Your article convienently forgets to mention that the production of oxygen is an ongoing process and that it is largely dependent upon a continuing supply of carbon dioxide. The demon gas carbon dioxide is necessary to the cycle of life on this planet and that will almost certainly not change. Were your magazine not a shill for the enviro-nazis you might have thought to include that fact. What happened to the magazine with which I grew up. Get a grip and get back to science. Leave the politics out of your magazine. If you continue to be a mouthpiece for a political agenda, you lose me and all those whom I can influcence to drop your magazine.

esareph

I second esareph. Where dose our O2 come from? Plants. What do they make it from? CO2.

Think about this... its ridiculous. I haven't experienced any noticeable trouble breathing under normal conditions recently. If we were headed toward not enough "breathable O2" wouldn't someone have noticed it by now?

I also agree with esaraph, if we appease the enviro-nazis then enviro-hitler will invade enviro-poland and when will it end?

Correct me if I'm wrong, But i am not understanding the comments from you guys. I read the article, and laughed that they had to answer such a dumb question that people are probably asking all the time that knows nothing about science.

The comments just reinforce the conclusion of this article, did anyone read anything beyond the first paragraph? the last paragraph says there is no danger from running out of Oxygen, and that even if we did create waaaay more carbon that we would still be fine.

Earth would probably erupt into a fiery ball of melted magma before CO2 overtakes Oxygen in the atmosphere... hah

I see this article as simply trying to answer a question a lot of people must be asking, and yet they get bashed for it? How are they supporting enviro-nazi's?

I agree with Zengrath in that it appears that you guys read the title of the article but not the article itself. It is answering a simple question and is actually settling worries about CO2 levels, not raising them. Well... except for the last sentence but what can you do about the truth?

@ Zengrath & Gravix - Then why did they end the piece with "And even then, the effects that action would have on the environment—more particulate pollution, hotter temperatures—would be far worse than oxygen depletion." Something the enviro-nazis have tried to brainwash people into thinking for years.

@ Zengrath & Gravix - Then why did they end the piece with "And even then, the effects that action would have on the environment—more particulate pollution, hotter temperatures—would be far worse than oxygen depletion." Something the enviro-nazis have tried to brainwash people into thinking for years.

@Bud- Simply to reinforce that running out of Oxygen due to increase carbon shouldn't be something we need to be worried about.

Just because the conclusion hints at the global warming issue, doesn't mean that's what the writers intentions where to support global warming. It's up to you to decide what you believe. Attacking the article on a conclusion that just reinforces that depleting oxygen by producing Co2 isn't something to worry about is just dumb.

This is all mere speculation since none of us really know anything for sure except that the sun appears in the eastern sky and disappears in the western one. Theories change through the years as we discover that we didn't know what we were talking about in the first place. Sometimes things seem to make sense, other times, well..... I think I would be able to fund the Wall Street Bailout if I could figure out how to harness bickering and turn it into useful energy. Anyone have a "green" use for political rhetoric? Politicians have to realize that people are not as stupid as they used to be. Even the dropouts learn something via osmosis and the Discovery channel. Remember, the air we breath is 21% Oxygen and ~78% Nitrogen. Then there's the O3 levels. Face it. We are pretty stupid when it comes down to really understanding things. So why not just shut up the pie hole and pay attention to nature, you may learn something. Remember, even the learned can learn.

Thanks "Mel Gibson" for standing up for the anti-environazis. Wait, what exactly is a enviro-nazi?

A. Someone who kills entire populations of people in the name of mother nature?

B. Someone who wants to BE mother nature through a facist governmental structure?

C. Someone who believes in using military supremacy to dominate anyone in the path of nature?

D. All of the above?

But, in reality does nature have a political umm...nature? Shouldn't we all be "enviro-nazis"? Shouldn't we all care about the planet?

AND BunkerBuster nailed it on the head. We really don't know anything more than what we can see. Even that is speculative, since you can't prove to me that you see what you do. Nor can I. So, knowledge is never political. But, continue to whine whine away.

We all understand the point of the article. But they could have just ended it without putting the line at the end that is basically saying that we are all going to died of heat stroke before we suffocate. The global warming tie to rise in CO2 has NEVER been proven. Believing in it is like believing in Santa Claus. The belief of Global warming is a religion, not science and has no business being in a science magazine. If you read this article and other articles on this site you will see the distinct leaning to the political agenda that is Global Warming.

Tell that to Venus.

and not the pretty one that comes out of a clamshell all nakafied.

Tell that to Venus.

and not the pretty one that comes out of a clamshell all nakafied.

Does Venus have the exact percentages of oxygen nitrogen and other junk that the earth has? Nope. Water vapor does more to heat and cool the earth.