If you would actually reject the liberal fanatics and really any leftist such as Al Gore, you may then achieve far more success at convincing people that global warming is happening. It is failing because it is seen as just another political issue, where people turn off their minds and start taking sides blindly, when it should not be a political issue at all. It's actually sad and very detrimental that Al Gore (a Democratic VP, and not well-liked at that) has to be such a visible part of it.
The conservative apparatchik was mobilized when the proposal to solve climate change involved a tax. To some people there is something worse than destruction of the earth, and thats a tax.
People still believe in Man-made global warming,,,,how quaint. Seriously i thought the 'debate' was dead,,,after you know, it was proven to be a scam. I mean records show that the CLIMATE CHANGES naturally. And this Ian McEwan sounds so fucking elitist.
@AnonymousWhitePerson Ya,, i mean 5k years ago the Saharan desert was a lush grassland filled with 3 or 4 lakes that held more water than the great lakes,, and within like 100-200 years or less it was the desert we know,, people were forced to go to the last place that had water that was in northern Africa,, Egypt,, and thats why we have the Egyptian empire. So climate change isnt always bad.. But people still believe the scam of man-made warming/cooling whatever shit they are pressing. Thanks
It won't be over until political paradigms are discarded. People think that because the "left" champions this particular subject, and quotes the science, that somehow they made it up - and that's the angle the media (corporate, wealthy-funded) takes. They criticize, mine, slander, and falsely reduce the issue. Ignore ecology completely.
I'm sorry educated people sound "elitist" to you. People from, say, Harvard University tend to carry that tone naturally. Listen to the content, not the tone.
@abyssquick I have, and its sad that this religion basically is still being believed. It just takes common sense, and basic knowledge in history to understand this is all a scam. Climate Changes naturally. The global temperature has only gone up .10th a degree since they've been recording it. Now this could just be due to increased cities and asphalt upping the heat. Or monitoring stations upping the average etc.
I literally study changes in species' latitude and altitude in response to changing climate. Both cold and warm tolerant species are moving north at pace, and to higher altitudes.
I don't know how people think this is a "conspiracy" suffice to say they're not the ones on the ground, doing the work. Ecology has lots to say about it, yet the media pretends it's all "climate data" because they're science illiterate. And so too, is the american public.
@abyssquick And is plants moving up north a bad thing? It would mean more areas to grow food,,russia/canada would love this wouldnt they. More food to feed the world. Global warming freaks are just concerned that the globe is changing, which it does all the time. And they are trying to keep it a certain way, destroying the natural flux of nature. Now which is worse for nature.
No, you didn't read what I said in detail. I said warmer climate species are moving north. As in, the averages are creeping higher and higher, and seasons are changing in duration. --- arborday (dot) org / media / mapchanges.cfm
That temperature chart shows why the plants are moving northward.
And as I already said, photosynthesis maxes out and shuts down at 90-95F so, warming is only of benefit in a controlled environment. If it goes higher, it's a very bad thing.
@abyssquick And why is it a bad thing,, more area's for our plants/animals to live in, more areas for people to live in. And the global average has only creeped up .10th a degree. The globe changes all the time. 1000 years ago it was warmer then than now. And this chart is only from 1990-2006, not very long in the earths history. Plus 1996-2006 was also a high solar maximum, with more sunspots than normal. This could be the reason. Or better monitoring
Do you have a concept of scale? Or are you using the logic of small number=small amount... Because there's only .0384% C02 in the earth's atmosphere, yet that "small number" provides the carbon for the biomass of all plants & trees.
@abyssquick oooh someone used google. The point is, is if co2 goes up, plants grow to use up this co2, its stored etc. And if global warm/climate change(whatever they are calling it at the moment to suit the needs) is such a threat, the market will come and someone will create viable items to fix this,, if of course its a threat. And if we had more co2,, more trees, wouldnt the hippies be happy?
Horticulture & ethnobotany is my area of study & work, for which photosynthesis is obviously a prerequisite understanding. No, I don't think higher Co2 is beneficial in the long term, for plants/trees. In many species, higher co2 affects flowering and fruiting negatively. It will affect food crops, lowering food output significantly.
Co2 also acidifies the ocean, slowing coral growth, and killing microbiological life, upon which the food chain relies. Look it up.
@abyssquick Yes but with new tech this wont be a problem, with better scrubbers on power plants. With the extra co2(if there will be any) in the air, the plants will suck it up,, storing it. Also once new tech fusion reactors that can create artificial suns and the such are up and running, we wont be using much coal. But even then we are making coal tech cleaner and cleaner each year. These are all mute points.
You're saying carbon sinks, new plant growth will eventually catch up with the accelerated carbon input/output in the atmosphere cycle? Is this what you're saying? As it is right now, much more carbon is going into the cycle, than nature is capable of fixing from the air, taking out of the cycle.
How do you know, with any certainty, that the enhanced vascular growth effect will constitute enough carbon stored in biomass to account for all the extra carbon? There's 1/3 more than natural levels.
@abyssquick Well its simple, the extra co2 will cause more plant growth,, sucking more in, more plants mean more times it will suck it up. Sure it might take while because nature acts on time scales people dont understand. But the Earth is doing just fine. It worked with the Dino's thats what help them grow so big, extra oxygen, extra co2 in the air.. and that place was a lush with plants. What you fail to understand is nature will balance out, plants/animals find their nich.
@abyssquick And what you and the Climate Change dont tell, or dont understand is that climate is ALWAYS changing. like in previous posts, the earth is constantly changing. And who are we to try to stop its change. The very people trying to protect nature, and evolution are only going to kill and stop these 2. They only want nature to be the way THEY want it, not the way the Earth will become naturally. Extra co2 isnt bad because nature will change to meet its changing world.
Yes but you act like this thought, your "common sense" hasn't been considered thoroughly already. As though the cost/benefit hasn't taken place. These subjects have had long discussion in prior decades, in scientific circles.
It doesn't mean anything to give unquantified statements about things generally. Science is all about details, context.
@abyssquick Science is about proving theories, sceince isnt fact based, its making a theory and seeing if it happens or not. It has been discussed long before us, infact papers in the turn of the century were talking about how wed be in an ice age by now,, all life dead..... and just 40 years ago how wed be an ice age,, 30 years ago, how by now it would be too hot to live,, yes there has been 'discussion' on this topic long before us,,,,Are we dead yet...
Yes i know, thats why im saying your probably wrong. When Al Gore and the like say the 'debate is over' and shit like that, when most paid scientists dont believe in global warming. And of course when your group is becoming a smaller and smaller group each day, when people look up the 'facts' your group provides. Its laughable at best, and it smells of a scam to make money and control people.
Huh? Obviously you've never talked or interacted with field scientists. You opinion is completely unfounded. Climate change : (global warming, oceanic acidification, changes in species distribution, migration patterns, etc, etc) The phenomena of climate change is well known and accepted by scientific consensus.
You're obviously not working in a scientific field. As someone who does, I can say your opinions of "your side" (a daft way to look at things, at that) are grossly inflated.
@abyssquick the 'scientific consensus' lol. Why do you guys always say that, and 'the debate is over' yet when they had the 10k people sign that they believed in global warming, most were just bureaucrats and some scientists wanted there names off the list. The science is far from in, and the debate isnt over, and consensus,, u'll never have a consensus on just about anything science based on matters this important or big.
"You guys" - you imply that you think there's a "club" or something. It's all relatively independent.
"Lists of PHD's" are arguments from authority, and are meaningless & unscientific, no matter who uses them. As a person so well researched, and dedicated to scientific principles, you should know better than to argue anything other than immediate content.
Science is about evidence, quantification, variables, details, and context. It is not a litany of general vagaries.
@abyssquick well with youtube i cannot go into further detail,, plus i dont have the time to sit here and give you facts and wasting my day on you. And what i ment by 'you guys' since you have the iq of fucking Bush, is the people who believe in global warming or climate change or whatever your calling it,, who are pushing it on us without any real facts or science. Who want us to pay global carbon tax for simply exhaling,,, taxing life itself... thats what i ment by 'you guys'
I don't even support the idea of "carbon tax" - why are you conflating science with politics, and assuming that's my position...? There are many ways the problem might be dealt with. I am in fact highly critical of people like Al Gore, who cause conflation and confusion in the public on the subject.... how is it even logical that because I am interested in science that I am somehow in line with all of that? You're doing very much assuming, there.
@abyssquick well at least you dont believe in that scam. Even though you say your a scientist, i believe your thinking with your heart, rather than your mind. If you realize that the market will solve this if it becomes worse. Also as our tech grows we use less pollutants, due to more efficiencies in productivity and also new forms of power, like nuclear, new fusion, solar,wind,tide etc. Most arent cost effective yet, but some are.
The fact that you right now don't even know the difference between "global warming" and "climate change" at this point, being so educated in this science (as per your own words), says all I need to know really.
Why don't you tell me the difference between "global warming" and "climate change" then? If you've really done so much research as you have claimed (aside from watching youtube), surely you'd have gleaned this most basic precept? You can google it, but that would be dishonest...
@abyssquick I just think its sad that you cannot grasp the fact that climate changes, and that the weather of our lifetime might not be the same as the next.. that the earth doesnt need our help because we are ants compared to it. Life evolves to meet its changing world, just like we have. And any serious research into this and the groups quickly, and i mean very quickly shows that this isnt about saving the planet, but controlling its people. Sad you cannot even figure this scam out.
Obviously, the climate changes. But since it's always changing, and according to you, this changing is so unpredictable as to have no known patterns, why even bother to study it? Why take ice core samples, geological samples? Why even build a database of past climate?
@abyssquick We should take ice core samples and do these research, but not to become so alarmed as to make people change their lives, or be taxed etc. Just prepare. Maybe not build that house next to the ocean if it will rise that 1ft, or at least take responsibility when it gets flooded over and over in the coming decades. And thank you for finally admitting the climate changes naturally,,,lol, only took like 2 days to get it out of you
Admit what? I's bloody granted the climate changes naturally. I have already used the words "natural oscillations" once or twice. That literally means "changes according to natural cycles" ... so no. The problem I think, is perhaps you might need a dictionary.
@abyssquick anyways like i sad last night, life is too short for this shit,, and as you said, you werent gonna reply anymore,, so ill be doing some youtubing,, perhaps you can look up some videos,, John Stossel has a few climate changes ones on here, they are pretty good. He's a libertarian, and hopefully he'll open your eyes to things of importants. There are also other good videos,, but not enough space here. Check out Club of Rome, and like Ted Turner talking about killing all but 10-5%
You have clearly missed the entire context. Of course we can, and should (and do) study all of those things. That whole part is intended as reverse psychology. I'm putting in perspective the ridiculous "well, it's all changing anyway" argument of jwka2001 - Go back and read our discourse up to that point. Then you'll see what you missed.
Clean out your system. Wheatgrass/spirulina juice +lots of fruit for a week. If you can stomach it (lost my tastebuds in the war). Then it's easy to get drunk on only little. Much less expensive.
@abyssquick i mean the majority of people on this forum id say agree with me,, the polls done to everyday people at least show that they dont believe in global warming, some smaller group believe its a scam. I mean come on,,lol gov loves control and this allows them to control/tax every aspect of our lives. Sure we should be good stewards to our earth, but at what cost. Should the 3rd world suffer for what most likely is a lie at best, and a group that wants to kill all but 5% of humans at worst
@abyssquick Yes your right, im not a scientist,, lol but sadly i know more about this science than you do im afraid. Pitty too.You have yet to really reply about most of my rebuttals on the posts, like medieval warming period,, why was 1000 years ago, with no SUV's why was it warmer, why 5k years ago was the Sahara a lush grassland, and now a desert... could it be that the climate, just might of changed.....And is .10th a degree global temps going up really a problem lol.
No, you are trying to "own" this discussion. If you want to know about the medival warm period, go to realclimate (dot) org - or go watch potholer54's videos, or something informative.
To expect a person to be a bloody encyclopedia on a particular subject is an unrealistic goal post. Is it even relevant?
@abyssquick The warming period is relevant,, it shows that before the industrial revolution and all this talk, we had much warmer periods, plus the various other periods of cold/ warm trends that can be shown to be sun spot activity. And will say i am Owning this discussion,,,,,, Also on the previous post i made, when people become more industrialized they produce less kids, this will also help.
Again, argue content. Anyone who thinks they are "owning" a discussion, is not being scientific or reasonable. It is no different the the logical fallacy of arguing from authority. Your opinion of the quality and fortitude of your own opinions only implies conceitedness. It means nothing in the big picture.
Really, you should learn more about earth's biosphere, I think you need a few classes in organic (carbon-based) chemistry. You do know this is an entire course of study, right? If you are so interested, concerned, opinionated about the roles of carbon in the various carbon cycles on earth, why don't you just study it? It is a very interesting subject.
"it smells of a scam to make money and control people"
Love that argument. "I can't make points with verifiable facts so I create a narrative that creates a 'smell' that justifies my ridiculous assertions." Of course it must be a conspiracy, that is all you have left & simple minded people gobble it up
Afterall, if AGW is true then we all are guilty of hypocricy & selfishness...can't have that, can we?
@Hopeful71 I've done countless hours of research, checked the data. I like you believed in this just a few years ago, but after looking into the data, i quickly came to the conclusion that it was fake. And just recently after further research into the groups who created this idea, found that they created it on purpose just to control people. When they write books about how they want to control us, and all,, it becomes pretty easy to believe its fake and its a scam. Best of luck in life.
@abyssquick Why did you use the 'corporate/wealthy' line.. So your saying the business in the world and the rich dont care about the Earth? What if i told you they are actually the ones behind this Climate Change shit lol. And come on,, you can only get your funding from either Gov or Business..who would you trust more. A power structure that can only take from your life/liberties/property or one that trades with you ONLY if your willing. And 99% of the time both sides win........
@abyssquick Look at the statements above or below i've given to 'jamesmaseobrown' cause i've basically had to repeat myself, and it gets boring. But there is a LONG history of climate change far before SUV's and the like, and Co2(what you exhale) isnt bad, in fact it increases plant growth,, is that bad? Especially when most of the world cant feed itself. And how do we know that the planet wouldn't benefit from more Co2... Less Co2 means less plant growth,,,, Anyways hope you see the light.
No, it doesn't. Excess CO2 affects the vascular growth and flowering / fruiting cycle of all plants & trees. In most experiments plants show reductions in fruit productions, which, obviously, is BAD for food crops of any sort.
I'm sorry... read some horticultural textbooks. I'm in horticultural biology, and tired of going back and forth with ignorant pundits...
@abyssquick Ya your right,, i mean what would i know, i've just worked in my families greenhouse for 8 years, plus growing up with this info for like 15+ years,, what would i know....Sure and they dont use Co2 to increase in marijuana production to increase the amount of bud they get either
@jwka2001 - Yes, I do that too, enhanced/controlled co2 is a practice in hydroponics also. However,that is under controlled conditions, which are vastly different than that of a biosphere.
@abyssquick And how is it really any different. Your increasing the co2 to unbelievably high levels,, much higher than what humans could really survive in. And what happens, plants grow faster, stronger, more fruit, etc. They then suck up the co2, which they keep until they rot and decompose(which btw is the leading cause of co2 in the air) and some gets stuck in swamps/marsh and becomes coal. Which plants suck up that co2, and the cycle begins again. Isn't nature great :D
@abyssquick and since your in horticulture you then know that co2 was the first chemical in the air on earth,, so the plants sucked it up, grew and created the oxygen..they suck the co2 from the stomata(the holes in the plants leaves, that let in water and lets out water through evaporation but im sure you know this,,lol.)I think you should stay in horticulture class more.
What's more is you think we're "indoctrinated" or something, merely for collecting data. I don't understand this... do people even understand the science anymore? ... where do you get this lousy incorrect information?
@abyssquick I wouldnt say 'indoctrinating' but more like saying the facts are in, when only 1% of the info is in. They mention how all the weird weather,,etc. When most of this is more monitoring, and plus with a global news network we hear every last bad thing going on with the environment, so people think its 'changing' but when looking at local forecasts, events, they are all steady, etc. The global mean temp has only gone up .10th a degree.
@abyssquick like tree rings lol. I rather believe ice core samples than tree rings and that stuff. Plus the ice core samples show its been warmer before, and more co2 before. What SUV's were the Knights driving to conquer Europe in...I cant believe you cannot figure this out, its a scam to control people and resources. Climate changes,,, the Sahara was a lush grassland and swamp,, just 5k years ago,, damn those oil companies.. Please start thinking, its becoming embarrassing
Context. Please refrain from personal opinion of me. It's irrelevant. Stick to content.
You can't just say "but it has been warmer in the past" - because sciences are all about understanding context. Saying such general things is basic illiteracy in the methods and detail of science. There are so many variables in the natural oscillation. Do you really expect me to explain in all this detail to you right here?
@abyssquick well there are records of the time periods,, of course ice core samples,, your fancy tree rings the climate scientists always love showing. And of course the prophet Al gore's little charts and graphs showing it was warmer 1000 years ago. But of course i cant be expected to explain every little detail now can i :P Life is too short for this shit. Please understand that CLIMATE CHANGES! And how can we know that what will happen will be worse. Maybe it will be better, if its happening
In case you haven't been listening further - I'm not arguing pro-global warming. I'm taking issue with bad and inaccurate scientific declarations you make, and the opinions based on them.
If you think these temperature changes are "good" for life, that means I then have to explain to you the sensitivity of plant species in the tropical rainforests and other equatorial areas. I have to explain to you how the problem is occurring more rapidly than nature's alleles might account for. And so on.
@abyssquick 99.5% of all life is extinct. Plants/animal speicies die everyday, far before man had the power to affect their lives. Animals/plants filled the nich, and life goes on. What if there was only half the plant/animals on earth. Sure it would suck but nature works long term. Plants/animals would fill those niches, and some would evolve to take the place. Is that bad.. only to people who want to control the planet
In other words, it's a lot of my own education & experience I have to dig out ando explain to someone who has their mind made up. Someone who has the tactfulness already to say "please start thinking, it's embarrassing" - insinuating I am the stupid, in the wrong, and you are "winning" - well, in my experience, data is what speaks. Good logic speaks for itself, and you don't need to tell anyone "it's correct."
Needless to say I am disinclined to converse with you further.
@abyssquick and this .10th a degree can simply be a monitoring issue,, or the fact we have more concrete/roofs to create more heat, or what if it is us,, is .10th a degree really an issue? I get this 'lousy info' from you guys. The main fact you guys dont understand is that the climate is always changing, and that the earth doesnt need our help, were ants compared to it. Check out the following video
He's not elitist at all. That ""elitist" label is directly out of some right-wing think tank soley for the purpose of marginalizing people and issues. Here's a label: "denialist."
He put out a sensible challenge, and you don't even bother to address it.
By using that term, you've proven that you're nothing more than a preprogrammed sheep.
@jamesmaseobrown Lol thats what you get for assuming. 99% of the time your wrong, and yet again an assumption is wrong. Climate CHANGES. Seriously how hard is it to get through your head. they state that man produces less than 1% of all Co2, and Co2 isnt even bad. I work in a greenhouse, plants LOVE co2, they grow faster, stronger, produce more fruit. Even if it was true, it would mean more plants,more fruit. Less hungry people on the planet
@jamesmaseobrown Also, if you watch Al Gores little fictional movie, he shows you the graph of the temp/Co2. And yet when you put the graphs together, it clearly shows that co2 comes BEFORE temps going up. Also the medieval warming period,, and the fact that you can track just about every warming/cooling trend due to solar maximum/minimum. Sun spots are the main reason we have 'climate change'. Besides climate changes.
@jamesmaseobrown Also i must point out, that even if this scam was real, how do we know that it would be bad. 5k years ago the Sahara was a lush grassland, filled with 3-4 lakes that held more water than the great lakes combined. That all changed within 200 years. How do we know it wont revert back, or deserts will be come lush again, or more areas up in Russia/canada will be better for growing.
@jamesmaseobrown And also Earth has been here long before us, and will be here long after us. 99.5% of all life that has ever lived on earth is dead. If a few dozen species or thousand die off tonight, sure it would suck. But other species would fill the nich, and become stronger in the process. There would be some evolutions in generations down the road, and the earth would be perfectly fine. People like you only believe in keeping the earth how YOU want it.
@jamesmaseobrown Im done,, i've given you but the briefest of proof that it doesnt exist. I could be here for hours going line by line, but life is too short for this shit. All this is, is a way for the elites to control the sheep like you. They will tax you, and control your lives until farting costs you money cause it could hurt mother Earth. And by the way im Libertarian,, not 'right-wing' like you believe. Think outside of the left/right,,red/blue shit and open your fucking eyes
I despise the politics of this. Science is not politics. I know many field scientists concerned with how the politics are distracting from the importance of the science. There's independent research gong on all over the world, in many different ecological fields. Science is already known for a lack of lateral (inter-disciplinary) communication. So, how exactly are they all to "conspire," when each is simply finding the same macroscopic result in their respective field, independently?
The Consensus lobby is using AGW to promulgate a preconceived agenda, as laid out by the Club of Rome in their 1993 publication, "Limits to Growth," which is worldwide Taxation under the United Nations. The nations of the world are to become virtual Colonies of the UN. Carol Quigley stated that in his book, "Tragedy and Hope" that Coporations are to become Feudal Land barons, administering to Nations under the UN.
You lost me. I fail to see how this ties into the science. You're talking about how people arr "using" the science. Some political agenda. I'm just talking about the science. I have no interest in this conspiracy stuff. Human affairs are far too disorganized on a microscopic basis (family, town, community) to be so strictly organized and conspiratorial on a macroscopic level (nation, government, world). As above, so below.
It's too much of a shit show out there. Have you been?
You do realize that the Council on Foreign Relations is planning to build a Massive Highway from Mexico, through the United States and into Canada known as the Trans-Texas Corridor.
Nations will be obsolete.
According to the United Nations Agenda 21, populations will be herded into what the United Nations calles "Habitat Areas" which will be shuttled around through public transportation. This is the agenda for the 21st century.
All of the North America was actually once covered and draped in Ice, which mysteriously and magically melted. I know it is difficult to believe but the earth emerged from the last Glacial Period or Ice Age, 8,000 years ago, and these magically melted glaciars created the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes which were carved by Ice deepening old valleys.
I'm barely literate in the "climate" sciences. I only understand principles, as they apply to my own work. You seem to be preoccupied with this anti-consensus stuff, so I'm really not any sort of "expert" you should find yourself debating.
The only advice I have is to look at the ecological sciences. There is so much there to see. It's "the other side of the coin' to climate science, as it were. That's what I am familiar with, and where my perspective comes from.
Suppose we deployed a mechanism that redressed the impact we have on each other by having the effect of creating an open market for impact itself. Those who produced more that the average amount of CO2, for example, would effectively be buying the unused "impact" of those who must then have produced less in an auction. This approach has a HUGE number of nice consequences besides the incentive to lower carbon footprints globally; it gives us new tools to tax black markets and police human rights.
Co2 is not "plant food" any more than oxygen is a food to humans. Water and mico-nutrients (NPK, Iron, Magneisum, Calcium) are just as crucial for them to live.
Co2 does enhance growth - under controlled temperature and moisture. However, it promotes vascular growth - leaves, branches, etc. It adversely affects flowering and fruiting (reproduction).
Also, photosynthesis shuts down at 90F or so, as the plant preserves water. So, with warming considered, your" opinion" is rather irrelevant.
Unlike the vast majority of people, I know that the average person does not actually Think. Ideas which they claim as their own are actually imprinted onto them by the state and media through spetial repetition.
We must "reduce" CO2, that "Pesky" gas which enables Photosynthesis, is readily ingested by plants, and is stored as sugar, which is interesting to note considering that human beings breathe it out.
Thus as Bill Gates suggests, we can reduce CO2 levels by reducing the Population.
Actually, in trees most of Co2 is stored as longer-chain carbohydrates (lignins, cellulose), and not as sugars, though some are synthesized for use in the cambium and xylem. Only smaller, fleshy plants (carrots, jicama, radish) make more substantial sugar stores in their biomass.
You have ignored the content of my previous posts entirely. I did not say whether or not I endorsed "global warming" ... I was actually picking at your incorrect statements about plants / trees and Co2.
I don't even care about climatology. I study ecology. The bulk of climate change evidence lies in ecological sciences. The media fosters imprudent discussion in the public by only addressing "climate data" and makes the issue artificially reduced, and isolated. The ecological data is all I am really exposed to on a regular basis. I'm actually studying changes in latitude and altitude for fast-growing plant species. I don't think it's even prudent to discuss changes in climate data exclusively.
Or on YouTube in 500-char windows, either. It's futile to try to discuss such broad, multi-faceted phenomena. The only reason people post here is to pontificate or express a mind already made up.
I don't know enough specifically about those events to say much. However, science is all about context. It doesn't matter THAT it has been warmer, or colder in the past, what matters is WHY. Climate study (and ecological study) rests on a foundation of understanding natural variance and oscillations, as well as the causes. This is multi-faceted. So saying "but it has been warmer/colder in the past" doesn't mean anything. It's the context, the fine detail that is of interest.
plants are (basically) divided into 2 groups in how they process CO2. There are C4 and C3 type plants. As Atmospheric CO2 becomes richer plants from one group will die off. Plants from the other group will persist but even they can have too rich of a concentration of CO2.
That "miniscule" 384 ppm of carbon dioxide provides 45-55% of the biomass of all plants and trees. It is hardly "miniscule" in it's effect on our ecological carbon cycle. The case, I think, is that you have been reading propaganda, and are not actually educated in horticulture.
This Global warming hysteria is unsupported by data. CO2 is Plant Food, my friend.
Perhaps you should cease breathing out CO2, a natural product of human respiration. Start first by ceasing to metabolize. The UN Oligarchy means to tax a fundamental gas in the atmosphere, since all life on earth is carbon-based.
"Global Warming" is a "Codeword" for Population Control from the United Nations and the World Bank, giving the fascist UN regulation over the economies of the world.
I am educated in Horticulture. It's what I do. Your tirades, and description of biological carbon cycles are laughable at best. Vaguely accurate, but not really in any relevant context.
However, I won't try to argue from authority with you. Nor will it be profitable to argue from evidence. I can see already you have made all sorts of conspiracy connections, and so logical, detailed scientific talk will not keep your attention.
Earlier, you said that Co2 was not Plant Food. And yet it is earth's greatest airborne plant fertilizer.
My point in stating that Co2 is 0.038% is that it has been estimated to have been increased from an estimated 0.028% since the industrial revolution, an increase in 0.010%.
Now you are feigning intellectual superiority in statements. Laughable.
Yes, but where the heck did you hear that "Co2 is plant food?" That's simplistic. It's a prerequisite to photosythesis, yes, but so is water. Is water "plant food"? These are the stage for plant life.
What you actually "feed" plants are an array of micronutirients - NPK being the major 3. Without some measure of iron in the soil, trees cannot even produce chlorophyll, and will die. Nutrient content, as well as temperature, dictate what plants can grow where, and how they metabolize.
The carbon in Co2 contributes to over 45% of the biomass of plants. Not all of the carbon from plants, however, is derived from Co2, as you seem to suggest. Water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect is necessary for regulating radiation from the Sun, creating a habitable planet, unlike the Moon or Mars.
You're being peripheral. I have been general due to the "size" of these text windows. Now, stop with the red herrings.
If you were literate in science, you would know what I'm talking about regarding ecology. Clearly, you do not. I'm not just talking about "global warming," I'm talking about Oceanic PH, Species Distribution, Migration Patterns, Melt Patterns, Permafrost Discharge, etc. There is a huge body of ecological data.
I have no idea what you are trying to infer. These carbon/hydrological/biological cycles are some of the most well understood systems in science. Many plants also expel water, too. Rainforests are so dense with vegetation, and contain plants with high respiratory rates, the forest system is capable of generating it's own rainclouds.
I really don't follow this at all... So I'm just throwing interesting stuff out there at this point.
You say that rainforests can generate its own rainclouds. This is True.
Governments can also generate their own Rain Clouds and cause earthquakes and storms by using HAARP Technology (High Altitude Auroral Research Program) as devised by Nikola Tesla. The technology exists in Alaska and functions by spraying the sky with metallic particles of Cadmium, Barium, and aluminum, Chemtrails. It works like the Aurora Borealis.
Of course it's "true." It's in every horticultural textbook. So, I take it you're the "authority" on this issue, verifying and approving the content of my commentary for me? As though I didn't already know?
I'm aware of HAARP, and of Tesla's notion of using the earth's ionosphere as a feedback chamber. I fail to see what heavy metals have to do with that, unless you think they are "seeding" rainclouds.... in nature, this is usually accomplished by lighter particulate matter.
Good. These are small metallic particles which may aerosolize into nano particulates. Planes have been continuously spraying the skies with Chemtrails of Cadmium, barium, and aluminum since around 1998. HAARP generates a lot of energy. It may magnify the sun's rays, and also induce seismic spasms in the earth.
this is such utter nonsense. the best way to fight it is to not aid these groups economically. how do those pushing this fraud maintain thier funding?
The United Nations needs this Tax to begin to regulate the world economies, to regulate the amount of factories, cars, and even how many people can be born in each county.
The wealthy Oligarch, Bill Gates of Microsoft recently did a presentation in February 2010 (which can be found on YouTube) wherein he states that the simplest method to reduce the level of CO2 will be to reduce the World's Population.
Carbon taxing is just another mega financial Ponzi scheme bubble waiting in the corridors that is designed to profit once again from the ignorance of the masses who provided the profit for the industrial complexes that created the current crisis and are now inflating said crisis in order to make the masses once again generate more profit for cleaning up the mess that industrial magnates originated. That is the issue and quandary.
The insipid shell game that is being played upon the inhabitants of this planet is not that so much CO2 is the culprit, it is a problem, but that the industry, deforestation, pollution, and toxins resulting in the production of CO2 which would decrease with the management of the former.
Wealthy Oligarchs behind the United Nations are promoting this Myth of Global Warming to institute world Taxation and Population Control on all carbon expellers IE. Human Beings. Human beings breathe out carbon dioxide. This fraud shall create a new Ponzi Scheme, based on Carbon Derivatives, also giving the private fascist United Nations ability to regulate the world economies.
Ie. World Government under the fascist United Nations.
Humans breathe oxygen. Paranoid? Perhaps you should read the statements of Maurice Strong of the World Bank, and the various publications from the Club of Rome, Club of Budapest, and Club of Madrid.
We must reduce CO2 that pesky gas which enables Photosynthesis and only represent 35 part per 100,000 of the air and represents a miniscule 0.038% of the atmosphere.
CO2 is quite simply: Food for Plants and earth's greatest airborne Plant Fertilizer.
The more CO2, the more robust plantlife, the more robust habitats and ecosytems, the less dependence. Younger faster growing plants consume more CO2 than older ones.
Climate change is a fact of nature, it is what the Earth does, it changes, but on how much humanity is affecting this cyclical event is the question.
To not acknowledge that humanity is by nature and deceitful and opportunistic animal that will always prey and take advantage of the weak is the denial, not the natural progression of climate change.
Public trust in this science has plummeted because it's not a science, it's a religion. Global warming/change is bogus nonsense with an agenda behind it.
HA! He said "deniers".
I call him a liar.
Agenda 21 from the UN, know it, understand it, fear it.
@kfjcer science is not a religion, everything in science is scrutinized, retested over and over. religion is faith based on something that was written thousands of years ago.
@goog2k 32 years really isn't that long when considering temperature fluctuations over a given period. There were COLD records set last winter in many parts of the US, anyway.
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
This is stupid (forgive me). Climate science (not that age matters that much) is younger than neuroscience.
Tell me, you McEwan fans, how does this negate the scientific evidence for AGW?
Yes, fuck the denialists, as per intelligent sense, but skepticism, as celebrated here by McEwan, is *more* common among climate scientists than the denialists shit-for-brains.
And why should I be more "respectful"? That's BS. I call stupidity by it's name. Now, if you're intereseted in debating the science (I don't know your positions), I would be more than happy.
I get into debates of a similar nature and process to the climate change debate - namely evolution vs creationism - and I know from experience that rude and/or excessively caustic responses simply make the other person stop listening.
I really like the distinction he made between "denialism" is skepticism. It reminds me of Richard Dawkin's term, history deniers. Not much in the way of content here, but I agree with his point.
Excellent video
esmeraldabelgarde 5 months ago
Lie: that US military soldiers have a "stressful" job.
In reality, they get rich from trillions of dollars in corporate-welfare.
Lie: wikileaks "hurt" anybody or put any soldier at "risk".
Lie: OJ Simpson "killed" anybody.
Fact: human-caused global warming is serious and happening now.
mphello 1 year ago
If you would actually reject the liberal fanatics and really any leftist such as Al Gore, you may then achieve far more success at convincing people that global warming is happening. It is failing because it is seen as just another political issue, where people turn off their minds and start taking sides blindly, when it should not be a political issue at all. It's actually sad and very detrimental that Al Gore (a Democratic VP, and not well-liked at that) has to be such a visible part of it.
MazeleyFanClub 1 year ago
The conservative apparatchik was mobilized when the proposal to solve climate change involved a tax. To some people there is something worse than destruction of the earth, and thats a tax.
tubester4567 1 year ago
CLIMATEGATE
aGlobalWarmingHOAX 1 year ago 2
@aGlobalWarmingHOAX Climategate investigation said there was no hoax.
HaT223 1 year ago
@aGlobalWarmingHOAX Thanks for your post. I am so glad to know that I can trust you, and not ANY Academy of Science on the planet.
tarfpir 1 year ago
People still believe in Man-made global warming,,,,how quaint. Seriously i thought the 'debate' was dead,,,after you know, it was proven to be a scam. I mean records show that the CLIMATE CHANGES naturally. And this Ian McEwan sounds so fucking elitist.
jwka2001 1 year ago
@jwka2001,
One of the Greatest Scams in History.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
@AnonymousWhitePerson Ya,, i mean 5k years ago the Saharan desert was a lush grassland filled with 3 or 4 lakes that held more water than the great lakes,, and within like 100-200 years or less it was the desert we know,, people were forced to go to the last place that had water that was in northern Africa,, Egypt,, and thats why we have the Egyptian empire. So climate change isnt always bad.. But people still believe the scam of man-made warming/cooling whatever shit they are pressing. Thanks
jwka2001 1 year ago
It won't be over until political paradigms are discarded. People think that because the "left" champions this particular subject, and quotes the science, that somehow they made it up - and that's the angle the media (corporate, wealthy-funded) takes. They criticize, mine, slander, and falsely reduce the issue. Ignore ecology completely.
I'm sorry educated people sound "elitist" to you. People from, say, Harvard University tend to carry that tone naturally. Listen to the content, not the tone.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick I have, and its sad that this religion basically is still being believed. It just takes common sense, and basic knowledge in history to understand this is all a scam. Climate Changes naturally. The global temperature has only gone up .10th a degree since they've been recording it. Now this could just be due to increased cities and asphalt upping the heat. Or monitoring stations upping the average etc.
jwka2001 1 year ago
I find all such discussion imprudent.
I literally study changes in species' latitude and altitude in response to changing climate. Both cold and warm tolerant species are moving north at pace, and to higher altitudes.
I don't know how people think this is a "conspiracy" suffice to say they're not the ones on the ground, doing the work. Ecology has lots to say about it, yet the media pretends it's all "climate data" because they're science illiterate. And so too, is the american public.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick And is plants moving up north a bad thing? It would mean more areas to grow food,,russia/canada would love this wouldnt they. More food to feed the world. Global warming freaks are just concerned that the globe is changing, which it does all the time. And they are trying to keep it a certain way, destroying the natural flux of nature. Now which is worse for nature.
jwka2001 1 year ago
No, you didn't read what I said in detail. I said warmer climate species are moving north. As in, the averages are creeping higher and higher, and seasons are changing in duration. --- arborday (dot) org / media / mapchanges.cfm
That temperature chart shows why the plants are moving northward.
And as I already said, photosynthesis maxes out and shuts down at 90-95F so, warming is only of benefit in a controlled environment. If it goes higher, it's a very bad thing.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick And why is it a bad thing,, more area's for our plants/animals to live in, more areas for people to live in. And the global average has only creeped up .10th a degree. The globe changes all the time. 1000 years ago it was warmer then than now. And this chart is only from 1990-2006, not very long in the earths history. Plus 1996-2006 was also a high solar maximum, with more sunspots than normal. This could be the reason. Or better monitoring
jwka2001 1 year ago
Do you have a concept of scale? Or are you using the logic of small number=small amount... Because there's only .0384% C02 in the earth's atmosphere, yet that "small number" provides the carbon for the biomass of all plants & trees.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick oooh someone used google. The point is, is if co2 goes up, plants grow to use up this co2, its stored etc. And if global warm/climate change(whatever they are calling it at the moment to suit the needs) is such a threat, the market will come and someone will create viable items to fix this,, if of course its a threat. And if we had more co2,, more trees, wouldnt the hippies be happy?
jwka2001 1 year ago
I'm not using google.
Horticulture & ethnobotany is my area of study & work, for which photosynthesis is obviously a prerequisite understanding. No, I don't think higher Co2 is beneficial in the long term, for plants/trees. In many species, higher co2 affects flowering and fruiting negatively. It will affect food crops, lowering food output significantly.
Co2 also acidifies the ocean, slowing coral growth, and killing microbiological life, upon which the food chain relies. Look it up.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick Yes but with new tech this wont be a problem, with better scrubbers on power plants. With the extra co2(if there will be any) in the air, the plants will suck it up,, storing it. Also once new tech fusion reactors that can create artificial suns and the such are up and running, we wont be using much coal. But even then we are making coal tech cleaner and cleaner each year. These are all mute points.
jwka2001 1 year ago
You're saying carbon sinks, new plant growth will eventually catch up with the accelerated carbon input/output in the atmosphere cycle? Is this what you're saying? As it is right now, much more carbon is going into the cycle, than nature is capable of fixing from the air, taking out of the cycle.
How do you know, with any certainty, that the enhanced vascular growth effect will constitute enough carbon stored in biomass to account for all the extra carbon? There's 1/3 more than natural levels.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick Well its simple, the extra co2 will cause more plant growth,, sucking more in, more plants mean more times it will suck it up. Sure it might take while because nature acts on time scales people dont understand. But the Earth is doing just fine. It worked with the Dino's thats what help them grow so big, extra oxygen, extra co2 in the air.. and that place was a lush with plants. What you fail to understand is nature will balance out, plants/animals find their nich.
jwka2001 1 year ago
@abyssquick And what you and the Climate Change dont tell, or dont understand is that climate is ALWAYS changing. like in previous posts, the earth is constantly changing. And who are we to try to stop its change. The very people trying to protect nature, and evolution are only going to kill and stop these 2. They only want nature to be the way THEY want it, not the way the Earth will become naturally. Extra co2 isnt bad because nature will change to meet its changing world.
jwka2001 1 year ago
Yes but you act like this thought, your "common sense" hasn't been considered thoroughly already. As though the cost/benefit hasn't taken place. These subjects have had long discussion in prior decades, in scientific circles.
It doesn't mean anything to give unquantified statements about things generally. Science is all about details, context.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick Science is about proving theories, sceince isnt fact based, its making a theory and seeing if it happens or not. It has been discussed long before us, infact papers in the turn of the century were talking about how wed be in an ice age by now,, all life dead..... and just 40 years ago how wed be an ice age,, 30 years ago, how by now it would be too hot to live,, yes there has been 'discussion' on this topic long before us,,,,Are we dead yet...
jwka2001 1 year ago
Science never settled anything through a conceited certainty.
abyssquick 1 year ago
Yes i know, thats why im saying your probably wrong. When Al Gore and the like say the 'debate is over' and shit like that, when most paid scientists dont believe in global warming. And of course when your group is becoming a smaller and smaller group each day, when people look up the 'facts' your group provides. Its laughable at best, and it smells of a scam to make money and control people.
jwka2001 1 year ago
Huh? Obviously you've never talked or interacted with field scientists. You opinion is completely unfounded. Climate change : (global warming, oceanic acidification, changes in species distribution, migration patterns, etc, etc) The phenomena of climate change is well known and accepted by scientific consensus.
You're obviously not working in a scientific field. As someone who does, I can say your opinions of "your side" (a daft way to look at things, at that) are grossly inflated.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick the 'scientific consensus' lol. Why do you guys always say that, and 'the debate is over' yet when they had the 10k people sign that they believed in global warming, most were just bureaucrats and some scientists wanted there names off the list. The science is far from in, and the debate isnt over, and consensus,, u'll never have a consensus on just about anything science based on matters this important or big.
jwka2001 1 year ago
"You guys" - you imply that you think there's a "club" or something. It's all relatively independent.
"Lists of PHD's" are arguments from authority, and are meaningless & unscientific, no matter who uses them. As a person so well researched, and dedicated to scientific principles, you should know better than to argue anything other than immediate content.
Science is about evidence, quantification, variables, details, and context. It is not a litany of general vagaries.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick well with youtube i cannot go into further detail,, plus i dont have the time to sit here and give you facts and wasting my day on you. And what i ment by 'you guys' since you have the iq of fucking Bush, is the people who believe in global warming or climate change or whatever your calling it,, who are pushing it on us without any real facts or science. Who want us to pay global carbon tax for simply exhaling,,, taxing life itself... thats what i ment by 'you guys'
jwka2001 1 year ago
I don't even support the idea of "carbon tax" - why are you conflating science with politics, and assuming that's my position...? There are many ways the problem might be dealt with. I am in fact highly critical of people like Al Gore, who cause conflation and confusion in the public on the subject.... how is it even logical that because I am interested in science that I am somehow in line with all of that? You're doing very much assuming, there.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick well at least you dont believe in that scam. Even though you say your a scientist, i believe your thinking with your heart, rather than your mind. If you realize that the market will solve this if it becomes worse. Also as our tech grows we use less pollutants, due to more efficiencies in productivity and also new forms of power, like nuclear, new fusion, solar,wind,tide etc. Most arent cost effective yet, but some are.
jwka2001 1 year ago
The fact that you right now don't even know the difference between "global warming" and "climate change" at this point, being so educated in this science (as per your own words), says all I need to know really.
Why don't you tell me the difference between "global warming" and "climate change" then? If you've really done so much research as you have claimed (aside from watching youtube), surely you'd have gleaned this most basic precept? You can google it, but that would be dishonest...
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick I just think its sad that you cannot grasp the fact that climate changes, and that the weather of our lifetime might not be the same as the next.. that the earth doesnt need our help because we are ants compared to it. Life evolves to meet its changing world, just like we have. And any serious research into this and the groups quickly, and i mean very quickly shows that this isnt about saving the planet, but controlling its people. Sad you cannot even figure this scam out.
jwka2001 1 year ago
Obviously, the climate changes. But since it's always changing, and according to you, this changing is so unpredictable as to have no known patterns, why even bother to study it? Why take ice core samples, geological samples? Why even build a database of past climate?
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick We should take ice core samples and do these research, but not to become so alarmed as to make people change their lives, or be taxed etc. Just prepare. Maybe not build that house next to the ocean if it will rise that 1ft, or at least take responsibility when it gets flooded over and over in the coming decades. And thank you for finally admitting the climate changes naturally,,,lol, only took like 2 days to get it out of you
jwka2001 1 year ago
Admit what? I's bloody granted the climate changes naturally. I have already used the words "natural oscillations" once or twice. That literally means "changes according to natural cycles" ... so no. The problem I think, is perhaps you might need a dictionary.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick anyways like i sad last night, life is too short for this shit,, and as you said, you werent gonna reply anymore,, so ill be doing some youtubing,, perhaps you can look up some videos,, John Stossel has a few climate changes ones on here, they are pretty good. He's a libertarian, and hopefully he'll open your eyes to things of importants. There are also other good videos,, but not enough space here. Check out Club of Rome, and like Ted Turner talking about killing all but 10-5%
jwka2001 1 year ago
Yes I've watched many of those. And Monckton, and Bjorn, and Lindzen, etc, etc, etc, - You think I haven't see these?
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick Are you joking or am I not understanding you, because you sound like the biggest moron even?
Why bother to study it, WOW. I really hope you are joking.
thesparitan 1 year ago
You have clearly missed the entire context. Of course we can, and should (and do) study all of those things. That whole part is intended as reverse psychology. I'm putting in perspective the ridiculous "well, it's all changing anyway" argument of jwka2001 - Go back and read our discourse up to that point. Then you'll see what you missed.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick I happen to be very drunk off of french wine SO, whatever I do what I WANT.
I fugured that actually, I knew no one was that stupid. Thank god I was about to go on a killing spree. LOL I get it now.
I am drucnk did I say that already, this is the part where I passt out, bye.
thesparitan 1 year ago
I'm a Guiness man. Stout, porter, black & tan. You know. Rich grain stuff.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick Black & tan is great, I dont have it often I dont know why.
I happen to be a porter an myself but I cant get drunk on beer.
thesparitan 1 year ago
Clean out your system. Wheatgrass/spirulina juice +lots of fruit for a week. If you can stomach it (lost my tastebuds in the war). Then it's easy to get drunk on only little. Much less expensive.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick i mean the majority of people on this forum id say agree with me,, the polls done to everyday people at least show that they dont believe in global warming, some smaller group believe its a scam. I mean come on,,lol gov loves control and this allows them to control/tax every aspect of our lives. Sure we should be good stewards to our earth, but at what cost. Should the 3rd world suffer for what most likely is a lie at best, and a group that wants to kill all but 5% of humans at worst
jwka2001 1 year ago
@abyssquick Yes your right, im not a scientist,, lol but sadly i know more about this science than you do im afraid. Pitty too.You have yet to really reply about most of my rebuttals on the posts, like medieval warming period,, why was 1000 years ago, with no SUV's why was it warmer, why 5k years ago was the Sahara a lush grassland, and now a desert... could it be that the climate, just might of changed.....And is .10th a degree global temps going up really a problem lol.
jwka2001 1 year ago
No, you are trying to "own" this discussion. If you want to know about the medival warm period, go to realclimate (dot) org - or go watch potholer54's videos, or something informative.
To expect a person to be a bloody encyclopedia on a particular subject is an unrealistic goal post. Is it even relevant?
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick The warming period is relevant,, it shows that before the industrial revolution and all this talk, we had much warmer periods, plus the various other periods of cold/ warm trends that can be shown to be sun spot activity. And will say i am Owning this discussion,,,,,, Also on the previous post i made, when people become more industrialized they produce less kids, this will also help.
jwka2001 1 year ago
Again, argue content. Anyone who thinks they are "owning" a discussion, is not being scientific or reasonable. It is no different the the logical fallacy of arguing from authority. Your opinion of the quality and fortitude of your own opinions only implies conceitedness. It means nothing in the big picture.
abyssquick 1 year ago
Really, you should learn more about earth's biosphere, I think you need a few classes in organic (carbon-based) chemistry. You do know this is an entire course of study, right? If you are so interested, concerned, opinionated about the roles of carbon in the various carbon cycles on earth, why don't you just study it? It is a very interesting subject.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@jwka2001
"it smells of a scam to make money and control people"
Love that argument. "I can't make points with verifiable facts so I create a narrative that creates a 'smell' that justifies my ridiculous assertions." Of course it must be a conspiracy, that is all you have left & simple minded people gobble it up
Afterall, if AGW is true then we all are guilty of hypocricy & selfishness...can't have that, can we?
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71
The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome
They were the ones who created the climate warming scam.
jwka2001 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 I've done countless hours of research, checked the data. I like you believed in this just a few years ago, but after looking into the data, i quickly came to the conclusion that it was fake. And just recently after further research into the groups who created this idea, found that they created it on purpose just to control people. When they write books about how they want to control us, and all,, it becomes pretty easy to believe its fake and its a scam. Best of luck in life.
jwka2001 1 year ago
@abyssquick Why did you use the 'corporate/wealthy' line.. So your saying the business in the world and the rich dont care about the Earth? What if i told you they are actually the ones behind this Climate Change shit lol. And come on,, you can only get your funding from either Gov or Business..who would you trust more. A power structure that can only take from your life/liberties/property or one that trades with you ONLY if your willing. And 99% of the time both sides win........
jwka2001 1 year ago
@abyssquick Look at the statements above or below i've given to 'jamesmaseobrown' cause i've basically had to repeat myself, and it gets boring. But there is a LONG history of climate change far before SUV's and the like, and Co2(what you exhale) isnt bad, in fact it increases plant growth,, is that bad? Especially when most of the world cant feed itself. And how do we know that the planet wouldn't benefit from more Co2... Less Co2 means less plant growth,,,, Anyways hope you see the light.
jwka2001 1 year ago
No, it doesn't. Excess CO2 affects the vascular growth and flowering / fruiting cycle of all plants & trees. In most experiments plants show reductions in fruit productions, which, obviously, is BAD for food crops of any sort.
I'm sorry... read some horticultural textbooks. I'm in horticultural biology, and tired of going back and forth with ignorant pundits...
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick
"ignorant pundits" - what, like ian mcewan?
ttimothymurphy 1 year ago 2
Anyone who is not involved with the science itself. Ignore Al Gore. Listen to the field scientists. Armchair critics & authors are a dime a dozen.
abyssquick 1 year ago
He is right on about the denailist and skeptics.
Denalist just disregard and evidence as conspiracy and declare victory.
Skeptics are people who look at all evidence and just come to diffrent conclusion.
Skeptics know how science works and work towards disproving climate change.
Where as denalist just see science as some massive conspiracy. Typical of Denalist of other types as well like creationist, Holocaust denalists.
HaT223 1 year ago
@abyssquick Ya your right,, i mean what would i know, i've just worked in my families greenhouse for 8 years, plus growing up with this info for like 15+ years,, what would i know....Sure and they dont use Co2 to increase in marijuana production to increase the amount of bud they get either
jwka2001 1 year ago
@jwka2001 - Yes, I do that too, enhanced/controlled co2 is a practice in hydroponics also. However,that is under controlled conditions, which are vastly different than that of a biosphere.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick And how is it really any different. Your increasing the co2 to unbelievably high levels,, much higher than what humans could really survive in. And what happens, plants grow faster, stronger, more fruit, etc. They then suck up the co2, which they keep until they rot and decompose(which btw is the leading cause of co2 in the air) and some gets stuck in swamps/marsh and becomes coal. Which plants suck up that co2, and the cycle begins again. Isn't nature great :D
jwka2001 1 year ago
@abyssquick and since your in horticulture you then know that co2 was the first chemical in the air on earth,, so the plants sucked it up, grew and created the oxygen..they suck the co2 from the stomata(the holes in the plants leaves, that let in water and lets out water through evaporation but im sure you know this,,lol.)I think you should stay in horticulture class more.
jwka2001 1 year ago
What's more is you think we're "indoctrinated" or something, merely for collecting data. I don't understand this... do people even understand the science anymore? ... where do you get this lousy incorrect information?
abyssquick 1 year ago 2
@abyssquick I wouldnt say 'indoctrinating' but more like saying the facts are in, when only 1% of the info is in. They mention how all the weird weather,,etc. When most of this is more monitoring, and plus with a global news network we hear every last bad thing going on with the environment, so people think its 'changing' but when looking at local forecasts, events, they are all steady, etc. The global mean temp has only gone up .10th a degree.
jwka2001 1 year ago
Ecological data? All people ever talk about is climate data. ... yet the ecological data is by far more expansive and detailed.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick like tree rings lol. I rather believe ice core samples than tree rings and that stuff. Plus the ice core samples show its been warmer before, and more co2 before. What SUV's were the Knights driving to conquer Europe in...I cant believe you cannot figure this out, its a scam to control people and resources. Climate changes,,, the Sahara was a lush grassland and swamp,, just 5k years ago,, damn those oil companies.. Please start thinking, its becoming embarrassing
jwka2001 1 year ago
Context. Please refrain from personal opinion of me. It's irrelevant. Stick to content.
You can't just say "but it has been warmer in the past" - because sciences are all about understanding context. Saying such general things is basic illiteracy in the methods and detail of science. There are so many variables in the natural oscillation. Do you really expect me to explain in all this detail to you right here?
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick well there are records of the time periods,, of course ice core samples,, your fancy tree rings the climate scientists always love showing. And of course the prophet Al gore's little charts and graphs showing it was warmer 1000 years ago. But of course i cant be expected to explain every little detail now can i :P Life is too short for this shit. Please understand that CLIMATE CHANGES! And how can we know that what will happen will be worse. Maybe it will be better, if its happening
jwka2001 1 year ago
In case you haven't been listening further - I'm not arguing pro-global warming. I'm taking issue with bad and inaccurate scientific declarations you make, and the opinions based on them.
If you think these temperature changes are "good" for life, that means I then have to explain to you the sensitivity of plant species in the tropical rainforests and other equatorial areas. I have to explain to you how the problem is occurring more rapidly than nature's alleles might account for. And so on.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick 99.5% of all life is extinct. Plants/animal speicies die everyday, far before man had the power to affect their lives. Animals/plants filled the nich, and life goes on. What if there was only half the plant/animals on earth. Sure it would suck but nature works long term. Plants/animals would fill those niches, and some would evolve to take the place. Is that bad.. only to people who want to control the planet
jwka2001 1 year ago
Comment removed
abyssquick 1 year ago
In other words, it's a lot of my own education & experience I have to dig out ando explain to someone who has their mind made up. Someone who has the tactfulness already to say "please start thinking, it's embarrassing" - insinuating I am the stupid, in the wrong, and you are "winning" - well, in my experience, data is what speaks. Good logic speaks for itself, and you don't need to tell anyone "it's correct."
Needless to say I am disinclined to converse with you further.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick and this .10th a degree can simply be a monitoring issue,, or the fact we have more concrete/roofs to create more heat, or what if it is us,, is .10th a degree really an issue? I get this 'lousy info' from you guys. The main fact you guys dont understand is that the climate is always changing, and that the earth doesnt need our help, were ants compared to it. Check out the following video
/watch?v=ORw_4oVgarg
i could find more but im lazy..lol
jwka2001 1 year ago
@jwka2001
He's not elitist at all. That ""elitist" label is directly out of some right-wing think tank soley for the purpose of marginalizing people and issues. Here's a label: "denialist."
He put out a sensible challenge, and you don't even bother to address it.
By using that term, you've proven that you're nothing more than a preprogrammed sheep.
jamesmaseobrown 1 year ago
@jamesmaseobrown Lol thats what you get for assuming. 99% of the time your wrong, and yet again an assumption is wrong. Climate CHANGES. Seriously how hard is it to get through your head. they state that man produces less than 1% of all Co2, and Co2 isnt even bad. I work in a greenhouse, plants LOVE co2, they grow faster, stronger, produce more fruit. Even if it was true, it would mean more plants,more fruit. Less hungry people on the planet
jwka2001 1 year ago
@jamesmaseobrown Also, if you watch Al Gores little fictional movie, he shows you the graph of the temp/Co2. And yet when you put the graphs together, it clearly shows that co2 comes BEFORE temps going up. Also the medieval warming period,, and the fact that you can track just about every warming/cooling trend due to solar maximum/minimum. Sun spots are the main reason we have 'climate change'. Besides climate changes.
jwka2001 1 year ago
@jamesmaseobrown Also i must point out, that even if this scam was real, how do we know that it would be bad. 5k years ago the Sahara was a lush grassland, filled with 3-4 lakes that held more water than the great lakes combined. That all changed within 200 years. How do we know it wont revert back, or deserts will be come lush again, or more areas up in Russia/canada will be better for growing.
jwka2001 1 year ago
@jamesmaseobrown And also Earth has been here long before us, and will be here long after us. 99.5% of all life that has ever lived on earth is dead. If a few dozen species or thousand die off tonight, sure it would suck. But other species would fill the nich, and become stronger in the process. There would be some evolutions in generations down the road, and the earth would be perfectly fine. People like you only believe in keeping the earth how YOU want it.
jwka2001 1 year ago
@jamesmaseobrown Im done,, i've given you but the briefest of proof that it doesnt exist. I could be here for hours going line by line, but life is too short for this shit. All this is, is a way for the elites to control the sheep like you. They will tax you, and control your lives until farting costs you money cause it could hurt mother Earth. And by the way im Libertarian,, not 'right-wing' like you believe. Think outside of the left/right,,red/blue shit and open your fucking eyes
jwka2001 1 year ago
Abyssquick.
Perhaps you are Profiting from Carbon Derivatives and the buying and selling of Carbon Offsets and Carbon Credits on the international market.
Carbon Ponzi Scheme
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
I despise the politics of this. Science is not politics. I know many field scientists concerned with how the politics are distracting from the importance of the science. There's independent research gong on all over the world, in many different ecological fields. Science is already known for a lack of lateral (inter-disciplinary) communication. So, how exactly are they all to "conspire," when each is simply finding the same macroscopic result in their respective field, independently?
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick,
The Consensus lobby is using AGW to promulgate a preconceived agenda, as laid out by the Club of Rome in their 1993 publication, "Limits to Growth," which is worldwide Taxation under the United Nations. The nations of the world are to become virtual Colonies of the UN. Carol Quigley stated that in his book, "Tragedy and Hope" that Coporations are to become Feudal Land barons, administering to Nations under the UN.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
You lost me. I fail to see how this ties into the science. You're talking about how people arr "using" the science. Some political agenda. I'm just talking about the science. I have no interest in this conspiracy stuff. Human affairs are far too disorganized on a microscopic basis (family, town, community) to be so strictly organized and conspiratorial on a macroscopic level (nation, government, world). As above, so below.
It's too much of a shit show out there. Have you been?
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick,
You do realize that the Council on Foreign Relations is planning to build a Massive Highway from Mexico, through the United States and into Canada known as the Trans-Texas Corridor.
Nations will be obsolete.
According to the United Nations Agenda 21, populations will be herded into what the United Nations calles "Habitat Areas" which will be shuttled around through public transportation. This is the agenda for the 21st century.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Couple this fact with the statement that Co2 was 6 times higher in the Triassic Period and 3 times higher in the Carboniferous.
The largest single contributor to global climate is the magnetic field of the Sun.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
In 2007 for instance, Greenland's Glacial Icesheet was expanding by 7.2 miles per year.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Do I really need to explain to you the difference between "area" and "volume" -or- annual / perennial ice? Really?
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick,
Believe it or not:
All of the North America was actually once covered and draped in Ice, which mysteriously and magically melted. I know it is difficult to believe but the earth emerged from the last Glacial Period or Ice Age, 8,000 years ago, and these magically melted glaciars created the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes which were carved by Ice deepening old valleys.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Yes, but again, context. Paleoclimate study = context.
abyssquick 1 year ago
This Video is referred to in bold font as "The Human Side of Climate Science."
Which is humoruus considering that there is no Human Side to Climate Science.
Ultra violet radiation from the Sun has more effect on climate than humans ever will.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
I'm barely literate in the "climate" sciences. I only understand principles, as they apply to my own work. You seem to be preoccupied with this anti-consensus stuff, so I'm really not any sort of "expert" you should find yourself debating.
The only advice I have is to look at the ecological sciences. There is so much there to see. It's "the other side of the coin' to climate science, as it were. That's what I am familiar with, and where my perspective comes from.
abyssquick 1 year ago
The idea of AGW comes to us from the Club of Rome, a private Think Tank for the UN.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
I suppose, then, it has nothing to do with understanding carbon cycles, and isotopic signatures?
abyssquick 1 year ago
Comment removed
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
I shall summarily affix a list of Expanding Glaciers around the world.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Suppose we deployed a mechanism that redressed the impact we have on each other by having the effect of creating an open market for impact itself. Those who produced more that the average amount of CO2, for example, would effectively be buying the unused "impact" of those who must then have produced less in an auction. This approach has a HUGE number of nice consequences besides the incentive to lower carbon footprints globally; it gives us new tools to tax black markets and police human rights.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
Plants from one group will die off?
LOLOLOL!
Plants from the other group will flourish more. Younger faster-growing plants consume more CO2 than do older, slower-growing plants.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Co2 is not "plant food" any more than oxygen is a food to humans. Water and mico-nutrients (NPK, Iron, Magneisum, Calcium) are just as crucial for them to live.
Co2 does enhance growth - under controlled temperature and moisture. However, it promotes vascular growth - leaves, branches, etc. It adversely affects flowering and fruiting (reproduction).
Also, photosynthesis shuts down at 90F or so, as the plant preserves water. So, with warming considered, your" opinion" is rather irrelevant.
abyssquick 1 year ago
Unlike the vast majority of people, I know that the average person does not actually Think. Ideas which they claim as their own are actually imprinted onto them by the state and media through spetial repetition.
We must "reduce" CO2, that "Pesky" gas which enables Photosynthesis, is readily ingested by plants, and is stored as sugar, which is interesting to note considering that human beings breathe it out.
Thus as Bill Gates suggests, we can reduce CO2 levels by reducing the Population.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Actually, in trees most of Co2 is stored as longer-chain carbohydrates (lignins, cellulose), and not as sugars, though some are synthesized for use in the cambium and xylem. Only smaller, fleshy plants (carrots, jicama, radish) make more substantial sugar stores in their biomass.
You have ignored the content of my previous posts entirely. I did not say whether or not I endorsed "global warming" ... I was actually picking at your incorrect statements about plants / trees and Co2.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick,.
So as a horticulturalist, do you tout this contrived idea of "Anthropogenic Global Warming" devised by the Club of Rome?
No credible meteorologist can give it credence.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
I don't even care about climatology. I study ecology. The bulk of climate change evidence lies in ecological sciences. The media fosters imprudent discussion in the public by only addressing "climate data" and makes the issue artificially reduced, and isolated. The ecological data is all I am really exposed to on a regular basis. I'm actually studying changes in latitude and altitude for fast-growing plant species. I don't think it's even prudent to discuss changes in climate data exclusively.
abyssquick 1 year ago
Or on YouTube in 500-char windows, either. It's futile to try to discuss such broad, multi-faceted phenomena. The only reason people post here is to pontificate or express a mind already made up.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick,
The level of Carbon Dioxide during the Triassic Period was 6 times that of today, during the Carboniferous 3 times.
History as it is taught in leading American universities today is a deliberate systematic fraud.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
I don't know enough specifically about those events to say much. However, science is all about context. It doesn't matter THAT it has been warmer, or colder in the past, what matters is WHY. Climate study (and ecological study) rests on a foundation of understanding natural variance and oscillations, as well as the causes. This is multi-faceted. So saying "but it has been warmer/colder in the past" doesn't mean anything. It's the context, the fine detail that is of interest.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick,
Fair enough.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
hopefully we dont end up like venus and it is raining sulfuric acid
tommyneumann 1 year ago
Denialists have no future
mrmaciejm 1 year ago
CO2 is indeed good for plants, but too much of it just that: too much.
JunckiFilms 1 year ago
@JunckiFilms,'
LOLOLOL.
CO2 is necessary for Photosynthesis.
Carbon dioxide is miniscule 0.038% of the world's atmosphere. CO2 is Plant Fertilizer.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
@AnonymousWhitePerson
plants are (basically) divided into 2 groups in how they process CO2. There are C4 and C3 type plants. As Atmospheric CO2 becomes richer plants from one group will die off. Plants from the other group will persist but even they can have too rich of a concentration of CO2.
Atheistbatman 1 year ago
@Atheistbatman,
Carbon from the CO2 is stored by plants as Sugar; the Oxygen molecule is detached and released into the atmosphere.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
That "miniscule" 384 ppm of carbon dioxide provides 45-55% of the biomass of all plants and trees. It is hardly "miniscule" in it's effect on our ecological carbon cycle. The case, I think, is that you have been reading propaganda, and are not actually educated in horticulture.
abyssquick 1 year ago
This Global warming hysteria is unsupported by data. CO2 is Plant Food, my friend.
Perhaps you should cease breathing out CO2, a natural product of human respiration. Start first by ceasing to metabolize. The UN Oligarchy means to tax a fundamental gas in the atmosphere, since all life on earth is carbon-based.
"Global Warming" is a "Codeword" for Population Control from the United Nations and the World Bank, giving the fascist UN regulation over the economies of the world.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
I am educated in Horticulture. It's what I do. Your tirades, and description of biological carbon cycles are laughable at best. Vaguely accurate, but not really in any relevant context.
However, I won't try to argue from authority with you. Nor will it be profitable to argue from evidence. I can see already you have made all sorts of conspiracy connections, and so logical, detailed scientific talk will not keep your attention.
You may continue with your imprudent flapping.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick,
Earlier, you said that Co2 was not Plant Food. And yet it is earth's greatest airborne plant fertilizer.
My point in stating that Co2 is 0.038% is that it has been estimated to have been increased from an estimated 0.028% since the industrial revolution, an increase in 0.010%.
Now you are feigning intellectual superiority in statements. Laughable.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Yes, but where the heck did you hear that "Co2 is plant food?" That's simplistic. It's a prerequisite to photosythesis, yes, but so is water. Is water "plant food"? These are the stage for plant life.
What you actually "feed" plants are an array of micronutirients - NPK being the major 3. Without some measure of iron in the soil, trees cannot even produce chlorophyll, and will die. Nutrient content, as well as temperature, dictate what plants can grow where, and how they metabolize.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick
The carbon in Co2 contributes to over 45% of the biomass of plants. Not all of the carbon from plants, however, is derived from Co2, as you seem to suggest. Water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect is necessary for regulating radiation from the Sun, creating a habitable planet, unlike the Moon or Mars.
"The bulk of Climate Change evidence?" LOLOLOL.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
You're being peripheral. I have been general due to the "size" of these text windows. Now, stop with the red herrings.
If you were literate in science, you would know what I'm talking about regarding ecology. Clearly, you do not. I'm not just talking about "global warming," I'm talking about Oceanic PH, Species Distribution, Migration Patterns, Melt Patterns, Permafrost Discharge, etc. There is a huge body of ecological data.
Or is it only "climate data" we need to address?
Imprudent.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick,
My argument was that atmospheric Co2 has been drastically higher in the past. This cannot be repudiated.
Which is interesting to note considering that Plants release Co2 at Night using the same mechanism as animals.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
I have no idea what you are trying to infer. These carbon/hydrological/biological cycles are some of the most well understood systems in science. Many plants also expel water, too. Rainforests are so dense with vegetation, and contain plants with high respiratory rates, the forest system is capable of generating it's own rainclouds.
I really don't follow this at all... So I'm just throwing interesting stuff out there at this point.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick,'
You say that rainforests can generate its own rainclouds. This is True.
Governments can also generate their own Rain Clouds and cause earthquakes and storms by using HAARP Technology (High Altitude Auroral Research Program) as devised by Nikola Tesla. The technology exists in Alaska and functions by spraying the sky with metallic particles of Cadmium, Barium, and aluminum, Chemtrails. It works like the Aurora Borealis.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Of course it's "true." It's in every horticultural textbook. So, I take it you're the "authority" on this issue, verifying and approving the content of my commentary for me? As though I didn't already know?
Well, thanks. I guess.
abyssquick 1 year ago
I'm aware of HAARP, and of Tesla's notion of using the earth's ionosphere as a feedback chamber. I fail to see what heavy metals have to do with that, unless you think they are "seeding" rainclouds.... in nature, this is usually accomplished by lighter particulate matter.
abyssquick 1 year ago
@abyssquick,
Good. These are small metallic particles which may aerosolize into nano particulates. Planes have been continuously spraying the skies with Chemtrails of Cadmium, barium, and aluminum since around 1998. HAARP generates a lot of energy. It may magnify the sun's rays, and also induce seismic spasms in the earth.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
this is such utter nonsense. the best way to fight it is to not aid these groups economically. how do those pushing this fraud maintain thier funding?
mizzoulibertarian 1 year ago
The United Nations needs this Tax to begin to regulate the world economies, to regulate the amount of factories, cars, and even how many people can be born in each county.
The wealthy Oligarch, Bill Gates of Microsoft recently did a presentation in February 2010 (which can be found on YouTube) wherein he states that the simplest method to reduce the level of CO2 will be to reduce the World's Population.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
This Oligarchy means to create new Derivatives out of Carbon Dioxide to save their bankrupt international monetary and financial system.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
CO2 is Plant Food
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Carbon taxing is just another mega financial Ponzi scheme bubble waiting in the corridors that is designed to profit once again from the ignorance of the masses who provided the profit for the industrial complexes that created the current crisis and are now inflating said crisis in order to make the masses once again generate more profit for cleaning up the mess that industrial magnates originated. That is the issue and quandary.
mattghtpa 1 year ago
The insipid shell game that is being played upon the inhabitants of this planet is not that so much CO2 is the culprit, it is a problem, but that the industry, deforestation, pollution, and toxins resulting in the production of CO2 which would decrease with the management of the former.
mattghtpa 1 year ago
@mattghtpa,
Wealthy Oligarchs behind the United Nations are promoting this Myth of Global Warming to institute world Taxation and Population Control on all carbon expellers IE. Human Beings. Human beings breathe out carbon dioxide. This fraud shall create a new Ponzi Scheme, based on Carbon Derivatives, also giving the private fascist United Nations ability to regulate the world economies.
Ie. World Government under the fascist United Nations.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
@AnonymousWhitePerson
You do not the CO2 we exhale has just been inhaled? Your paranoia is causing you spout gibberish.
Britonbear 1 year ago
@Britonbear,
Humans breathe oxygen. Paranoid? Perhaps you should read the statements of Maurice Strong of the World Bank, and the various publications from the Club of Rome, Club of Budapest, and Club of Madrid.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
We must reduce CO2 that pesky gas which enables Photosynthesis and only represent 35 part per 100,000 of the air and represents a miniscule 0.038% of the atmosphere.
CO2 is quite simply: Food for Plants and earth's greatest airborne Plant Fertilizer.
The more CO2, the more robust plantlife, the more robust habitats and ecosytems, the less dependence. Younger faster growing plants consume more CO2 than older ones.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Climate change is a fact of nature, it is what the Earth does, it changes, but on how much humanity is affecting this cyclical event is the question.
To not acknowledge that humanity is by nature and deceitful and opportunistic animal that will always prey and take advantage of the weak is the denial, not the natural progression of climate change.
mattghtpa 1 year ago
if you don't believe in science, then you don't understand science.
planetdarwin 1 year ago
Public trust in this science has plummeted because it's not a science, it's a religion. Global warming/change is bogus nonsense with an agenda behind it.
HA! He said "deniers".
I call him a liar.
Agenda 21 from the UN, know it, understand it, fear it.
kfjcer 1 year ago
@kfjcer science is not a religion, everything in science is scrutinized, retested over and over. religion is faith based on something that was written thousands of years ago.
glevine333 1 year ago
@kfjcer You're a paranoid fool. If you don't trust science then get off your computer, leave your home and live in the woods
tommyk77 1 year ago
Climate Change - Bob Carters 5 Tests of Co2 part 1
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
WHAT COOLING?
March was the HOTTEST March in the UAH 32 year satellite record.
UAH (Univ. of Alabama, Huntsville) is run by Dr. Christy, the well known AGW denier.
Global temperatures for February = 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years.
Global Temperatures for JANUARY = the HOTTEST January for UAH in 32 years.
LOL!!!
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k 32 years really isn't that long when considering temperature fluctuations over a given period. There were COLD records set last winter in many parts of the US, anyway.
arcanist9 1 year ago
@arcanist9 I'm sorry you still don't understand the difference between "Weather" & "Climate."
The U.S & parts of Europe & Russia had a lot of snow (global warming helps make more precipitation.) The rest of the world was much warmer than usual.
The UAH figures are irrefutable GLOBAL SATELLITE DATA from a well-known denier, Dr. John Christy.
I'll bet you don't, but if you'd like to learn, please watch the WeatherChannel YouTube:
Global Warming - Cool Summer WHY??
/watch?v=sX6jEsnGcrA
goog2k 1 year ago 2
NEWS:
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
goog2k 1 year ago
This is stupid (forgive me). Climate science (not that age matters that much) is younger than neuroscience.
Tell me, you McEwan fans, how does this negate the scientific evidence for AGW?
Yes, fuck the denialists, as per intelligent sense, but skepticism, as celebrated here by McEwan, is *more* common among climate scientists than the denialists shit-for-brains.
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
@vanderbilt887 You sure swear a lot, hard to take you seriously.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99
What the fuck are you talking about?
And why should I be more "respectful"? That's BS. I call stupidity by it's name. Now, if you're intereseted in debating the science (I don't know your positions), I would be more than happy.
p.s. "The cement garden" sucks.
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
@vanderbilt887 You don't seem like you could ever be happy :(
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
I'm perfectly happy dude. I'm just not the kind of person who "camouflages" his language by a masquearade of friendly, happy nonsense.
Now, to skip the pop-psychology, why the hell should I be more "respectful" apropos McEwan?
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
I would also argue that respect is important.
I get into debates of a similar nature and process to the climate change debate - namely evolution vs creationism - and I know from experience that rude and/or excessively caustic responses simply make the other person stop listening.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@vanderbilt887 you should try to be more respectful maybe. :)
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
I really like the distinction he made between "denialism" is skepticism. It reminds me of Richard Dawkin's term, history deniers. Not much in the way of content here, but I agree with his point.
ArcaneKarma 1 year ago
@ArcaneKarma I agree too, Skepticism is healthy. I have found that to be true personaly.
valhala56 1 year ago
Comment removed
ArcaneKarma 1 year ago