Subscription Center
Feb 4, 2008 02:57 PM | 1
More News Blog: Next: How Harvard students perceive rednecks: The neural basis for prejudice Previous: The science of Superbowl fandom: why your testosterone level is up
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
1 Comments
Add CommentDenial of Global Warming; what a wonderful presentation. As many do, I find the presentation to be ever so informative. However, as a supporter and practitioner of heating with biomass, especially in the northern portion of America, I wish to have the following clarified: is Carbon Dioxide a pollutant or is TOO MUCH Carbon Dioxide the problem? In discussions about heating with biomass, I hear that as a result of biomass burning and its release of Carbon Dioxide, it is pollution. Is it incorrect to state that it is the Carbon which has been "sequestered" in the earth, in the fossil fuels, and is then added to the atmosphere, creating an imbalance, the problem? Thus TOO MUCH Carbon Dioxide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is documented that an acre of corn plants "sequesters" 0.8M ton of carbon into the soil in the 4 month growing season. The Carbon Dioxide used by the plant during the growing season is Carbon which is already present in the atmosphere, nothing added to the Carbon level total, but actually REDUCING the level via "sequestering". Is this correct?
If scientists wish to have a positive reaction from the public, why do they not use Mr. Singer and his supporters methods to get the message across?Virtually every American has formed the opinion that Carbon Dioxide is terrible. What do they exhale while saying this? How could life exist without Carbon Dioxide? There would be no plants for photosynthesis.
America is looking for the "Silver Bullet" to cure all. I firmly believe a number of "Bullets" can and would be accepted if the proper approach were used to explain. Without a brief and FREQUENT, in layman's terms, "WHY" explanation of biomass usage and the results compared to the results of fossil fuels, Mr. Singer and friends are able to easily guide the mindset of the Nation. Can't the message remain the same but the delivery be changed to achieve the necessary and needed results?
desofmaint