The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

First off, all I wrote is that most scientists believe that man-made global warming is happening, and if you deny that it's happening, then you are ignorant (not necessarily an idiot.)

Tim quotes, just from the last 4 pages:

----------------------

You're like a flat earther. Seriously I'd be embarrassed to think such stuff, much less proclaim it to the world.

-

Deniers are gleeful this week because a group of scientists were caught in the ice of Antarctica- that PROVES there is no global warming!

Seriously, these guys are really embarrassing.

-

There is not a single issue in which mainstream conservatism looks more foolish on than this one.

------------------

So yeah Tim you aren't calling anyone an "idiot" using that term. You're just calling them embarrassingly foolish and flat earthers. But no, you would never be a condescending doosh. You're over that. Or so you say.

Sorry, but it's hard not to make fun of ignorance. I don't mean to be deliberately insulting, but if people are going to peddle such foolishness, then they deserve to be called out for it.

 

[DrJ]

And hey, water that's frozen in ice doesn't make plants wet either.

 

[jonessed]

So how come they don't grow corn the size of Goodyear Blimps in the Amazon? Or better yet, on the Arabian peninsula?

Not a lot of water on the Arabian peninsula.

Wait, water is needed too? Not only CO2 and heat? Or rich people? What will you guys think of next...

That's right. Plants need water, sun, and CO2.

I'm here all day if you have any other questions.

 

[jonessed]

First off, all I wrote is that most scientists believe that man-made global warming is happening, and if you deny that it's happening, then you are ignorant (not necessarily an idiot.)

Tim quotes, just from the last 4 pages:

----------------------

You're like a flat earther. Seriously I'd be embarrassed to think such stuff, much less proclaim it to the world.

-

Deniers are gleeful this week because a group of scientists were caught in the ice of Antarctica- that PROVES there is no global warming!

Seriously, these guys are really embarrassing.

-

There is not a single issue in which mainstream conservatism looks more foolish on than this one.

------------------

So yeah Tim you aren't calling anyone an "idiot" using that term. You're just calling them embarrassingly foolish and flat earthers. But no, you would never be a condescending doosh. You're over that. Or so you say.

Sorry, but it's hard not to make fun of ignorance. I don't mean to be deliberately insulting, but if people are going to peddle such foolishness, then they deserve to be called out for it.

Oh, the irony.

 

[msommer]

What about the fact that plants like CO2 and heat. What about the fact that plants don't grow in ice. It seems far more likely this will lead to an increase in arable land along with a productivity increase is much of the presently arable land.

??? Plants need a delicate balance of minerals in the soil, sunlight, precipitation, pest control, and temperature to achieve (maximum) yield. Change any one of those factors, and you can substantially alter the health and output from said plants. So it's not as though if Iowa is great for growing corn, Iowa will continue to be great for growing corn if all of the sudden Manitoba and Ontario become the new "corn belt." And what's to say that the minerals available in the soil in Manitoba and Ontario are sufficient/proper for growing corn? And what's to say that the native insects/pests in Manitoba and Ontario wouldn't be even more damaging to crops than the insects/pests that would likely also migrate North with the source of food?Also, what might the ratio of costs for climate research be compared to the costs of relocating millions of individuals and business away from coastal areas? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions) of structures that would be claimed by the sea? What would be the costs (economic and environmental) of losing said materials and needing to develop new structures in other locations?

We're not going to be able to grow corn in Iowa over a couple of degrees? This is kind of preposterous. It's very likely that MORE corn would grow in Iowa. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Iowa farmer is given a thermostat for the land his crops are on. I'm betting he turns it up a couple degrees most of the time if he wants maximum yields.

How much of our land is under ice? How much of it is going to be covered by rising sea levels? I'm thinking #1 is a whole lot more land. So much more land that in any cases where my first paragraph doesn't hold true it's going to be offsite by piles of now arable land.

So how come they don't grow corn the size of Goodyear Blimps in the Amazon? Or better yet, on the Arabian peninsula?

Ummm, almost all of the biodensity in the planet and variety of life is concentrated there.

But very little food production and certainly very little ability to support population migration. That was your contention, right, plants likes co2 and heat?

Because they're poor.

Not really. Because the ecosystem is fragile. More heat and CO2 is not going to make it less fragile.

It's only fragile where you chop half of it down to grow corn. The earth and it's life do a remarkable job of adapting to change.

No. It cannot recover even when you chop it down and use it for pasture, let alone growing crops. Hence the inability to suport population migration

 

[DrJ]

It's really astonishing to me that anyone believes this won't increase productivity really. Yeah, it might suck for the people with property in NYC and California. It might suck for the people who have carved out their sphere of influence based on our present environmental patterns, even some of the animals that have done so. But I say bring on the warming - we've got mouths on this planet to feed.

 

[datonn]

So how come they don't grow corn the size of Goodyear Blimps in the Amazon? Or better yet, on the Arabian peninsula?

Not a lot of water on the Arabian peninsula.

Wait, water is needed too? Not only CO2 and heat? Or rich people? What will you guys think of next...

That's right. Plants need water, sun, and CO2.

I'm here all day if you have any other questions.

Plants only need water, sun, and CO2? Awesome! I'm going to go plant some pineapples in the snow right now! My girls will love it, as they love fresh pineapple. Don't get it very often here in SW Minnesota. Back in a bit...

 

[DrJ]

So how come they don't grow corn the size of Goodyear Blimps in the Amazon? Or better yet, on the Arabian peninsula?

Not a lot of water on the Arabian peninsula.

Wait, water is needed too? Not only CO2 and heat? Or rich people? What will you guys think of next...

That's right. Plants need water, sun, and CO2.

I'm here all day if you have any other questions.

Plants only need water, sun, and CO2? Awesome! I'm going to go plant some pineapples in the snow right now! My girls will love it, as they love fresh pineapple. Don't get it very often here in SW Minnesota. Back in a bit...

You're about 20 years too early according to the alarmist predictions. But trust me, you're going to love it.

 

[timschochet]

OK, regarding Dr. J's argument that more CO2 will be better for plants, which jonessed is apparently backing up, here is a rebuttal from Dr. Donald Prothero of MIT, from his book Reality Check:

Sure, plants take in carbon dioxide that animals exhale. But the whole point of the global warming evidence is that the delicate natural balance of carbon dioxide has been thrown out of whack by our production of too much of it, way in excess of what plants in the ocean can handle. As a consequence, the oceans are warming and absorbing excess carbon dioxide, making them more acidic. Already we are seeing a shocking decline in coral reefs (due to bleaching) and extinctions of many marine ecosystems that cannot handle too much of a good thing.

Furthermore:

The latest research actually shows that increased carbon dioxide inhibits the absorption of nitrogen into plants, so plants (at least those that we depend on today) are NOT going to flourish in a greenhouse world. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant of basic atmospheric science, or is trying to con a public that does not know science from bunk.

Response, Dr. J or jonessed?

 

[datonn]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

ETA: Venus has greenhouse gases up the wazoo! I think it's the liberal lamestream media conspiracy that has fed us the idea that there is zero life on Venus...when we (I mean all of us enlightened folks...who get all the science we need from the Old Testament) ALL know that they must have grapes the size of cantaloupes down on the surface, with all that CO2 floating around.

 

[DrJ]

OK, regarding Dr. J's argument that more CO2 will be better for plants, which jonessed is apparently backing up, here is a rebuttal from Dr. Donald Prothero of MIT, from his book Reality Check:

Sure, plants take in carbon dioxide that animals exhale. But the whole point of the global warming evidence is that the delicate natural balance of carbon dioxide has been thrown out of whack by our production of too much of it, way in excess of what plants in the ocean can handle. As a consequence, the oceans are warming and absorbing excess carbon dioxide, making them more acidic. Already we are seeing a shocking decline in coral reefs (due to bleaching) and extinctions of many marine ecosystems that cannot handle too much of a good thing.

Furthermore:

The latest research actually shows that increased carbon dioxide inhibits the absorption of nitrogen into plants, so plants (at least those that we depend on today) are NOT going to flourish in a greenhouse world. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant of basic atmospheric science, or is trying to con a public that does not know science from bunk.

Response, Dr. J or jonessed?

http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm

When plants appeared and evolved on Earth, it is known for a fact that carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration was much higher than it is now. Then, the CO2 concentration was certainly above 1000 parts per million (ppm). Actually, the average CO2 concentration in outdoors air is about 400 ppm on the planet (not really true at your location). Thus, plants enjoy and are stimulated by breathing air with a higher CO2 concentration. That’s why so many indoor gardeners enrich their garden with CO2 during photosynthesis to supply the plants with this essential building material. Through photosynthesis, the carbon in CO2 is extracted and takes part in the building of leaves, stems, flowers and fruits. Proper CO2 concentration from early growing to fructification allows for faster maturation and larger yield.

 

[jonessed]

His argument seems to be that the make-up of the plant-life will change, which seems likely. That doesn't change the fact that plant-life overall benefits from more CO2.

 

[timschochet]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

 

[timschochet]

His argument seems to be that the make-up of the plant-life will change, which seems likely. That doesn't change the fact that plant-life overall benefits from more CO2.

It has ALREADY caused changes, almost all negative. Ask any marine biologist.

 

[jon_mx]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

You are far more ignorant on this topic. All you do is express faith in what the anointed experts say. Your knowledge is zilch.

 

[jonessed]

His argument seems to be that the make-up of the plant-life will change, which seems likely. That doesn't change the fact that plant-life overall benefits from more CO2.

It has ALREADY caused changes, almost all negative. Ask any marine biologist.

Ok. Plant-life overall still benefits from more CO2. We have already seen earth in a Global Warming environment and plant-life thrived.What exactly are you trying to argue?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

 

[timschochet]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

You are far more ignorant on this topic. All you do is express faith in what the anointed experts say. Your knowledge is zilch.

Compared to them, certainly. I'm not expressing faith in them, though, the way you express faith in God. This stuff is all subject to testing. That's why it's called science. The use of the word faith here is completely misapplied.

 

[DrJ]

Seems like global warming will solve that too.

Ocean Carbon CycleThe Earth's carbon cycle can be split into the ocean carbon cycle and the atmosphere carbon cycle. The carbon cycle in the ocean has an organic component and an inorganic component. The inorganic part acts as a pump of CO2 in and out of the ocean depending on the temperature of the water. The solubility of CO2 is larger in cold water than in warm water. So in areas of cold water, like the polar oceans, CO2 is being pumped from the atmosphere into the ocean, while in the warmer regions CO2 is being expelled into the atmosphere from the oceans. Did you know that the equatorial Pacific is the biggest single natural source of CO2 to the atmosphere? This is because cold water is brought to the surface in the eastern part of the equatorial Pacific ("upwelling") and then warmed by the sun, causing the CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. The organic part of the carbon cycle also acts as a pump of carbon to and from the atmosphere. The carbon in the water takes the form of CO2, bicarbonate, and carbonate. Plants like phytoplankton use the CO2 and bicarbonate to make food and energy through a process called photosynthesis. Carbon is used during photosynthesis and then released during respiration. These two processes produce a net of 50 gigatons of carbon, most of which goes back into CO2 and then is release to the atmosphere. Because a large portion of the carbon in the ocean is in the form of biomass (plants like phytoplankton), scientists are interested in studying various aspects of the biomass, such as phytoplankton. Global warming is a concern because it may change the CO2 pump and thus may affect the amount of biomass in the ocean. In order to understand how these effects may manifest themselves, scientists need to understand what limits phytoplankton growth.

When the water gets warm enough, it'll stop taking in a bunch of CO2. It's amazing how the Earth reacts to these sorts of things. And then the life changes. It's happened on a much more drastic scale in the past considering it was 1000 ppm when plants evolved and is 400 today. Just doesn't seem to me to be anything to be wasting any money over. When people make clean energy cheaper and more sensible, and they're trying, people will use that. Until then we'll kick up CO2 a little and nothing all that big is really going to happen. I would expect that we'll have new sources of energy in your kid's lifetimes, and it'll be fine until then.

 

[timschochet]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

What you refuse to recognize is that, unlike other topics, on this subject ignorance IS part of the issue- the major part. Because the public, especially conservatives, don't understand the science, and because they're being lied to by certain conservative spokesmen and politicians, they are rejecting what should be obvious to any reasonable scientific mind- and I find that deplorable.

 

[jon_mx]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

You are far more ignorant on this topic. All you do is express faith in what the anointed experts say. Your knowledge is zilch.

Compared to them, certainly. I'm not expressing faith in them, though, the way you express faith in God. This stuff is all subject to testing. That's why it's called science. The use of the word faith here is completely misapplied.

Yes it is, and they are failing miserably. They have very little grasps of all the factors which impact climate and it is impossible to quantify how much is from man-made CO2. The results so far suggests they are grossly overestimating the impact of man-made CO2 on climate change.

 

[timschochet]

Seems like global warming will solve that too.

Ocean Carbon Cycle

The Earth's carbon cycle can be split into the ocean carbon cycle and the atmosphere carbon cycle. The carbon cycle in the ocean has an organic component and an inorganic component. The inorganic part acts as a pump of CO2 in and out of the ocean depending on the temperature of the water. The solubility of CO2 is larger in cold water than in warm water. So in areas of cold water, like the polar oceans, CO2 is being pumped from the atmosphere into the ocean, while in the warmer regions CO2 is being expelled into the atmosphere from the oceans. Did you know that the equatorial Pacific is the biggest single natural source of CO2 to the atmosphere? This is because cold water is brought to the surface in the eastern part of the equatorial Pacific ("upwelling") and then warmed by the sun, causing the CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. The organic part of the carbon cycle also acts as a pump of carbon to and from the atmosphere. The carbon in the water takes the form of CO2, bicarbonate, and carbonate. Plants like phytoplankton use the CO2 and bicarbonate to make food and energy through a process called photosynthesis. Carbon is used during photosynthesis and then released during respiration. These two processes produce a net of 50 gigatons of carbon, most of which goes back into CO2 and then is release to the atmosphere. Because a large portion of the carbon in the ocean is in the form of biomass (plants like phytoplankton), scientists are interested in studying various aspects of the biomass, such as phytoplankton. Global warming is a concern because it may change the CO2 pump and thus may affect the amount of biomass in the ocean. In order to understand how these effects may manifest themselves, scientists need to understand what limits phytoplankton growth.

When the water gets warm enough, it'll stop taking in a bunch of CO2. It's amazing how the Earth reacts to these sorts of things. And then the life changes. It's happened on a much more drastic scale in the past considering it was 1000 ppm when plants evolved and is 400 today. Just doesn't seem to me to be anything to be wasting any money over. When people make clean energy cheaper and more sensible, and they're trying, people will use that. Until then we'll kick up CO2 a little and nothing all that big is really going to happen. I would expect that we'll have new sources of energy in your kid's lifetimes, and it'll be fine until then.

This is the only thing you've written that makes sense. I hope it's true.

 

[jon_mx]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

What you refuse to recognize is that, unlike other topics, on this subject ignorance IS part of the issue- the major part. Because the public, especially conservatives, don't understand the science, and because they're being lied to by certain conservative spokesmen and politicians, they are rejecting what should be obvious to any reasonable scientific mind- and I find that deplorable.

The problem is, science does not understand it yet either.

 

[jonessed]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

What you refuse to recognize is that, unlike other topics, on this subject ignorance IS part of the issue- the major part. Because the public, especially conservatives, don't understand the science, and because they're being lied to by certain conservative spokesmen and politicians, they are rejecting what should be obvious to any reasonable scientific mind- and I find that deplorable.

I hate to break this to you Tim, but you don't have a scientific mind.

 

[DrJ]

Seems like global warming will solve that too.

Ocean Carbon Cycle

The Earth's carbon cycle can be split into the ocean carbon cycle and the atmosphere carbon cycle. The carbon cycle in the ocean has an organic component and an inorganic component. The inorganic part acts as a pump of CO2 in and out of the ocean depending on the temperature of the water. The solubility of CO2 is larger in cold water than in warm water. So in areas of cold water, like the polar oceans, CO2 is being pumped from the atmosphere into the ocean, while in the warmer regions CO2 is being expelled into the atmosphere from the oceans. Did you know that the equatorial Pacific is the biggest single natural source of CO2 to the atmosphere? This is because cold water is brought to the surface in the eastern part of the equatorial Pacific ("upwelling") and then warmed by the sun, causing the CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. The organic part of the carbon cycle also acts as a pump of carbon to and from the atmosphere. The carbon in the water takes the form of CO2, bicarbonate, and carbonate. Plants like phytoplankton use the CO2 and bicarbonate to make food and energy through a process called photosynthesis. Carbon is used during photosynthesis and then released during respiration. These two processes produce a net of 50 gigatons of carbon, most of which goes back into CO2 and then is release to the atmosphere. Because a large portion of the carbon in the ocean is in the form of biomass (plants like phytoplankton), scientists are interested in studying various aspects of the biomass, such as phytoplankton. Global warming is a concern because it may change the CO2 pump and thus may affect the amount of biomass in the ocean. In order to understand how these effects may manifest themselves, scientists need to understand what limits phytoplankton growth.

When the water gets warm enough, it'll stop taking in a bunch of CO2. It's amazing how the Earth reacts to these sorts of things. And then the life changes. It's happened on a much more drastic scale in the past considering it was 1000 ppm when plants evolved and is 400 today. Just doesn't seem to me to be anything to be wasting any money over. When people make clean energy cheaper and more sensible, and they're trying, people will use that. Until then we'll kick up CO2 a little and nothing all that big is really going to happen. I would expect that we'll have new sources of energy in your kid's lifetimes, and it'll be fine until then.

This is the only thing you've written that makes sense. I hope it's true.

I take it you didn't read the part where plants evolved in 1000 ppm and grow faster and bigger with more CO2. Greenhouse growers pump up the CO2 and enjoy great results. You're really ignoring actual science, that growers produce tangible results from, for a bunch of guesswork. That's your choice, but stop acting like that's "more scientific".

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

What you refuse to recognize is that, unlike other topics, on this subject ignorance IS part of the issue- the major part. Because the public, especially conservatives, don't understand the science and because they're being lied to by certain conservative spokesmen and politicians, they are rejecting what should be obvious to any reasonable scientific mind- and I find that deplorable.

In your own words, please explain the science to us.

 

[timschochet]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

What you refuse to recognize is that, unlike other topics, on this subject ignorance IS part of the issue- the major part. Because the public, especially conservatives, don't understand the science, and because they're being lied to by certain conservative spokesmen and politicians, they are rejecting what should be obvious to any reasonable scientific mind- and I find that deplorable.

I hate to break this to you Tim, but you don't have a scientific mind.

Probably not, but at least I'm smart enough to rely on those that do.

 

[DiStefano]

Tim,

The article someone posted above with the 5 types of GW opinion shows that only 2% of scientists fall either in the "there is no global warming" (type 1) or the "man is killing the earth, we must act now!" (type 5) extremist camps. You've been espousing that pretty much ALL scientists are type 5 and anyone who isn't is an idiot. Are you willing to acknowledge at this point that there are a lot more people in the middle than the extremes as you've been pushing?

This is false on many counts. First off, all I wrote is that most scientists believe that man-made global warming is happening, and if you deny that it's happening, then you are ignorant (not necessarily an idiot.) I happen to believe that it's going to be catastrophic, but I won't say "we must act now!" because I don't know what that entails, which is why I don't put myself in category#5.So once again you completely misrepresent my opinion. You're good at that.

This is true, Tim has been very consistent in labeling this a giant problem but also at shuffling his feet at actually doing anything meaningful about it. He actually campaigns actively (well, he posts about it a lot at FBG at least) against things like carbon taxes, an example being the pieces he linked on Australia's program earlier this year. It's like the most ridiculous position imaginable - there needs to be a special category just for Tim.

Based on your hilarious comments about plants benefiting from global warming thanks to all of the extra CO2, there ought to be a special category for YOU.

Plant-life does benefit from more CO2.

Yes, plant life does benefit from more CO2. But that is science, and Tim has shown that he believes in some science, but not in others. On the others, he's a flat earther.

 

[DrJ]

And Tim, I'd guess that about ALL of the weed being grown in your state uses this. It's scientifically proven to make your plants yield more, and it would be idiotic to grow a crop indoors for cash and not blast it with CO2. It's almost impossible to believe that corn wouldn't be the same.

 

[timschochet]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

What you refuse to recognize is that, unlike other topics, on this subject ignorance IS part of the issue- the major part. Because the public, especially conservatives, don't understand the science and because they're being lied to by certain conservative spokesmen and politicians, they are rejecting what should be obvious to any reasonable scientific mind- and I find that deplorable.

In your own words, please explain the science to us.

Sure.

Man is using fossil fuels to such an extent that great amounts of carbon dioxide is being released. Over years and decades, this has the effect of warming the oceans, creating negative imbalances to ecosystems because our plant life cannot handle the extra CO2. This warming will eventually negatively impact our lives on this planet- in many ways, they already have.

How's that?

 

[timschochet]

And Tim, I'd guess that about ALL of the weed being grown in your state uses this. It's scientifically proven to make your plants yield more, and it would be idiotic to grow a crop indoors for cash and not blast it with CO2. It's almost impossible to believe that corn wouldn't be the same.

i have no doubt that everything you've written is correct. I have STRONG doubts that it has anything whatsoever to do with the overall question of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere as a result of the use of fossil fuels.

 

[jonessed]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

What you refuse to recognize is that, unlike other topics, on this subject ignorance IS part of the issue- the major part. Because the public, especially conservatives, don't understand the science and because they're being lied to by certain conservative spokesmen and politicians, they are rejecting what should be obvious to any reasonable scientific mind- and I find that deplorable.

In your own words, please explain the science to us.

Sure.Man is using fossil fuels to such an extent that great amounts of carbon dioxide is being released. Over years and decades, this has the effect of warming the oceans, creating negative imbalances to ecosystems because our plant life cannot handle the extra CO2 This warming will eventually negatively impact our lives on this planet- in many ways, they already have.

How's that?

I think I'm going to keep that one.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

What you refuse to recognize is that, unlike other topics, on this subject ignorance IS part of the issue- the major part. Because the public, especially conservatives, don't understand the science and because they're being lied to by certain conservative spokesmen and politicians, they are rejecting what should be obvious to any reasonable scientific mind- and I find that deplorable.

In your own words, please explain the science to us.

Sure.Man is using fossil fuels to such an extent that great amounts of carbon dioxide is being released. Over years and decades, this has the effect of warming the oceans, creating negative imbalances to ecosystems because our plant life cannot handle the extra CO2. This warming will eventually negatively impact our lives on this planet- in many ways, they already have.

How's that?

Hate to break it to you but that ain't science. You've given a nice little synopsis which works great as a talking point but not much else.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

What you refuse to recognize is that, unlike other topics, on this subject ignorance IS part of the issue- the major part. Because the public, especially conservatives, don't understand the science and because they're being lied to by certain conservative spokesmen and politicians, they are rejecting what should be obvious to any reasonable scientific mind- and I find that deplorable.

In your own words, please explain the science to us.

Sure.Man is using fossil fuels to such an extent that great amounts of carbon dioxide is being released. Over years and decades, this has the effect of warming the oceans, creating negative imbalances to ecosystems because our plant life cannot handle the extra CO2. This warming will eventually negatively impact our lives on this planet- in many ways, they already have.

How's that?

Hook. Line. Sinker.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

It's really astonishing to me that anyone believes this won't increase productivity really. Yeah, it might suck for the people with property in NYC and California. It might suck for the people who have carved out their sphere of influence based on our present environmental patterns, even some of the animals that have done so. But I say bring on the warming - we've got mouths on this planet to feed.

Do you ever get tired of being an ###hole? It seems like it'd be exhausting.

 

[timschochet]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

What you refuse to recognize is that, unlike other topics, on this subject ignorance IS part of the issue- the major part. Because the public, especially conservatives, don't understand the science and because they're being lied to by certain conservative spokesmen and politicians, they are rejecting what should be obvious to any reasonable scientific mind- and I find that deplorable.

In your own words, please explain the science to us.

Sure.Man is using fossil fuels to such an extent that great amounts of carbon dioxide is being released. Over years and decades, this has the effect of warming the oceans, creating negative imbalances to ecosystems because our plant life cannot handle the extra CO2. This warming will eventually negatively impact our lives on this planet- in many ways, they already have.

How's that?

Hate to break it to you but that ain't science. You've given a nice little synopsis which works great as a talking point but not much else.

Of course it's not science. You asked me to explain the science in my own words. I'm not a scientist so anything I write is going to be just that: a nice little synopsis. If you want scientific data, there is plenty of sources I could refer you to, starting with this one:

http://berkeleyearth.org/

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

What you refuse to recognize is that, unlike other topics, on this subject ignorance IS part of the issue- the major part. Because the public, especially conservatives, don't understand the science and because they're being lied to by certain conservative spokesmen and politicians, they are rejecting what should be obvious to any reasonable scientific mind- and I find that deplorable.

In your own words, please explain the science to us.

Sure.Man is using fossil fuels to such an extent that great amounts of carbon dioxide is being released. Over years and decades, this has the effect of warming the oceans, creating negative imbalances to ecosystems because our plant life cannot handle the extra CO2. This warming will eventually negatively impact our lives on this planet- in many ways, they already have.

How's that?

Hate to break it to you but that ain't science. You've given a nice little synopsis which works great as a talking point but not much else.

Of course it's not science. You asked me to explain the science in my own words. I'm not a scientist so anything I write is going to be just that: a nice little synopsis. If you want scientific data, there is plenty of sources I could refer you to, starting with this one:http://berkeleyearth.org/

So you don't understand the science but you're screaming about how conservatives don't and they're ignorant. Makes sense.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Aw c'mon, Tim! Let those guys just run with it. Pat each other on the back for being smarter than the rest of us. Pretty please? It's better than anything that's on TV at the moment.

What's so funny is that Strike thinks that somehow I am insulting them by calling them ignorant. It's not an insult if it's true. I wish it wasn't true. It doesn't make them stupid- in fact, what's so depressing is how many bright people believe this junk.

No, you can call people ignorant all you want. Although, as Jonessed noted, that's extremely ironic considering your track record. However, you've called people worse. Of course, you don't realize that you did, as usual. Which is why I continually implore you to just stick to the issues.

What you refuse to recognize is that, unlike other topics, on this subject ignorance IS part of the issue- the major part. Because the public, especially conservatives, don't understand the science and because they're being lied to by certain conservative spokesmen and politicians, they are rejecting what should be obvious to any reasonable scientific mind- and I find that deplorable.

In your own words, please explain the science to us.

Sure.Man is using fossil fuels to such an extent that great amounts of carbon dioxide is being released. Over years and decades, this has the effect of warming the oceans, creating negative imbalances to ecosystems because our plant life cannot handle the extra CO2. This warming will eventually negatively impact our lives on this planet- in many ways, they already have.

How's that?

Hate to break it to you but that ain't science. You've given a nice little synopsis which works great as a talking point but not much else.

Of course it's not science. You asked me to explain the science in my own words. I'm not a scientist so anything I write is going to be just that: a nice little synopsis. If you want scientific data, there is plenty of sources I could refer you to, starting with this one:http://berkeleyearth.org/

Ha

 

[Mario Kart]

Not sure why you guys are arguing for or against plant growth and CO2. More CO2 is "good" for plant growth. But, what does that mean? Its a simple math analogy.

If there is 1 acre of plants (trees, seaweed, whatever) the plants in that acre will absorb X amount of CO2.

That same acre of plants can have CO2 added to the acre without the CO2 causing any difference.

If the amount of CO2 is greater than what the plants in that acre can handle, something has to give. So, what gives?

- an increase of plants are needed thus plants will find a way to adapt in order to have more plants in that acre (if they are only allowed that acre to grow, or they will spread beyond that acre to accomodate the CO2). But, if no other plants are allowed to grow or no spread of said plant life is allowed (due to parking lots, people, whatever) then the increase of CO2 is not good.

- Plant life uses the same rules for life as animals do. There is a carrying capacity involved. More CO2 needs more plants which is a net result of positive plant growth. If people are going to cut trees and take away land from the posibility of it being for plant life, than the CO2 is not used up at the pace it should be. (just like if we ran out of food, there would be other consequences but it would need time to sort out)

Is this that difficult to understand? More CO2 = more plants... but if no more plants then CO2 is a hazard.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Not sure why you guys are arguing for or against plant growth and CO2. More CO2 is "good" for plant growth. But, what does that mean? Its a simple math analogy.

If there is 1 acre of plants (trees, seaweed, whatever) the plants in that acre will absorb X amount of CO2.

That same acre of plants can have CO2 added to the acre without the CO2 causing any difference.

If the amount of CO2 is greater than what the plants in that acre can handle, something has to give. So, what gives?

- an increase of plants are needed thus plants will find a way to adapt in order to have more plants in that acre (if they are only allowed that acre to grow, or they will spread beyond that acre to accomodate the CO2). But, if no other plants are allowed to grow or no spread of said plant life is allowed (due to parking lots, people, whatever) then the increase of CO2 is not good.

- Plant life uses the same rules for life as animals do. There is a carrying capacity involved. More CO2 needs more plants which is a net result of positive plant growth. If people are going to cut trees and take away land from the posibility of it being for plant life, than the CO2 is not used up at the pace it should be. (just like if we ran out of food, there would be other consequences but it would need time to sort out)

Is this that difficult to understand? More CO2 = more plants... but if no more plants then CO2 is a hazard.

:facepalm:

 

[Mario Kart]

Not sure why you guys are arguing for or against plant growth and CO2. More CO2 is "good" for plant growth. But, what does that mean? Its a simple math analogy.

If there is 1 acre of plants (trees, seaweed, whatever) the plants in that acre will absorb X amount of CO2.

That same acre of plants can have CO2 added to the acre without the CO2 causing any difference.

If the amount of CO2 is greater than what the plants in that acre can handle, something has to give. So, what gives?

- an increase of plants are needed thus plants will find a way to adapt in order to have more plants in that acre (if they are only allowed that acre to grow, or they will spread beyond that acre to accomodate the CO2). But, if no other plants are allowed to grow or no spread of said plant life is allowed (due to parking lots, people, whatever) then the increase of CO2 is not good.

- Plant life uses the same rules for life as animals do. There is a carrying capacity involved. More CO2 needs more plants which is a net result of positive plant growth. If people are going to cut trees and take away land from the posibility of it being for plant life, than the CO2 is not used up at the pace it should be. (just like if we ran out of food, there would be other consequences but it would need time to sort out)

Is this that difficult to understand? More CO2 = more plants... but if no more plants then CO2 is a hazard.

:facepalm:

I know right.

 

[datonn]

ETA: Venus has greenhouse gases up the wazoo! I think it's the liberal lamestream media conspiracy that has fed us the idea that there is zero life on Venus...when we (I mean all of us enlightened folks...who get all the science we need from the Old Testament) ALL know that they must have grapes the size of cantaloupes down on the surface, with all that CO2 floating around.
*****
Just curious what the "more CO2 = better for plants" fishermen think about that lush, tropical paradise that is Venus. Since you know, scientists faked all those readings and images from Venus...just to support their lies related to global warming and what-not.

 

[Dr Oadi]

ETA: Venus has greenhouse gases up the wazoo! I think it's the liberal lamestream media conspiracy that has fed us the idea that there is zero life on Venus...when we (I mean all of us enlightened folks...who get all the science we need from the Old Testament) ALL know that they must have grapes the size of cantaloupes down on the surface, with all that CO2 floating around.

*****

Just curious what the "more CO2 = better for plants" fishermen think about that lush, tropical paradise that is Venus. Since you know, scientists faked all those readings and images from Venus...just to support their lies related to global warming and what-not.

Man made climate change on Venus? Someone should eradicate that destructive species.

 

[jonessed]

ETA: Venus has greenhouse gases up the wazoo! I think it's the liberal lamestream media conspiracy that has fed us the idea that there is zero life on Venus...when we (I mean all of us enlightened folks...who get all the science we need from the Old Testament) ALL know that they must have grapes the size of cantaloupes down on the surface, with all that CO2 floating around.

*****

Just curious what the "more CO2 = better for plants" fishermen think about that lush, tropical paradise that is Venus. Since you know, scientists faked all those readings and images from Venus...just to support their lies related to global warming and what-not.

Man made climate change on Venus? Someone should eradicate that destructive species.

I blame the aliens.

 

[datonn]

ETA: Venus has greenhouse gases up the wazoo! I think it's the liberal lamestream media conspiracy that has fed us the idea that there is zero life on Venus...when we (I mean all of us enlightened folks...who get all the science we need from the Old Testament) ALL know that they must have grapes the size of cantaloupes down on the surface, with all that CO2 floating around.

*****

Just curious what the "more CO2 = better for plants" fishermen think about that lush, tropical paradise that is Venus. Since you know, scientists faked all those readings and images from Venus...just to support their lies related to global warming and what-not.

Man made climate change on Venus? Someone should eradicate that destructive species.

I know...right? We should spend tens of trillions building up our military spacecraft and weaponry, so we can go show those Venusians (?) how we roll here in the U-S of A. Cue the country western singers belting out "Proud to be an American" with a few bald eagles and the Blue Angels flying overhead...with John Ashcroft belting out "Let the Eagles Soar" as a followup.

 

[spreagle]

ETA: Venus has greenhouse gases up the wazoo! I think it's the liberal lamestream media conspiracy that has fed us the idea that there is zero life on Venus...when we (I mean all of us enlightened folks...who get all the science we need from the Old Testament) ALL know that they must have grapes the size of cantaloupes down on the surface, with all that CO2 floating around.
*****

Just curious what the "more CO2 = better for plants" fishermen think about that lush, tropical paradise that is Venus. Since you know, scientists faked all those readings and images from Venus...just to support their lies related to global warming and what-not.

The Venutian pressure is 90X that of Earth, the atmosphere is supercritical which means its basically just as much a liquid as a gas. Since its atmosphere is somewhat like a liquid, the 30% of sunlight that reaches the ground and heats the ground level atmosphere can't readily convect upwards to shed heat via radiation to outer space like it does on Earth (warm liquids do not expand and rise quickly like warm gasses, warm liquids just sit there and get hot, think of a puddle on your asphalt driveway). Yeah I know the scientists say Venus is hot all because of the runaway greenhouse effect, and to be a scientific citizen you have to roll over and believe what the government-paid scientists say without question, but there is something fishy about Venus being a runaway greenhouse planet. There are other major factors at work (the supercritical atmosphere, being closer to the sun, etc) that play a role. There may be unknown things at work. I'd like to see what Venus would be like if the atmosphere had less pressure, sub supercritical pressure, I suppose some scientist has this modelled but the results are not what the global warming community wanted so we are not hearing about it.

I've tried to research this myself many times, to understand how it works by myself, but I always come away unsatisfied. Its always, "trust us Carl Sagan said Venus is a runaway greenhouse planet so its a runaway greenhouse planet and Earth is going to be like Venus is we don't do something about CO2.".

Just imagine if someone came out and said "hey Carl Sagan was wrong, Venus is hot mostly because of XXX, not because of CO2". It would be blasphemy. Venus is the Jesus of the global warming movement, it is where it all began.

 

[datonn]

ETA: Venus has greenhouse gases up the wazoo! I think it's the liberal lamestream media conspiracy that has fed us the idea that there is zero life on Venus...when we (I mean all of us enlightened folks...who get all the science we need from the Old Testament) ALL know that they must have grapes the size of cantaloupes down on the surface, with all that CO2 floating around.
*****

Just curious what the "more CO2 = better for plants" fishermen think about that lush, tropical paradise that is Venus. Since you know, scientists faked all those readings and images from Venus...just to support their lies related to global warming and what-not.

The Venutian pressure is 90X that of Earth, the atmosphere is supercritical which means its basically just as much a liquid as a gas. Since its atmosphere is somewhat like a liquid, the 30% of sunlight that reaches the ground and heats the ground level atmosphere can't readily convect upwards to shed heat via radiation to outer space like it does on Earth (warm liquids do not expand and rise quickly like warm gasses, warm liquids just sit there and get hot, think of a puddle on your asphalt driveway). Yeah I know the scientists say Venus is hot all because of the runaway greenhouse effect, and to be a scientific citizen you have to roll over and believe what the government-paid scientists say without question, but there is something fishy about Venus being a runaway greenhouse planet. There are other major factors at work (the supercritical atmosphere, being closer to the sun, etc) that play a role. There may be unknown things at work. I'd like to see what Venus would be like if the atmosphere had less pressure, sub supercritical pressure, I suppose some scientist has this modelled but the results are not what the global warming community wanted so we are not hearing about it.

I've tried to research this myself many times, to understand how it works by myself, but I always come away unsatisfied. Its always, "trust us Carl Sagan said Venus is a runaway greenhouse planet so its a runaway greenhouse planet and Earth is going to be like Venus is we don't do something about CO2.".

Just imagine if someone came out and said "hey Carl Sagan was wrong, Venus is hot mostly because of XXX, not because of CO2". It would be blasphemy. Venus is the Jesus of the global warming movement, it is where it all began.

But I thought all that was required for plants to grow was water, CO2, and sunlight? Folks didn't say that 100% of sunlight needs to reach the surface, or that the right amount of water was needed, or that surface/soil temperature, or soil conditions, or ___________ has anything to do with plant health and yields. The more CO2, the better, right?! That's gotta be in Leviticus or Deuteronomy somewhere...

 

[the moops]

This thread needs to die. Jesus it is brutal. When the top 3 posters are tim, jon, and dr j you know it is a complete cluster

 

[timschochet]

This thread needs to die. Jesus it is brutal. When the top 3 posters are tim, jon, and dr j you know it is a complete cluster

Which of my posts do you take issue with?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

This thread needs to die. Jesus it is brutal. When the top 3 posters are tim, jon, and dr j you know it is a complete cluster

Which of my posts do you take issue with?

The ones where you call others ignorant for not understanding science when you yourself don't understand it and hide behind talking points.