FOX News Channel special report, ": The Case of Global Warming,"

[dgoodpasture2005]

Actually Andre is quite correct. the method approximates the `natural’ process of sequestering. Nature sequesters CO2 in plant life, oil, minerals, ocean water, and in many other ways. Logging and the subsequent use of the lumber in construction, prevents the release of CO2 had the tree died naturally and rotted on the ground. Selective logging is a means of sequestering CO2 in regions prone to forest fires. The radioactive waste from natural Uranium fission is sequestered in minerals and slowly released into the environment (yes, nature made nuclear reactors but cannot do so presently having used up the necessary isotopes). Quite possibly humans can learn from nature and improve our methods of sequestering nuclear waste.
Your post is simply opinion; an opinion is correct only if supported by scientific evidence.
Earning my respect would not be much of an achievement, but earning the respect of Andre is indeed a worthy goal. I’m sure he would welcome the exchange of scientific concepts with a knowledgeable antagonist.
.

Yeah you're right, I'm done, you're just taking things out of context now and throwing them around... like CONTROLLED logging to prevent fires. You're right, both of you! humans have no impact on the Earth, we'll be just fine doing the things we are.. no need for change, and the proof is all around us ;) have a nice day. And opinion is not always correct if supported by scientific evidence... only if that scientific evidence also supports both sides of the spectrum(you shouldn't only look at things one way, we're here to find answers, not prove who's theory is correct). Which in this case, it's pick and choose on both of your parts because of a pre-existing notion that we aren't doing anything to harm the environment, and an undying hatred for the media, and anyone who uses any word ever said by them(regardless if they're copying the media or not, which I wasn't... I was simply examining the evidence you were throwing at me.. and coming to sensible scientific and logical conclusions). Take a look at ALL the evidence, not just what you think will win your side of the argument... neutrality, 3rd party perspective. Yes, all of what you say is true... but only because you apply it to your perspective, which is biased... as soon as i have a say, it doesn't hold... as previously shown. I know how nature works independent of human interference... unfortunately, that's not what is in question here. This is a serious matter, and should be viewed from an outsiders perspective, free of biases and pre-existing opinion or emotions. Just be an observer of the information, not a politician. No one is running for president here, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.. stand down.