Global Warming Has Leaders Underwater

[Nicoleta01]

Better, but that doesn't mean more, as Phoenicks tried to say. When the factors are right, then yes, but they could grow anyways if the conditions were decent to start with. They could grow faster, and better, but in increased numbers? You can't simply put more and more plants into a confined area and think it's all good. Especially when you use area for farming and cutting down the natural vegetation.

I did see a program on TV that mentioned that they had measured CO2-emissions versus absorption from trees, was it in France? I do remember saying that during a summer drought, the trees emitted more CO2 than they absorbed. Pity I can't find any sources of this, so don't take my word for it.

For plants that have more CO2 to make sugar with, they'll do what animals do- put on more mass. Healthier plants will be able to withstand flucuations in their environment and reproduce either more offspring or healthier offspring. With more plants in an area, it's survival of the fittest, and those who can't survive with their root system will die and decompose.

Higher plant mass would be good for farmers, as it will produce more food in the same area as before, requiring less land needed for farming.

The stoma close if a plant is in dry conditions, mainly to keep water, CO2, and other gases in. If it persists long enough they'll find a way (Biologically expensive) to fix CO2 and other gases into sugar, which can't last forever or the plant will die.

 

[Phoenicks]

I just proved it was above 90 %. Your point is that I use their opinion? Come on, pretty much all our opinions are per-conceived by someone else, we just somewhat change them and take them for ourselves. That's pretty much how any debate goes, especially in a case like this, when it's difficult to get a hold on all the arguments on all sides.

You proved it, did you? Just wondering, but how exactly did you prove it? Did you round up all scientists and ask them of their stance on GW, then repeat the question with different wordings to assure their stance, then publish these findings?

Science is not decided by poll. Science is decided by the theories explaining the data.

Then why are we having this debate at all? You're the one making bad arguments, as you believe views have been suppressed, with no evidence to show for it. You're the one that should back this statement with actual evidence, not just speculation as you see it today. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen wide-scale suppression of thought. Where is this world going to if we can't trust those that know better than us? We can't all go around and think we know more of them. We can question their methods, and if they are wrong we can choose not to trust them, but one e-mail is in this case not enough to suddenly distrust the worlds climate-researchers.

There are scientists who disagree with the consensus that are every bit as eminent as consensus scientists. Yet GW is taken as fact in most sources, and reports like the IPCC and peer-reviewed literatures (Covered in the Climategate scandel) ignore dissent. That is the repression I speak of.

It is not one e-mail. It is a flood of e-mails proving lies, and investigations being done into the science. My source showed the lies and fraud committed with the infamous hockey stick graph; you've ignored it entirely.

But I am. An opinion not backed by proof is not one worth having. Mankind won't learn from anything if we just go around, having opinions. If we actually investigated the matter, and made a conclusion from that, then we would be entitled to it. This is something you ignore. Again, I ask you this. What is the point of having an opinion on a matter you don't understand? Just because you have the right to have one doesn't mean you should.

While you sit pontificating about the nature of opinions, you yourself are expressing opinion. Your opinion is fine; mine is different. But you can't tell me that my opinion is wrong.

Not when you have no idea what you're talking about. If you even refuse to listen to me, then fine, but I've listed several ways to go green and cut CO2-emissions without involving government taxation. It lies in the habits.

You're taking two issues and confusing them. Yes, people can go green without government action. That is a different issue from people worried about government action taxing them more.

Many of the points I've raised were about CO2-emissions. CO2 is the core of the theory of man-made global warming.

The theory that I have attacked, and you have yet to defend (Aside from polls of support).

Proof? You define proof of what fits you the best, and read what you want to read, that's what.

Debate it as I bring it up. If you don't challenge anything I present, I can only take what I present to be factual.

We've given you a rational explanation of this event, and you've completely ignored it, reading what you want to read from it.

This I would like to see. I'm fairly certain that I've argued against your points. You can't say "Well, we argued against you, but you put up this crazy argument" because you can't argue against me. Either you can or you can't take the heat.

When you post an article with speculation (some points raised there was simply that, speculation) in return, you're using the article to argue for yourselves, when we're doing it without the help of that.

If you're referring to Hiding the Decline, you've never addressed the article, aside from a few passing glances of doubt. That's not disproving anything the article said - that's passively accepting.

You have called many respected scientists liars, and I feel that you're spitting in the face of science. Even if the scientist in question were a fraud and a liar, that suddenly doesn't make more of them frauds and liars as well.

They are the ones spitting on science. They have ignored scientific proceedure in order to construct the data to fit their theories. If calling scientists out is spitting on science, then yes, I'm spitting on science. Now show me where I'm wrong.

EDIT: By the way H-con, what exactly is the verdict on free thinking? What is it? Overrated, or not? Your answers conflicted, and now you've left me dazed and confused.

 

[TTEchidna]

While you sit pontificating about the nature of opinions, you yourself are expressing opinion. Your opinion is fine; mine is different. But you can't tell me that my opinion is wrong.

Then you can't tell anyone that theirs is wrong. And thus we all sit around and scratch our butts all day.

Some people are of the opinion that Jews go out on nightly hunts to eat babies. Are they wrong? You're saying that even with all the proof that this claim is bullshit that they aren't.

Sure, we have one email where they say they used a "trick". Suddenly, every kickflip you do on a skateboard is black magic, and Tony Hawk is an evil wizard. Sure, the graphs apparently have some alterations to them to enhance the appearance of the warming trend, by adding other data that was obtained to it. But that's like saying that a map of the US means that there are more people who voted Republican than who voted Democrat, because the straight-blue areas are generally smaller in area than the straight-red ones.

Have them redo the graphs. Have them re-analyze the data. More carbon dioxide, Phoenicks, does not mean more life. You can prove that by looking at anyone who starts their car in a garage and leaves it running.

 

[Big Lutz]

Sure, we have one email where they say they used a "trick". Suddenly, every kickflip you do on a skateboard is black magic, and Tony Hawk is an evil wizard. Sure, the graphs apparently have some alterations to them to enhance the appearance of the warming trend, by adding other data that was obtained to it. But that's like saying that a map of the US means that there are more people who voted Republican than who voted Democrat, because the straight-blue areas are generally smaller in area than the straight-red ones.

Except if the investigation by Canadian climate statistician Steve McIntyre is correct as reported by the UK Daily Mail, then that analogy is completely wrong.

A better one would be Climate Scientists are saying that there are more people who voted Republican than who vote Democrat by using a trick that only measures the mid western and southern states for both Republicans and Democrats, but by the time you get to the East and West coast, it only measures Republicans.

Have them redo the graphs. Have them re-analyze the data. More carbon dioxide, Phoenicks, does not mean more life. You can prove that by looking at anyone who starts their car in a garage and leaves it running.

Except while a start that does not change the fundamental problem present right now. These guys have ceased to become scientists, and due to the use of grants and promotions the field of Climate Science has become one where you need to present studies that fit the pre determined views of some, or else find yourself on the outside looking in.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Have them redo the graphs. Have them re-analyze the data. More carbon dioxide, Phoenicks, does not mean more life. You can prove that by looking at anyone who starts their car in a garage and leaves it running.

That's not carbon DIoxide. That's carbon MONoxide, which is lethally poisonous.

 

[Phoenicks]

Some people are of the opinion that Jews go out on nightly hunts to eat babies. Are they wrong? You're saying that even with all the proof that this claim is bullshit that they aren't.

If you're using that as an opinion, then the corollary to it would be that there can only be one right opinion. So while that may be your opinion, I have to inform you that it doesn't sync with reality.

TTE, there are differences between opinions and beliefs imposed on the world. My statement to H-con and H-con's statement were the former; yours was the latter.

Sure, we have one email where they say they used a "trick". Suddenly, every kickflip you do on a skateboard is black magic, and Tony Hawk is an evil wizard. Sure, the graphs apparently have some alterations to them to enhance the appearance of the warming trend, by adding other data that was obtained to it. But that's like saying that a map of the US means that there are more people who voted Republican than who voted Democrat, because the straight-blue areas are generally smaller in area than the straight-red ones.

Changing the data to fit your conclusion is not a trick comparable to showing off for friends. It is fraudulent science.

The techniques used to get the proxy data used in the hockey stick graphs were bad. The hockey stick has been disproved. Instead of arguing this point, you're reduced to making comparisons to try to defend the trickery.

Have them redo the graphs. Have them re-analyze the data. More carbon dioxide, Phoenicks, does not mean more life. You can prove that by looking at anyone who starts their car in a garage and leaves it running.

History disagrees with you. And like Arcane said, that's Carbon monoxide.

 

[TTEchidna]

That's not carbon DIoxide. That's carbon MONoxide, which is lethally poisonous.

Carbon dioxide is produced by combustion. Monoxide is produced by incomplete combustion. With the engines of cars being more fuel-efficient these days, though, they produce far more dioxide than monoxide.

Carbon dioxide is a killer. You try breathing if the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is reduced and the amount of carbon dioxide is increased. It'll snuff out a candle, and it'll snuff you out too.

 

[Phoenicks]

Do tell, but how does an increase in Co2 mean a decrease in Oxygen? We were talking of the former, not of the latter.

 

[shining-Celebi]

Well if everyone just stopped bitching and actually did their part, we wouldn't have this problem.

And the spiral-bulbs are just government propaganda.

 

[Big Lutz]

And what anyone with half a brain finally happened, the Senate waved the white flag on Cap and Trade.

Bruised by the health care debate and worried about what 2010 will bring, moderate Senate Democrats are urging the White House to give up now on any effort to pass a cap-and-trade bill next year.

“I am communicating that in every way I know how,” says Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of at least half a dozen Democrats who’ve told the White House or their own leaders that it’s time to jettison the centerpiece of their party’s plan to curb global warming. …

“We need to deal with the phenomena of global warming, but I think it’s very difficult in the kind of economic circumstances we have right now,” said Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, who called passage of any economy-wide cap and trade “unlikely.” …

“I’d just as soon see that set aside until we work through the economy,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). “What we don’t want to do is have anything get in the way of working to resolve the problems with the economy.”

“Climate change in an election year has very poor prospects,” added Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “I’ve told that to the leadership.”

Politico

 

[Phoenicks]

Finally. Europe only knows why that should never have happened.