Study: Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat Abstract: Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres. Explanations for this decline include that plants under elevated CO2 grow larger, diluting the protein within their tissues; that carbohydrates accumulate within leaves, down regulating the amount of the most prevalent protein Rubisco; that carbon enrichment of the rhizosphere leads to progressively greater limitations of the nitrogen available to plants; and that elevated CO2 directly inhibits plant nitrogen metabolism, especially the assimilation of nitrate into proteins in leaves of C3 plants.
"Many previous laboratory studies had demonstrated that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide inhibited nitrate assimilation in the leaves of grain and non-legume plants; however there had been no verification of this relationship in field-grown plants." Source.
Over at WUWT, infamous Anthony Watts has an post wondering if 'science hasn't been infected with some sort of delusion about CO2' (source). He then precedes the above study with a video showing plants growing larger under elevated CO2.
The irony of his comments about delusion, plant mass does not equal nutrition. He didn't even read the study's abstract, which says CO2 makes plants grow larger but dilutes protein content. Watts didn't even link to the study's abstract for his readers. Why is that? I'll tell you, his readership depends upon ignorance: inability to recognize the counterintuitive nuances.
As if we needed any more proof his anti-science blog's primary purpose is to spread disinformation and propaganda, but there it is, again.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 04-25-2014).]
"The study confirms laboratory experiments showing that the behavior of reef fishes can be seriously affected by increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the ocean. The new study is the first to analyze the sensory impairment of fish from CO2 seeps, where pH is similar to what climate models forecast for surface waters by the turn of the century."
""These results verify our laboratory findings," said Danielle Dixson, an assistant professor in the School of Biology at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. "There's no difference between the fish treated with CO2 in the lab in tests for chemical senses versus the fish we caught and tested from the CO2 reef."" Source.
"Stanford University scientists have found a new, highly efficient way to produce liquid ethanol from carbon monoxide gas. This promising discovery could provide an eco-friendly alternative to conventional ethanol production from corn and other crops, say the scientists. Their results are published in the April 9 advanced online edition of the journal Nature."
"The new technique developed by Kanan and Stanford graduate student Christina Li requires no fermentation and, if scaled up, could help address many of the land- and water-use issues surrounding ethanol production today. "Our study demonstrates the feasibility of making ethanol by electrocatalysis," Kanan said. "But we have a lot more work to do to make a device that is practical."" Source.
Another Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – Top Prof. Declares: ‘Global warming is nonsense’
Emeritus Professor Chemical Thermodynamics Dr. Leslie Woodcock of the University of Manchester’s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science and a former NASA researcher, dissented on man-made global warming. Woodcock declared there was “professional misconduct by Government advisors around the world” when it comes to man-made climate change claims. Woodcock, who received his PhD from the University of London, (Full Bio here - les.woodcock@manchester.ac.uk) is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a founding editor of Molecular Simulation, and a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, has more than 70 published journal papers, explained: “The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis’ – water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04% – ‘Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it’s the gas of life. We breath it out, plants breath it in. The green lobby has created a do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion.”
Woodcock continued: “The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”
“If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.
“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.
“Its absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change.
“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory. Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
Another Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – Top Prof. Declares: ‘Global warming is nonsense’
Emeritus Professor Chemical Thermodynamics Dr. Leslie Woodcock of the University of Manchester’s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science and a former NASA researcher, dissented on man-made global warming. Woodcock declared there was “professional misconduct by Government advisors around the world” when it comes to man-made climate change claims. Woodcock, who received his PhD from the University of London, (Full Bio here - les.woodcock@manchester.ac.uk) is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a founding editor of Molecular Simulation, and a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, has more than 70 published journal papers, explained: “The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis’ – water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04% – ‘Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it’s the gas of life. We breath it out, plants breath it in. The green lobby has created a do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion.”
Woodcock continued: “The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”
“If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.
“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.
“Its absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change.
“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory. Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
I did a little research and found little else but right wing blog sites and psuedo news sites quoting this guy. I read his quotes and nearly fell off my chair when I read...
quote
“We can go back to great floods and Noah’s Ark in the Middle East regions which are now deserts.
Noah's ark? Hahaha
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-28-2014).]
...sorry, my mistake - I guess you know every scientist that there is on the planet.
quote
Originally posted by newf: Noah's ark? Hahaha
Here we go with the cherry picking.
So what? So this guy said that, maybe he is religious or something - going to hold it against him? Apparently, BUT it is a well known fact that the are many places in the world that were once covered in oceans that are no longer (not just in the middle east). But I guess it is easy to over look all that stuff as junk science too...
So what? So this guy said that, maybe he is religious or something - going to hold it against him? Apparently, BUT it is a well known fact that the are many places in the world that were once covered in oceans that are no longer (not just in the middle east). But I guess it is easy to over look all that stuff as junk science too...
everyone of the deniers is some old kook or a paid shill of the corpRATS [ like heartland is] or an ideologue of the hard right OR TWO OR THREE OF THE ABOVE sorry there are no respected working climate scientists who are deniers but lots of guys getting paid to be deniers SHOCK THE VERY THING THEY CLAIM THE WARMISTS ARE DOING I guess one reason they are so sure the warmists are in it for the money not science is because lots of deniers are getting paid to try and trash science while doing about as well as young earth creationists are at it can you say dinosaur ?
So, this Woodcock dude that Mickey_Moose has interjected (above) says:
quote
water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04%
I think that's a crock, and it's already been discussed here many times. There's a maximum concentration of water vapor that can remain suspended in the atmosphere for any given temperature. (Think "dew point".) Any water vapor in excess of that limit rapidly condenses as precipitation, which removes it from the atmosphere. This is why the water molecules that are produced when fossil fuels are burned do not accumulate in the atmosphere and manifest as an ever-increasing concentration of atmospheric water vapor.
Carbon dioxide is very different. The processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere are many orders of magnitude slower than the precipitation of excess water vapor. That is why the CO2 that is produced when fossil fuels are burned has been elevating CO2 levels in the atmosphere, year by year, for every year since the onset of the industrial revolution. Click on the thumbnail to see this image (from NASA) that captures this using the visual metaphor of a seesaw:
Carbon dioxide and other man made greenhouse gases, on the right hand side are the drivers of global temperature. Water vapor, on the left hand side, increases only because carbon dioxide and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases are exerting an upwards trend on global temperatures. The greenhouse warming attributable to water vapor is a feedback mechanism that transforms the smaller global warming effect of CO2 into a much larger global warming effect--but the driver is CO2 and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases. It's not water vapor.
If all the CO2 were suddenly removed from the atmosphere, there would be the immediate onset of another ice age--water vapor be damned.
So I think that what this Woodcock dude has to say is 100% a crock of you know what.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...sorry, my mistake - I guess you know every scientist that there is on the planet.
Not at all but I like to find out who they are if they make such claims. I don't just assume because the right wing blogs say he's ana authority that he is.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose:
Here we go with the cherry picking.
So what? So this guy said that, maybe he is religious or something - going to hold it against him? Apparently, BUT it is a well known fact that the are many places in the world that were once covered in oceans that are no longer (not just in the middle east). But I guess it is easy to over look all that stuff as junk science too...
So what? I don't know, if he believes in Noah's Ark does he also believe the earth is only thousands of years old? Why would he have said it? It raises many questions about the source.
Well now, who better to turn to on this issue than George Will. Seems like when he was talking about the media frenzy over global cooling during the 1970s, he forgot something:
Originally posted by avengador1: The Global Warming Movement Has Run Out of Gas
So, this Gary North's column may be on target about politics and about how governments react (or fail to react) to trends that affect the planetary environment or large regions on the planet. It's very weak under the category of Science. North links to only one scientific source: a blog post from July, 2011.
Here is the beginning of a more recent, and more complete (IMO) assessment, from August, 2013:
quote
The apparent lack of warming in Earth’s surface temperature measurements since 1998 is not yet significant from climatic perspective. Surface temperature also seems to be changing according to IPCC projections. Climate model simulations show similar warming breaks, and have done so even before current break started, even if they include the effect of carbon dioxide. Models also can re-create the current break and the cause for the break seems to be known: warming has gone to the oceans instead of warming the surface. The ocean warming has been observed. Also the continuing warming effect of greenhouse gases has been observed. Global warming as a whole seems to continue despite the apparent break in surface measurements.
Here's a sentence (just quoted) that invites further explanation:
Also the continuing warming effect of greenhouse gases has been observed.
Oceans are capable of storing heat in ways that interrupt the rising trend of global surface temperatures (the global warming "hiatus" that Gary North is talking about). It's like a coiled spring. The heat that has been stored below the surface layers of the oceans eventually reemerges and starts pushing global surface temperatures upwards again.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: "How could you tout global warming when it was the coldest, snowiest, bitterest, winter in 30 years in the United States"
I tried to watch the video. I made it to just after the one minute mark where he says the above nonsense. Seriously? This again?
Skipping ahead, just to see if he had any real evidence.
At about 7 minutes he shows a graph of global surface temperatures since 1998. "No warming since 1998" is a complete myth for several reasons.
Earlier in the video he accused NOAA of fraud, kinda ironic he cites them for evidence, even if he had to cherry pick to invent his evidence.
At about 7:15 he shows a graph claiming to be temperatures the last 2400 years, but he cites no source. Where did he get that information?
At about 7:30 he cites another graph depicting temperatures dating back to the Medeval Warm Period (depiction of the MWP in his graph is insanely exaggerated to be global), but no source. Where did he get that information?
At about 8:00 he shows a graph depicting CO2 and temperature from what looks like the Vostok ice core. Ironically the graph shows CO2 and temperature are closely correlated, rising and falling together.
Nope, no real evidence. Seems to be a theme with deniers.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 05-09-2014).]
Thanks, John Oliver always cracks me up. As we narrow in on the scientific facts here, I'm always thinking "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" except the ratio here is way more than 16 to 1. This from a procrastinator who usually puts off procrastinating. If science is right and catastrophic global warming is caused or increased by the increased co2 from fossil fuel burning I can sleep knowing that I unwittingly participated in that result. What I could not bear is knowing my lifestyle caused it and did nothing. I was born in 1941 and benefited from the industrial revolution and the wealth it created during that time. I really hope that we don't have to revert to the hard agrarian economy of most history. I am putting my hope for some semblance of our very nice lifestyle on clean energy and I have every reason to think that there is a distinct possibility of pulling that off. I see today that a new study has been released showing a huge melt off of antarctic glaciers and the part of that program that I watched did not mention co2 as the cause and was not optimistic about reversing or stopping this event. I will study this information more deeply to see how much if any effect co2 is having on this event. Since I have probably got only 20 years left if I'm lucky, there probably is not much I personally can do, but I do have a conscience and I care about my children and yours and I want to leave the world in as good a shape as I can. I'm not a saint. I just care and I think that living my life in the most comfortable entertaining way possible is immoral if I just put my head in the sand so that I can continue my lifestyle. I will be first in line to continue our present system if further evidence turns around the current theory, but the momentum seems to be more and more that man caused global warming is going to be very expensive and will hurt us all. I understand the fossil fuel industries desire to make as much money as possible and since our media is for sale we will be hearing from them that it is still unsettled science just as we did for years about tobacco. I smoked for twenty years and I was pretty sure that any smoke in my lungs was probably not a good thing even before the surgeon general informed us. In that case I was only hurting myself. If we discount the burden placed on our medical system.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 05-12-2014).]
I read and agreed with the comment right under the video. Rubio is not a scientist. Investing in clean renewable energy will save the economy, not destroy it. It's the future.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 05-13-2014).]
Higher greenhouse-gas emissions would lead to faster ice loss, and lower emissions could slow down the meltdown. But in any case, the loss of Thwaites Glacier appears inevitable, Joughin said: "All of our simulations show it will retreat at less than a millimeter of sea level rise per year for a couple of hundred years, and then, boom, it just starts to really go."
In its most recent assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that global sea levels were likely to rise between 4 inches and 3 feet (10 to 90 centimeters) by the year 2100. Sridhar Anandakrishnan, a geoscientist at Penn State University who didn't play a role in either study, said future IPCC estimates "will almost certainly be revised, and revised upwards."
"The IPCC projections don't really include Antarctic contributions to any great measure," he told reporters. "The results are just now starting to come together."
Anandakrishnan said future middle-of-the-road estimates for 2100 may well zero in on the top end of the current IPCC projection, around 3 feet. Without mitigating measures, that amount of sea level rise would inundate significant areas of coastal cities including Miami Beach, New Orleans and New York.
Seems to raise the question: Is it feasible to adopt any policies to try to slow down what these scientists are characterizing as an already irreversible sea level rise? Or would the "futurists" among us be better served by thinking about plans for civilization to continue living on a planet that is significantly more ocean and less land mass than we have today.
All that aside, these results call my attention to the idea (and it's been flogged here) that the Antarctic cryosphere or southern polar ice cap is either holding its own or actually expanding, in "defiance" of those constantly mendacious climate scientists and their endless global warming hoaxes.
These are new results for West Antarctica. Maybe someone could find new or relatively recent reports for East Antarctica. I would like to see a report that ties the West and East sides of Antarctica together into an overall balance, as far as ice sheet loss and sea level projections.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-13-2014).]
OK, co2 has influenced the glacier melt and we have reached the tipping point on that issue. The perma frost is another tipping point. When it melts it will release a huge amount of methane causing a runaway effect. There are other issues besides the antarctic glaciers melting that we can head off or mitigate. I may be wrong, but it looks like the price of ignoring the situation will be vastly more expensive than dealing with it. That being said, dealing with it in the CORRECT way is hugely important too.
The finest - a copy and paste blog post (with no comments of his own) from the Heritage Foundation.
This comment sums it up perfectly:
quote
Rubio delivers nothing more than a self-serving load of ideologue rot. Shucks, Herman Caine might as well be delivering the message, for all its worth (which isn't anything). Rubio delivers more mindless two-party blither and we already more than awash in that nonsense from both the left and the right. Where are the pragmatists? We need them desperately.
Rubio has just proved he is a lockstep self-serving politician, which is disappointing. I really thought he was better than that.
Manmade greenhouse gas emissions already are causing gloom and doom and adversely affecting our way of life. That’s the conclusion of the National Climate Assessment released today by the Obama administration. But before we trade our Buicks for bikes, it’s important to highlight the climate realities and show that the administration’s proposed policy solutions will drive up the cost of energy for Americans and have no meaningful impact on climate.
Although the planet has warmed over the past six decades and a broad consensus exists that part of that warming is attributed to manmade emissions, what we’re seeing and where we’re headed is not toward climate catastrophe. As my colleague David Kreutzer writes, the climate threats do not match up with reality. Sea levels are rising but not as fast as projected. There have been no significant trends for floods, droughts, hurricanes or tornadoes. Although the report does not address hurricanes, it does admit that “other trends in severe storms, including tornadoes, hail, and thunderstorms, are still uncertain.”
The report has a variety of serious problem. Many of the models the federal government relied on to promulgate these regulations projected a 0.3-degree Celsius warming over the past 17 years, when in reality no warming occurred (although CO2 emissions have increased). Since 2011, 16 experiments published in peer-reviewed literature found the equilibrium climate sensitivity (the effect that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have), is 40 percent lower than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the NCA project. In other words, a lot of variability exists in projecting what impact increased GHGs will have on the planet, which has serious implications not just for future temperature projections but all the other scary scenarios NCA outlines.
What’s most troubling is, even if climate change were occurring at an unsustainable rate, the administration’s policy prescriptions will not fix anything but will further harm the economy. The proposed limits for carbon dioxide emissions essentially would prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants and force existing ones into early retirement, driving up the cost of energy on American families and businesses. Higher energy prices shrink production in consumption, resulting in less income for families, more people in the unemployment line and less economic growth. And even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gas emissions entirely, we would not moderate the Earth’s temperature more than a few tenths of a degree Celsius by the end of the century.
Some of the NCA’s policy solutions are even more invasive. The report says greenhouse gas reductions is one of the co-benefits of replacing short vehicle commutes with biking or walking and reducing your red meat intake to reduce the amount of methane emitted from the animals we eat. Not that federal government nudging and taking away choice from consumers and businesses is new. Over several decades the Department of Energy now has set efficiency regulations for more than 50 commercial and industrial products, including everything from dehumidifiers to illuminated exit signs. DOE touts these regulations not only as ways to save energy and money for consumers but as greenhouse gas reducers as well.
What today’s report and the latest data show are that the cure for climate change, as envisioned by the Obama administration, is far worse than the disease. Congress needs to step up and stop the administration’s costly and ineffective solution to a non-problem.
Originally posted by avengador1: The 'Cure' for Climate Change Is Far Worse than the Disease
Citing the politically biased lobbyist organization the Heritage Foundation as scientific evidence is like citing a Phillip Morris blog titled "Quitting smoking is far worse than continuing". It's against their financial interest to be honest.
Read all the comments under your posted link. Every one of them disputes the referenced link.
avengador1 is a true believer and will post any nut-con LIES he finds never check for truth or facts just lie for the cause much like heritage foundation he quotes
I don't believe anything. I just find it amusing how easily you guys get pissed off over something that is out of anybody's control. Predicting climate events is not a very accurate science at all. We are lucky enough to be able to predict tomorrows climate with only a fair amount of certainty. How can anyone presume to know what the climate will do in the next month, year, decade, or century? Let's say that everyone in the USA devotes 100% of it's resources and efforts to reverse climate change. Do any of you know what would happen? NOTHING! Without the cooperation and dedication of the entire world population there would not be any noticeable change. In other words this "problem" is not going to go away or be resolved as there is nothing that can get everyone to cooperate. We would have to be facing extinction in the face, before some would decide to act, and then it would be too late.
I don't believe anything. I just find it amusing how easily you guys get pissed off over something that is out of anybody's control.
No, but its annoying when people deliberately choose to be ignorant.
quote
Predicting climate events is not a very accurate science at all. We are lucky enough to be able to predict tomorrows climate with only a fair amount of certainty. How can anyone presume to know what the climate will do in the next month, year, decade, or century?
You're confusing weather and climate, and there's been countless posts explaining how we "presume to know what the climate will do". Unfortunately, you've dismissed them all for no good reason.
quote
Let's say that everyone in the USA devotes 100% of it's resources and efforts to reverse climate change. Do any of you know what would happen? NOTHING! Without the cooperation and dedication of the entire world population there would not be any noticeable change. In other words this "problem" is not going to go away or be resolved as there is nothing that can get everyone to cooperate. We would have to be facing extinction in the face, before some would decide to act, and then it would be too late.
Yep, so we should just all roll over and die.
The US is in a position to lead by example. Other developing countries that are heavy polluters (like China) are coming around to non fossil based energy, after all, they have horrible smog problems and would be foolish not to do so. Between China and the US is about 40% of the world's carbon emissions.
The US is in a position to lead by example. Other developing countries that are heavy polluters (like China) are coming around to non fossil based energy, after all, they have horrible smog problems and would be foolish not to do so. Between China and the US is about 40% of the world's carbon emissions.
Not bashing you.
We are not leading by example. Especially when it comes to the China connection. I see nearly daily the two mile long coal trains that roll through Spokane on their way to the port of Seattle. This coal goes onto ships bound for China. IMHO this is a double edged sword. One, we are purposely selling off our natural resources that are finite, and two, we are supplying a known bad example (China) with a product that we know is not used to our industry standards for emissions.
We are not leading by example. Especially when it comes to the China connection. I see nearly daily the two mile long coal trains that roll through Spokane on their way to the port of Seattle. This coal goes onto ships bound for China. IMHO this is a double edged sword. One, we are purposely selling off our natural resources that are finite, and two, we are supplying a known bad example (China) with a product that we know is not used to our industry standards for emissions.
True, we are not leading by example currently (after all, our per capita emissions is still among the highest in the world). I'm saying that the US is one of the few players that COULD lead by example. Who else could do it?
I don't believe anything. I just find it amusing how easily you guys get pissed off over something that is out of anybody's control. Predicting climate events is not a very accurate science at all. We are lucky enough to be able to predict tomorrows climate with only a fair amount of certainty. How can anyone presume to know what the climate will do in the next month, year, decade, or century? Let's say that everyone in the USA devotes 100% of it's resources and efforts to reverse climate change. Do any of you know what would happen? NOTHING! Without the cooperation and dedication of the entire world population there would not be any noticeable change. In other words this "problem" is not going to go away or be resolved as there is nothing that can get everyone to cooperate. We would have to be facing extinction in the face, before some would decide to act, and then it would be too late.
I generally agree with your assessment here. I just disagree with your last sentence. "Some" have already decided to act and are acting and it's making a difference in emissions now. The big problems are the emerging economies (mainly China and India) but how are we going to tell them to do anything about it if we're not doing it ourselves? After all, we're the richest and technologically most advanced part of the world...
I have faith in humans as individuals, but not in masses. Collectively we are not doing our part for this planet. We rape it's resources to burn, and we will pay the price one day.
Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause, claims professor
Predicting climate events is not a very accurate science at all. We are lucky enough to be able to predict tomorrows climate with only a fair amount of certainty. How can anyone presume to know what the climate will do in the next month, year, decade, or century? Let's say that everyone in the USA devotes 100% of it's resources and efforts to reverse climate change. Do any of you know what would happen? NOTHING! Without the cooperation and dedication of the entire world population there would not be any noticeable change. In other words this "problem" is not going to go away or be resolved as there is nothing that can get everyone to cooperate. We would have to be facing extinction in the face, before some would decide to act, and then it would be too late.
