The Global Warming Hoax: How Soon We Forget

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by barneyrubble

Never engage in a battle of wits with a halfwit.

I know, I know. I'm agreeing with him partially. Forest for the trees I guess.

The increase in population has more to do with the inexpensive, nutrient laden calorie than anything else. Just raw food supply isn’t enough. Another factor in the population is medical advances specifically vaccines, antibiotics and trauma care.

Your article does little to bolster your aeration that rapid expansion of CO2 in the atmosphere fosters spontaneous plant reproduction. The thesis of your article, states that enriching the air with carbon dioxide will stimulate the growth and development of plants. Of course it does. Just as enriching the air a person afflicted with pneumonia breathes with oxygen will ensure the person recovers faster. I will give you this, the healthier a plant is the better able it is to produce reproductive seeds. But it doesn’t state that it increases the “birth” rate of plants that you claim it does. Plants will only reproduce at an organic, flat rate, the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is increasing at an exponential rate far outstripping our plants’ abilities to consume the gas.

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I know, I know. I'm agreeing with him partially. Forest for the trees I guess.

The increase in population has more to do with the inexpensive, nutrient laden calorie than anything else. Just raw food supply isn’t enough. Another factor in the population is medical advances specifically vaccines, antibiotics and trauma care.

Your article does little to bolster your aeration that rapid expansion of CO2 in the atmosphere fosters spontaneous plant reproduction. The thesis of your article, states that enriching the air with carbon dioxide will stimulate the growth and development of plants. Of course it does. Just as enriching the air a person afflicted with pneumonia breathes with oxygen will ensure the person recovers faster. I will give you this, the healthier a plant is the better able it is to produce reproductive seeds. But it doesn’t state that it increases the “birth” rate of plants that you claim it does. Plants will only reproduce at an organic, flat rate, the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is increasing at an exponential rate far outstripping our plants’ abilities to consume the gas.

i'm gonna regret reponding for previously stated reasons, but......

healthier organisms tend to reproduce more, and more successfully

reducing a population's death rate increases the population......

go ahead, prove my prediction of regret correct.......

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Marshall

i'm gonna regret reponding for previously stated reasons, but......

healthier organisms tend to reproduce more, and more successfully

reducing a population's death rate increases the population......

go ahead, prove my prediction of regret correct.......

Hello! That's what I said Marshall. The variable you are refusing to grasp is more CO2 is being produced than even healthy plants on steroids can keep up with. As with all things, there are always multiple facets within any one dilemma or joy for that matter. Thank you for playing, but I'm going to bid you adieu on this one.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Hello! That's what I said Marshall. The variable you are refusing to grasp is more CO2 is being produced than even healthy plants on steroids can keep up with. As with all things, there are always multiple facets within any one dilemma or joy for that matter.

Especially when we are removing plants far quicker than they can replace themselves.

Olivia, your fundamental error is thinking someone like MArshall WANT to see a multi-faceted, multi-possibility problem. For all their words they want life to be SIMPLE, there is only black or white, good or evil. Only one villian to every dilema and only one conclusion to the yet unknown. Their decreed villian, and their presumed cause & effect.

The illogical extremists on the Left tend to think one or two data points constitutes statistical proof.

The illogical extremists on the Right don't want to acknowledge trends of change until it's too late to respond.

Then there seems to be Marshall who believes posting the biggest overwhelming pile of words will keep anyone from noticing he leaps to conclusions well beyond what sane people would draw.

Since he posted it, I assume he believes it:

"The fact is that warming is good! Throughout history, man, as well as all other living creatures, has thrived during the earth's warm periods, and suffered and starved during the cold ones, a lesson that we're about to be reminded of in the coming years."

Since the article puts forth Rome as an example of a “good” society I assume he (both the author and by connection Marshall) believe that feeding humans to lions—to the amusement of the masses—is good. And he must acknowledge that slavery, military conquest, and rampant political corruption are also good. Actually he likely does believe all those things.

Shouldn’t there first be a discussion of what “good” is? Or should all accept your unstated definition because you claim it is so?

No, the unstated assumption key to all his argument is essentially, “I am one of the “HAVES”. I am doing well now so I want to continue this course of action. I must therefore ridicule any discussion that may cause my prosperity to decrease because others view value differently than I do.”

One of the critical deceptive tricks of such bellicose people is to ignore the crux of others’ arguments and only acknowledge the pieces they can take exception to—just as he has done with Olivia’s post.

Marshall, I pity your life, or lack there of.

I have often told myself that spending time in here, reading his thoughts, can only cause pain and suffereing from the illogic. Why didn't I listen to myself today?

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Marshall

i'm gonna regret reponding for previously stated reasons, but......

healthier organisms tend to reproduce more, and more successfully See below

reducing a population's death rate increases the population......It increases the average age. CO2 amount is one of many factors needed to increase plant populations. On 1 acre of any given ecosystem there is a certain amount of plant life that can be supported no matter what the CO2 level is. Water, nutrients, sunlight, soil type etc. all figure in.go ahead, prove my prediction of regret correct.......

As we deforest the earth, our cities grow, and as sea level increases, there is less habitat/arable land. Olivia is right about the idea that there is only so much CO2 that can be handled by the environment before the land and sea pH starts to drop (more to the acid side. Acid rain is a well documented occurrence).

[dilbert firestorm]

the only problem with CO2 is the it is not a major green house gas. its a deception that AGW backers harp on.

Its water vapor, not co2, is what drives the climate tempatures.

[Iaintliein]

Let's see.

a) A 4.5B year old, highly dynamic system,
b)instruments capable of measuring temperature widely available for maybe 200 years,
c)taking a "highest" temp instead of the area under a time/temp curve (as it should be),
d)no standardization of equipment, technique, or calibration,
e)a haphazard network of stations some widely dispersed some not, many in urban "heat islands", with a large number (mostly near the Arctic) shut down at the end of the "cold war"
f)"Proxies" like ice cores that cover an insignificant are of the planet and do not agree site to site, others like tree rings that were discarded to "hide the decline"
g)the exact same solution proposed to combat AGW as was proposed to combat the man made ice age in '79 : Massive redistribution of wealth from western capitalist countries to third world and socialist countries.

IMHO, two things are apparent:
1. We lack the technology and statistically significant data to determine even if the planet is warming in any sort of long term trend, let alone to determine what is causing it.
2. The people who are arrogant enough to think we have the power (short of nuclear weapons) to alter the climate are right there with the ones who are arrogant enough to think some all powerful creature created the planet just for us to "hold dominion over".


But, this is what I actually dropped by to post:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...hange-sceptics

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the only problem with CO2 is the it is not a major green house gas. its a deception that AGW backers harp on.

Its water vapor, not co2, is what drives the climate tempatures.

I think it's a multi-billion if not trillion dollar industry that will cling to it's "guns and religion" until the last dollar is gleaned.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Let's see.

a) A 4.5B year old, highly dynamic system,
b)instruments capable of measuring temperature widely available for maybe 200 years,
c)taking a "highest" temp instead of the area under a time/temp curve (as it should be),
d)no standardization of equipment, technique, or calibration,
e)a haphazard network of stations some widely dispersed some not, many in urban "heat islands", with a large number (mostly near the Arctic) shut down at the end of the "cold war"
f)"Proxies" like ice cores that cover an insignificant are of the planet and do not agree site to site, others like tree rings that were discarded to "hide the decline"
g)the exact same solution proposed to combat AGW as was proposed to combat the man made ice age in '79 : Massive redistribution of wealth from western capitalist countries to third world and socialist countries.

IMHO, two things are apparent:
1. We lack the technology and statistically significant data to determine even if the planet is warming in any sort of long term trend, let alone to determine what is causing it.
2. The people who are arrogant enough to think we have the power (short of nuclear weapons) to alter the climate are right there with the ones who are arrogant enough to think some all powerful creature created the planet just for us to "hold dominion over".

Totally agree. Given that you have scientific training, why don't other scientists speak out about factors a thru f?

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Totally agree. Given that you have scientific training, why don't other scientists speak out about factors a thru f?

Many have, especially in the wake of the "Climategate" emails. But the true believers simply blogged back that mere physicists, chemists, statisticians, engineers and IT programers weren't "qualified" to speak, only the "Climate Scientists" were. Which begs the question, would Gypsy fortune telling be a science if there was a peer reviewed Journal of Gypsy Fortune Telling?

Others are in self preservation mode. At a meeting several months ago a senior manager made some comment about our trying to lower our "carbon footprint" or some other rubbish. Everyone in the room with a technical degree looked at each other in disbelief, but nobody said a word (out loud).

Also, despite what the greens would hope for, the evil petrochemical industry actually stood to make $millions off of "cap and trade" had it happened.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the only problem with CO2 is the it is not a major green house gas. its a deception that AGW backers harp on.

Its water vapor, not co2, is what drives the climate tempatures.

Water vapor is self regulating. It's called rain.


There is a certain amout of water vapor that can stay in the air at a given temp and pressure. Any excess falls as rain.

Some good stuff here.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

[Jackie S]

99.999999etc of species of Animals that have existed are now extinct.

The overwhelming majority of these extinct Species lived before man was ever a factor.

I know it's a simple statement, but none the less true.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Let's see.

a) A 4.5B year old, highly dynamic system,
b)instruments capable of measuring temperature widely available for maybe 200 years,
c)taking a "highest" temp instead of the area under a time/temp curve (as it should be),
d)no standardization of equipment, technique, or calibration,
e)a haphazard network of stations some widely dispersed some not, many in urban "heat islands", with a large number (mostly near the Arctic) shut down at the end of the "cold war"
f)"Proxies" like ice cores that cover an insignificant are of the planet and do not agree site to site, others like tree rings that were discarded to "hide the decline"
g)the exact same solution proposed to combat AGW as was proposed to combat the man made ice age in '79 : Massive redistribution of wealth from western capitalist countries to third world and socialist countries.

IMHO, two things are apparent:
1. We lack the technology and statistically significant data to determine even if the planet is warming in any sort of long term trend, let alone to determine what is causing it.
2. The people who are arrogant enough to think we have the power (short of nuclear weapons) to alter the climate are right there with the ones who are arrogant enough to think some all powerful creature created the planet just for us to "hold dominion over".


But, this is what I actually dropped by to post:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...hange-sceptics

The point of the story you linked was the following.

“The idea that because scientific opinion falls largely on one side you can’t have a debate is outrageous. Because there’s a strong majority in basic science doesn’t mean the issue is off the table, yet the BBC says it should be.”

The following speaks volumes.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure

June 21, 2011
The American public is less likely to believe in global warming than it was just five years ago. Yet, paradoxically, scientists are more confident than ever that climate change is real and caused largely by human activities.
Something a bit strange is happening with public opinion and climate change.
Anthony Leiserowitz, who directs the Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication, delved into this in a recent poll. He not only asked citizens what they thought of climate change, he also asked them to estimate how climate scientists feel about global warming.
"Only 13 percent of Americans got the correct answer, which is that in fact about 97 percent of American scientists say that climate change is happening, and about a third of Americans just simply say they don't know," he said.
Most Americans are unaware that the National Academy of Sciences, known for its cautious and even-handed reviews of the state of science, is firmly on board with climate change. It has been for years.
So far the evidence shows that the more people understand that there is this consensus, the more they tend to believe that climate change is happening, the more they understand that humans are a major contributor, and the more worried they are about it.
- Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication
Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy, paraphrased its most recent report on the subject.
"The consensus statement is that climate changes are being observed, are certainly real, they seem to be increasing, and that humans are mostly likely the cause of all or most of these changes," he said.
That's not just the view of the U.S. National Academies. There's also a consensus statement from the presidents of science academies from around the world, including the academies of China, the United Kingdom, India, Japan, Russia, France, Brazil, the list goes on.
Cicerone also points to strong statements about climate change from the leading professional organizations in the United States, including from the American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society and others.
Of course, it's still possible to find a few scientists who reject the consensus. Cicerone says it is appealing to think they are right when they say there's no need to worry about complicated cap-and-trade policies or otherwise fuss about climate change.
"I think rooting for the underdog, the David against the Goliath, is something that we all do — I think it's particularly American, although it happens everywhere," he said. "And in fact, this is the way scientists work.
"Scientists don't gain respect, and attention, and fame, if you will, by going along with the mainstream, and I don't know of many scientists who try to go along with the mainstream — they're trying to go the opposite direction."
Though a few are still finding reasons for doubt, Cicerone says he and most of his colleagues find the science of climate change is stronger the harder they look. So does this public disbelief mean that Americans are becoming more anti-science?
Conservative voters' views of climate change have shifted in recent years.

Leiserowitz of Yale University says that's not what his polls show.
"Most Americans have overwhelming trust in the science and trust in scientists," he said.
But the public is largely unaware of the consensus because that's not what they're hearing on cable TV or reading in blogs.
"They mostly get exposed to a much more conflicted view, and that's of course not by accident," he said.
Leiserowitz is now starting to ask how public opinion changes when people actually know that the National Academy of Sciences and other groups consider climate change to be a big concern.
"So far the evidence shows that the more people understand that there is this consensus, the more they tend to believe that climate change is happening, the more they understand that humans are a major contributor, and the more worried they are about it," Leiserowitz said.
He says if you drill down a bit, the American public actually is not split when you ask them if they'd like to see a gradual transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.
"We find overwhelming bipartisan agreement about that," he said.

As it happens, that transition is a step toward slowing the pace of global climate change.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

99.999999etc of species of Animals that have existed are now extinct.

The overwhelming majority of these extinct Species lived before man was ever a factor.

I know it's a simple statement, but none the less true.

Global warming has not been claimed or proven to increase the rate of extinction. A meteor strike wiped out the dinosaurs. By putting debris into the air that altered Earth’s climate. Instead of all at once, we are putting debris in the air little by little. At what point are things dangerous? No one is saying but saying there is no climate change and not studying or trying to get a handle on our emissions is stupid. Anybody who flies knows that you don’t have the clarity of air any more. Or how many stars you can’t see now.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Marshall

The Global Warming Hoax: How Soon We Forget

And why is it that Mars and Jupiter, and Neptune's moon Titan, have all followed the exact same warming and cooling cycles as the earth during the 20th century? Does anyone think that our SUVs and power plants are causing the same climate change on other planets and moons in our solar system, or is it more likely that the changes there were caused by the fact that we're all in the same solar system? I.e., "It's the sun, stupid!"
.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf

These people say the solar activity has little to do with the issue.