|
Post by duckman on Jan 7, 2009 5:29:26 GMT -8
www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/soot-reduction-could-help-to-stop-global-warming-1224481.html "Governments could slow global warming dramatically, and buy time to avert disastrous climate change, by slashing emissions of one of humanity's most familiar pollutants – soot – according to Nasa scientists. A study by the space agency shows that cutting down on the pollutant, which has so far been largely ignored by climate scientists, can have an immediate cooling effect – and prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths from air pollution at the same time. " This plan, which would actually do good (compared to the useless AGW wastefulness) but won't gain much traction because you can't blame America for it. That darn China and India again !! Too many of the ninnies that preach AGW confuse "pollution" and CO2, at least this article separates it.
|
|
|
Post by duckman on Jan 7, 2009 8:07:45 GMT -8
HAHAHAHA one of the ninnies "smited" me for this post
HAHAHAHA
|
|
|
Post by googoodan on Jan 7, 2009 8:49:30 GMT -8
I like how these articles throw the word "could" around in the title, but the article is written so you believe it "will" slow global warming.
Anyway, isn't soot formed when fuels are not burned completely? Everyone knows fuel is much cleaner when it is completely burned.
|
|
richard
Republican
Bacon!
Posts: 1,412
|
Post by richard on Jan 7, 2009 9:00:49 GMT -8
I like how these articles throw the word "could" around in the title, but the article is written so you believe it "will" slow global warming.
Anyway, isn't soot formed when fuels are not burned completely? Everyone knows fuel is much cleaner when it is completely burned. The Chicken Littles know the average person can't (won't) read past the headlines and automatically translate such phrases as "could happen" and "should happen" and "might happen" into "will happen". And Chief Chicken Little OwlGore is the worst of the bunch.
|
|
|
Post by googoodan on Jan 7, 2009 9:03:43 GMT -8
Oops, I left out the obvious part (apparently some people need it) complete burns = no soot = much, much less pollution.
|
|
|
Post by duckman on Jan 7, 2009 9:10:52 GMT -8
I like how these articles throw the word "could" around in the title, but the article is written so you believe it "will" slow global warming. Anyway, isn't soot formed when fuels are not burned completely? Everyone knows fuel is much cleaner when it is completely burned. There is kind of a "trick" going on in the article. Notice the report came from NASA. It has already been fairly well proven that if you put particles in the air (think volcanoes) the temperatures go DOWN. Kind of double-reverse psychology and confusion. (Don’t trust much that comes from James Hansen !!!!) I am all for ASIA doing their part in pollution reduction.
|
|
|
Post by floyd on Jan 7, 2009 15:23:16 GMT -8
Doesnt forest fires cause global warming???
|
|