isn't getting around.

EPA to give grants to fight cooking stove pollution

Science facts are non partisan. Stupid is just that, stupid. Burning wood does not add carbon to the carbon cycle like burning fossil fuel does.

post a link that backs your claim. I supposed the open sewers didn't add CO2 nor cow farts, horse farts or dung. I guess pre 1780 man didn't even breathe. wow.

Jesus, it not like it's hidden knowledge or anything......

"Carbon is continually cycling through all living plants and animals. Tree growth and wood decomposition represent a short-term carbon cycle, where growing trees convert carbon dioxide to woody biomass and decomposing trees release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Whether trees naturally decompose or burn, carbon dioxide is emitted back into the atmosphere, replacing what was just taken out. As long as global tree biomass production is at least as fast as wood is burned and it decomposes, the carbon cycle remains in balance; there is no net increase of carbon in the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere;"

Is burning wood carbon-neutral? - eXtension

In the article however they were wrong in their next sentence. "; most of it cannot be absorbed into the carbon cycle."

Observation proved otherwise. The biomass is absorbing about twice as much as they expected.

well sure it is added back in. it was burned. it made the CO2 level go up cause it was burned and there were hundreds of million burning it. adding back what it took out meaning that there wasn't intentions of adding it back until it was burned. no matter how you wish to spin it dude. I truly don't care. the fact is it places CO2 in to the air at an aggressive rate. when it is not expected. so again, what about the cows, horses, pigs and peoples poop? how is it that isn't counted for back then? ahh come on, you don't have to be skittish.

The Carbon that is released back when tree is burned is equal to the amount the tree took out. So the process of burning wood is carbon neutral no matter how you look at it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Burning fossil fuel has been linked to the increase in CO2. However, the small increase in the earth's temperature that can be attributed to mankind so far is barely above the natural variability at this point. That increase can't be positively linked too as many natural disasters as the alarmist would like us to think.

to say that the 280 PPM of CO2 from the past has no contribution from man is the most stupid statement ever made in this forum. yet, the leftist warmers will tell you that man's contribution is only after the industrial age started. I merely ask you blind baby, do you believe that? At least you are being reasonable with your posts and I thank you for that. But to think that man didn't have fires burning every winter over the course of mankind is utterly stupid.

Holey Smokes Batman!

Burning wood does not increase the % of CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon in the wood as part of the carbon cycle, was pulled from from the atmosphere during its life. Burning, like decomposition, releases it back. Fossil fuel represent carbon that was sequestered from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. It's not the end of the world but we still need to plan to adapt.

Obviously the word isn't getting around.

EPA to give grants to fight cooking stove pollution

Science facts are non partisan. Stupid is just that, stupid. Burning wood does not add carbon to the carbon cycle like burning fossil fuel does.

Well they are making it a big enough deal.

I don't know how old you are, but we've been cleaning up our mess for decades, and today, environmentalists are more unhappy now than they were 40 years ago. I'm in the transportation industry, and what they've done to us the last ten years or so is unbelievable with all this green nonsense. I can only estimate that it has cost companies and individual billions of dollars collectively. And again, environmentalists are not the least bit pleased.

I'm so old......I remember during price wars gasoline could drop to 17.9. I remember RFK, but not JFK.

Down in Texas we probably don't have to deal with as many regulations as most of the country. I grew up in the oil patch. Dad was a geophysicist. Environmentalist certain helped decimate the domestic Exploration industry.

 

[pismoe]

Indoctrination of children is the Marxist way.

Child cruelty sending your kid to public schools.

De Blasio to make Mondays meat-free in schools

Used to be Fridays as a courtesy to the Catholics. What's the big deal?

------------------------------------------------------------- to me its the Principle and as another poster said in post number 275 . According to him Meat was still served as well as FISH depending on what a kid wanted according to post number 275 . This is the same as that other ' mayor pwick' Bloomberg telling people how big a soda that they can have OldLady . And as I remember , there was no fish served on Friday as a regular way of doing things from what I remember in Public School OldLady .

 

[pismoe]

and whats the big deal , its just the Principle of a 'pwick mayor' being Boss or 'king' in my opinion OldLady .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

but no evidence that man has anything to do with that.

Burning fossil fuel has been linked to the increase in CO2. However, the small increase in the earth's temperature that can be attributed to mankind so far is barely above the natural variability at this point. That increase can't be positively linked too as many natural disasters as the alarmist would like us to think.

to say that the 280 PPM of CO2 from the past has no contribution from man is the most stupid statement ever made in this forum. yet, the leftist warmers will tell you that man's contribution is only after the industrial age started. I merely ask you blind baby, do you believe that? At least you are being reasonable with your posts and I thank you for that. But to think that man didn't have fires burning every winter over the course of mankind is utterly stupid.

Holey Smokes Batman!

Burning wood does not increase the % of CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon in the wood as part of the carbon cycle, was pulled from from the atmosphere during its life. Burning, like decomposition, releases it back. Fossil fuel represent carbon that was sequestered from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. It's not the end of the world but we still need to plan to adapt.

Obviously the word isn't getting around.

EPA to give grants to fight cooking stove pollution

Science facts are non partisan. Stupid is just that, stupid. Burning wood does not add carbon to the carbon cycle like burning fossil fuel does.

Non-partisan? Certainly you jest. Where do you think the funding of science comes from? That's right, government grants and colleges. Which side of global warming are both those entities generally on?

When we go to work, most of us want to make our employers happy with our work. If our employer is happy, the more likelihood of us keeping our jobs. If we constantly disappoint our employer, we don't have a job for very long, or in the best case scenario, don't get raises.

 

[BlindBoo]

Burning fossil fuel has been linked to the increase in CO2. However, the small increase in the earth's temperature that can be attributed to mankind so far is barely above the natural variability at this point. That increase can't be positively linked too as many natural disasters as the alarmist would like us to think.

to say that the 280 PPM of CO2 from the past has no contribution from man is the most stupid statement ever made in this forum. yet, the leftist warmers will tell you that man's contribution is only after the industrial age started. I merely ask you blind baby, do you believe that? At least you are being reasonable with your posts and I thank you for that. But to think that man didn't have fires burning every winter over the course of mankind is utterly stupid.

Holey Smokes Batman!

Burning wood does not increase the % of CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon in the wood as part of the carbon cycle, was pulled from from the atmosphere during its life. Burning, like decomposition, releases it back. Fossil fuel represent carbon that was sequestered from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. It's not the end of the world but we still need to plan to adapt.

Obviously the word isn't getting around.

EPA to give grants to fight cooking stove pollution

Science facts are non partisan. Stupid is just that, stupid. Burning wood does not add carbon to the carbon cycle like burning fossil fuel does.

Non-partisan? Certainly you jest. Where do you think the funding of science comes from? That's right, government grants and colleges. Which side of global warming are both those entities generally on?

When we go to work, most of us want to make our employers happy with our work. If our employer is happy, the more likelihood of us keeping our jobs. If we constantly disappoint our employer, we don't have a job for very long, or in the best case scenario, don't get raises.

Nope no jesting. Facts, not theories or likely hood percentages based on long range models. Doesn't matter if the decomposing were Republican or Democrat. The carbon their decaying bodies release does not add to the overall % of CO2 in the atmosphere (neither did burning wood by cavemen). In other words, no matter how I feel that the decaying Trumpublican must naturally be adding many, many more foul pollutants into the air than most any other creature in existence, alas, science say no.

 

[jc456]

to say that the 280 PPM of CO2 from the past has no contribution from man is the most stupid statement ever made in this forum. yet, the leftist warmers will tell you that man's contribution is only after the industrial age started. I merely ask you blind baby, do you believe that? At least you are being reasonable with your posts and I thank you for that. But to think that man didn't have fires burning every winter over the course of mankind is utterly stupid.

Holey Smokes Batman!

Burning wood does not increase the % of CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon in the wood as part of the carbon cycle, was pulled from from the atmosphere during its life. Burning, like decomposition, releases it back. Fossil fuel represent carbon that was sequestered from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. It's not the end of the world but we still need to plan to adapt.

Obviously the word isn't getting around.

EPA to give grants to fight cooking stove pollution

Science facts are non partisan. Stupid is just that, stupid. Burning wood does not add carbon to the carbon cycle like burning fossil fuel does.

Non-partisan? Certainly you jest. Where do you think the funding of science comes from? That's right, government grants and colleges. Which side of global warming are both those entities generally on?

When we go to work, most of us want to make our employers happy with our work. If our employer is happy, the more likelihood of us keeping our jobs. If we constantly disappoint our employer, we don't have a job for very long, or in the best case scenario, don't get raises.

Nope no jesting. Facts, not theories or likely hood percentages based on long range models. Doesn't matter if the decomposing were Republican or Democrat. The carbon their decaying bodies release does not add to the overall % of CO2 in the atmosphere (neither did burning wood by cavemen). In other words, no matter how I feel that the decaying Trumpublican must naturally be adding many, many more foul pollutants into the air than most any other creature in existence, alas, science say no.

well isn't fossil fuels the same? it's decayed life form correct? tell me the difference?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Let's get angry about meatless lunches one day a week.

Lets not have govt socialists instructing our kids of what they should/should not eat.

 

[BlindBoo]

Holey Smokes Batman!

Burning wood does not increase the % of CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon in the wood as part of the carbon cycle, was pulled from from the atmosphere during its life. Burning, like decomposition, releases it back. Fossil fuel represent carbon that was sequestered from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. It's not the end of the world but we still need to plan to adapt.

Obviously the word isn't getting around.

EPA to give grants to fight cooking stove pollution

Science facts are non partisan. Stupid is just that, stupid. Burning wood does not add carbon to the carbon cycle like burning fossil fuel does.

Non-partisan? Certainly you jest. Where do you think the funding of science comes from? That's right, government grants and colleges. Which side of global warming are both those entities generally on?

When we go to work, most of us want to make our employers happy with our work. If our employer is happy, the more likelihood of us keeping our jobs. If we constantly disappoint our employer, we don't have a job for very long, or in the best case scenario, don't get raises.

Nope no jesting. Facts, not theories or likely hood percentages based on long range models. Doesn't matter if the decomposing were Republican or Democrat. The carbon their decaying bodies release does not add to the overall % of CO2 in the atmosphere (neither did burning wood by cavemen). In other words, no matter how I feel that the decaying Trumpublican must naturally be adding many, many more foul pollutants into the air than most any other creature in existence, alas, science say no.

well isn't fossil fuels the same? it's decayed life form correct? tell me the difference?

Not quite. The carbon they captured during their life was sequestered from the carbon cycle. When they died, their bodies did not decompose and release the carbon back into the atmosphere.

 

[Crixus]

Indoctrination of children is the Marxist way.

Child cruelty sending your kid to public schools.

De Blasio to make Mondays meat-free in schools

Also keeps the bean counters off his back since his wife blew $900,000,000 bucks, and his $700,000,000 that he threw in the toilet.

 

[The Original Tree]

The United Nations wants to impose a Global Meat Tax on the world, you know, because of Cow Farts.

And people like DeDumbAssholio and AOC want to implement this crap.

 

[BlindBoo]

The United Nations wants to impose a Global Meat Tax on the world, you know, because of Cow Farts.

And people like DeDumbAssholio and AOC want to implement this crap.

The UN can't enforce shit. They rely solely on member countries to implement anything.

Big Gulps (big giant drinking cups) for everyone!

 

[jc456]

Obviously the word isn't getting around.

EPA to give grants to fight cooking stove pollution

Science facts are non partisan. Stupid is just that, stupid. Burning wood does not add carbon to the carbon cycle like burning fossil fuel does.

Non-partisan? Certainly you jest. Where do you think the funding of science comes from? That's right, government grants and colleges. Which side of global warming are both those entities generally on?

When we go to work, most of us want to make our employers happy with our work. If our employer is happy, the more likelihood of us keeping our jobs. If we constantly disappoint our employer, we don't have a job for very long, or in the best case scenario, don't get raises.

Nope no jesting. Facts, not theories or likely hood percentages based on long range models. Doesn't matter if the decomposing were Republican or Democrat. The carbon their decaying bodies release does not add to the overall % of CO2 in the atmosphere (neither did burning wood by cavemen). In other words, no matter how I feel that the decaying Trumpublican must naturally be adding many, many more foul pollutants into the air than most any other creature in existence, alas, science say no.

well isn't fossil fuels the same? it's decayed life form correct? tell me the difference?

Not quite. The carbon they captured during their life was sequestered from the carbon cycle. When they died, their bodies did not decompose and release the carbon back into the atmosphere.

because we are burning it back into the atmosphere just like the trees. so no different. so not sure where you were going with it. My point was that there isn't any more human CO2 in the air today then there was back in preindustrial time. And noone can prove there is. At least I've been waiting on the evidence.