This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Climate Fanatics Run Into Public Relations Snag
Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man.com,
Scientists Turn into Stalinists
Last week, we happened across a press report about a group of climate scientists so eager to shut up their critics that they want to employ the State’s police, courts and jailers for the purpose. Specifically, a group of academic (and presumably tenured) climate alarmists supporting the “CAWG” theory (CAWG=”catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”) have written a letter to president Obama, attorney-general Lynch and OSTP director Holdren, demanding that so-called “climate deniers” (or the organizations allegedly supporting them) be prosecuted under the RICO act (you can see the document here (pdf) – already its first paragraph is “alarming”, as they inter alia brag about things they have incorrectly predicted to happen for more than 35 years, such as an increase in “extreme weather”).

This is not the first time that climate alarmists are letting their inner Stalin hang out and are trying to impose a spot of Lysenkoism for the “good of humanity”. For those not au fait with Lysenko: the man was an influential Soviet biologist who came up with an erroneous theory “based on dialectic materialism” about how to improve crop yields. It never worked, but over the 44 years during which his influence lasted (!), more than 3,000 biologists were either fired, jailed and even executed for opposing his views (a number of modern-day radical climate alarmists are also on record for demanding the harshest imaginable punishments for “deniers”).
The Debate over the Poorly Conceived AGW Theory is not Over
Here are a few excerpts from the letter we want to briefly comment on:
“The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.
(emphasis added)
Apart from the absurd insinuation that only “government-funded science is good science”, as if none of the people involved had any self-interests, science is not the result of some imaginary “consensus” or attains the status of holy writ once its conclusions appear in a government-sponsored paper. As an example, it took the “consensus” 40 years to accept Alfred Wegener’s theory on continental drift, by which time he was dead.
In principle there is nothing wrong with employing a conceptual approach in the natural sciences, but eventually, empirical data must bear hypotheses out. It is moreover not true that we can “afford” to bring industrial civilization to a standstill on the off-chance that the alarmists might be right one day, especially considering how wrong they have been so far.
Let us just briefly address the handful of things listed above. “Extreme weather events” like hurricanes and tropical cyclones have actually done the precise opposite of what has been and continues to be widely claimed – their frequency has declined to multi-decade lows (e.g. in Australia, the “lowest level of cyclone activity in modern history” was reported last year. US readers will have noticed that since Katrina a decade ago and the intrusion of Sandy, hurricane activity has actually been de minimis – statistics confirm it loud and clear).
Global tropical cyclone frequency hits a multi-decade low – click to enlarge.
Rising sea levels: it appears the rise is so slow that the catastrophes that have been predicted since at least 1980 not only have not happened, but that the opposite has occurred in these cases as well. No Micronesian islands have sunk beneath the waves – au contraire, they are growing. Of the 50 million “climate refugees” that were certain to swamp us by 2010, only one has shown up to date, and this seems to be a case of someone trying to get a residence and work permit in a developed country by means of an innovative method. The exact opposite of the alarmist predictions happened in this case as well: the very regions that were supposed to be the main source of “climate refugees” and should have been almost depopulated by now have seen the strongest population growth on the planet.
We haven’t followed the debate on the “acidification of the oceans” very closely, but we note that there definitely is a debate, as this notion appears to be based on questionable data (a.k.a. “sparse and contradictory evidence”). Lastly, even the alarmists are acknowledging that there has been a near 19 year “pause” in global warming (although NOAA is scandalously altering past surface temperature records from their actually measured to “assumed” values, in order to create a warming trend literally from thin air). They have hitherto seen fit to provide 66 different excuses for why the forecasts of their models have been so completely wrong. It is very mean of Mother Nature that she refuses to cooperate with the alarmist agenda. Of course, that the central premise of the AGW theory might actually be wrong isn’t even considered by these worthies (luckily they haven’t yet found ways to retroactively fiddle with the satellite data).

The Pause – satellite measurements have detected no warming for nearly 19 years
The sentence that “the poor will be endangered” unless we regulate industrialized civilization out of existence is preposterous in the extreme. Again, if you assume the exact opposite to be true, you will be correct. In the past, human civilization has flourished whenever temperatures were a lot warmer than they are today (e.g. during the medieval warm period, vineyards thrived in the Scandinavian countries and global population growth and progress both accelerated greatly).
One of the biggest problems with the economically damaging regulations demanded by the alarmists is precisely that they cynically deprive the world’s poor of the possibilities for development the rich countries had at their disposal (see this report for details). In fact, much of the proposed legislation is ultimately nothing but a socialist wealth distribution scheme (that will not only redistribute, but ultimately destroy wealth) – as its major political proponents are occasionally admitting in unguarded moments. As has been noted elsewhere, this is simply “ideology masquerading as science”.
Suppression of Dissent to Preserve the Gravy Train
It seems to us, all of the above should be seen as grounds for vigorous debate, both on the scientific and the political level, before any more harm is done by costly (and ultimately useless) legal activism. However, this definitely isn’t how the letter writers are seeing it:
“We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”
In other words, those who disagree with the alarmists (which is ever easier to do as one after another of their predictions fails to come true) should be treated like the mafia or similar criminal organizations. Needless to say, this would not exactly be conducive to scientific or policy debate. We have yet to see the opponents of string theory demand the jailing of its proponents (or vice versa), in spite of their fierce disagreements.
Our first thought was therefore that one should probably “follow the money” – that the alarmists are probably increasingly worried that their gravy train might be derailed; that their lavish grants and privileges, including their role as “philosopher kings” advising the politically powerful, could come under threat as empirical evidence against their theories keeps piling up. This has inter alia also led to a recent rash of ever more hysterical apocalyptic predictions (see e.g. the laughable “sea level rise” panic outburst from Über-alarmist Dr. James Hansen, which is even denounced by his fellow AGW alarmists – i.e., it is too absurd even for them).
Before we found the time to write this missive, reality has struck in the form of a rather sizable PR problem for the leader of the group of letter writers – and it has indeed to do with “lavish grants”. As Climate Depot reports, “Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’”. You couldn’t make this up.
George Mason University Professor Jagadish Shukla a Lead Author with the UN IPCC, reportedly made lavish profits off the global warming industry while accusing climate skeptics of deceiving the public. Shukla is leader of 20 scientists who are demanding RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges be used against skeptics for disagreeing with their view on climate change.
Shukla reportedly moved his government grants through a ‘non-profit’. The group “pays Shukla and wife Anne $500,000 per year for part-time work,” Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed. “The $350,000-$400,000 per year paid leader of the RICO 20 from his ‘non-profit’ was presumably on top of his $250,000 per year academic salary,” Pielke wrote. “That totals to $750,000 per year to the leader of the RICO 20 from public money for climate work and going after skeptics. Good work if you can get it,” Pielke Jr. added.
(emphasis added)
AGW has indeed become an “industry”, albeit an entirely taxpayer funded one. It looks more and more like a giant racket. If it were only a racket, there would be no problem – but it also pursues an agenda, under the pretense that we need to “save the planet” from what increasingly looks like natural variations we have little or no influence over. The agenda however has a clear leftist-authoritarian bent, as all the demands and already implemented policies involve more regulation and government control over the economy, are harmful to economic development and progress, are bound to condemn the poor to remaining poor, and aim at redistributing wealth in a manner that will simply end up destroying it to the benefit of a handful of cronies.
That people obviously benefiting greatly from this racket have the gall to demand that the State treat their critics as major criminals in Stalinesque fashion is really jaw-dropping chutzpa.
Conclusion
The caste of climate alarmists reminds us strongly of assorted doomsayers throughout history. They have almost become a kind of priestly caste, accusing us of committing the alleged “sin” of capitalism, even while they reserve for themselves the right to partake of its fruits to an extent few others are able to (as Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore notes, “environmentalism has become a religion”). Mind, we don’t believe genuine environmental concerns should be ignored, but AGW looks more and more like a contrived non-issue. The hysteria that has been on display of late is probably an indication though that its proponents are actually losing the debate.
- 50806 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



Now see, if we actually had a Butt Fuck Credit Exchange, no harm-no foul!!! As long as the elites (with their unlimited "resources") can sell back their Butt Fuck credits into the exchange, there really was no ass rape, per se.
All quite legal ya know ;-)
With the Pope addressing Congress this week, I'd like to avoid this analogy
Seeing as I don't pack fudge, does that make me techincally rich with years of unused Butt Fuck credits? Whats the free market value of these wonderful new credits?
Yeah, that's a panic moment for us in Cali.
Miffed;-)
He's a lawyer. Lawyers are parasites (net friction on the real economy). Draw your own conclusions!
Some of your posts are very good Rand. You press some buttons though and this is still fight club as far as I am concerned. That is not a bad thing bad and you seem to need to stir the pot so to speak. I can't tell if you are friend or foe so therefore you are foe for now. I will admit that I have a very strong personality and I am not going to change. I am happy to hear anyone's opinion but I have already heard a great deal of those.
ZH is the only place where I can sort of communicate. The game is over my friend. You are not going to fix it with politics. It is so FUCKING OBVIOUS that there can be only way and that is not what I ever wanted. "They" don't get it yet but a lot of people are getting it. I have made my decision. Do you have the balls to do it? You are not stupid and you what it means. My children deserve a chance even if I have to sacrifice myself.
Years back she self identified as a female business owner near Vegas who refused to unionize her empoyees but argued SJW incessantly. Her/its personality has changed and its good posts are "cred" building for later SJW posts. Batt44...
I'm actually a Centaur that lives just outside of Memphis.
Ha possibly, I prefer to withold judgement just yet on SJW skittles flying out yer ass...
What the fuck does SJW mean?
Social Justice Warrior
PC Principal
Your children are not going to have a chance if you sacrifice yourself.
Dial it back FFS. Laughable incitement. Politics is the currency of a civilized society until it isn't.
Why hasten the decline?
No, I really can't "dial back". Like with a rotary phone? I have seen what is coming for a long time now so the kids will be fine. My anger runs very deep and it comes from the fact that I can do nothing to change the political structure as it is. What are you going to tell me to do? What did I miss? I would like to hear it and I will try it but you will come up with nothing. I have been there and done it. I have had a lot of time, many years, to think and I don't see any way out of this without blood be it mine or another's.
I can't live with people who tell me how to live my life. I have no debt. I have a bachelor's degree and a Class A CDL and every other fucking license that I need. But that is not good enough. If you think it is laughable then you why were you not in the car with me a few days ago when I was Idaho? What the fuck do you think I was doing there? No, you are laughable. It is not excitement but rather a deep sadness because there is NO OTHER WAY. IF YOU WILL NOT STAND THEN WHO WILL?
My children can go to Russia dipshit because they are Russian citizens. When morons reply to me like you just did it cements my conviction that there is no hope. If you think I have not thought this out then perfect because that means I have done things correctly. FFS pull your head out of your ass and read everything that I have been saying since 2008. You will tell me nothing about how to live my life because you have nothing of value to tell me. I have done what I wanted to do to keep my wife and children out of the way. Business is taken care of. All of it.
No, these people that you listen to could not be more wrong. Once people try figure out what I have done they are confused. No confusion neccessary. All the papers are in order Mr. Kommisar. I am staying because I have a femur bone to pick. They could have left it alone but they won't.
I love being underestimated.
Underestimated. For the record.
Information is the currency in a democratic society. A polite society would be one in which topics regarding religion, money, politics and sex would be refrained from. A heated argument is just around the corner, as we know. But, the viewers who come here are many, so let them read the many versions; it will give them some insight in thoughtful consideration of others.
You win, Manipuflation. Douchiest comment of the week.
Relevant: http://www.theonion.com/article/climate-change-deniers-present-graphic-d...
Go back to Huff...Sum moar bitch.
I'll troll u thre.
K?
Not only is AGW "a contrived non-issue", it is by far the biggest and most expensive con-trick ever perpetrated.
The bastards should all be jailed - starting with Al Gore. The next time I hear "the science is settled", I think I'll just hit the idiot saying it - I wish there was some way I could get close enough to Hillary to do it...
AGW is a backdoor depopulation attempt and a means to control what's left. Same old shit,,, different name.
2030 Agenda Threatens Our Way of Life. Good summary by Patrick Wood re:
“Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
http://technocracy.news/index.php/2015/09/25/2030-agenda-threatens-our-w...
When you hit the idiot saying it make sure it is with a hammer to the temple so they cannot get up and start saying it again. thanks
Better yet, publish a scientific refutation somewhere where experts are piqued enough to deal with it.
WTF is this. Global warming is real, Only wacko ignorant idiots, and those paid by exxon deny it.
You communist! We can continue having billions of people burning oil and coal on this planet, with no effects on the atmosphere whatsoever. How dare you suggest that our obsession with "growth" is destroying the natural environment.
One volcanic eruption a year will do the same,,, do we outlaw volcanos?
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/comment-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science?page=1
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
Nope, you're dead wrong. Humans emit several ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more CO2 than volcanoes.
Sock puppet.
Base your opinion on facts, not your facts on opinion.
The planet will survive just fine without us. It is the human race we best be worried about. A world pitted against itself will solve everything the climatologists are worried about. Just have a little patience.
In this case, it doesn't depend on the meaning of "is" but on the meaning, or say the existence and cause, of "Global warming".
Of course the planet warms at times. From one chain jerker to another, I salute you. Maybe I should rephrase that a little.
Actually, there has been a steady stream of new lately detailing how Exon's own R&D reached the same conclusions in the eighties and nineties.
No one denies Global Warming: Ice Ages Douh!
However, the cause of the previous warming (you know, before the last 20 years of nothing) is contested.
AGW = Religion of pirates, preached by charlatans and sellouts, worshipped by suckers.
Kinda like Christianity? Or most religions?
Maybe like the tyranny of corrupt murdering Islam but "Thou shall not steal" verses "scam the poor out of their money" ?????
Really?
Grimaldus
If one was to consider the history of corrupt murdering, one might find Christians right there with the best ( worst) of them!
1st semester at the local community college, hey? See about the prodigious murdering by 20th century atheists.
Most of those 20th century atheists were or are actually Statists. Their religion was/is supreme government power. They are viewed as atheists only because they crushed religion to subvert its power over the serfs.
Kinda like Christianity?...
Nothing like Christianity. Jesus never said to go join a religion. He did however say that as Moses lifted the serpant in the wilderness, so He too must be lifted up, and He will draw all to Him. In addition, He said that He and the Father are One and there is no other name whereby we may be saved.
His is an exclusive calling and the supposed acknowledgement by religionists that He was nothing more than a good guy, decent teacher and maybe even possibly a prophet that still requires others to help carry out His hopes and plans is completely at odds with His own words.
His words are either true or He was the most decietful, lying and deluded individual to ever occupy a human body. There really is no way to sugarcoat it.
jmo.
message from the pope: god is very concerned about global warming and desperately wants man to do something about it. LMAO!
Message to the Pope from his Boss:
Vengeance is mine, I will repay.
I don't recall Jesus the Christ getting all lathered up about "vengeance".
Sounds more like the father sky god of the ancient Israelites - you know, the ones that stole Jerusalem from the Jebusites?
Been a long time since I've run across a job description more useless than that of Jebusite irredentist.
Okay, I admit it. I've NEVER run across a job description more useless than that of Jebusite irredentist. Nor one less likely to result in any meaningful level of employee satisfaction.
But if you are going to compile lists of all the cities, towns, regions, and nations that have been "stolen", you are going to be a very busy boy for a very long time.
Of course I know that you only have an interest in what was "stolen" by a single group of people-- whom you vehemently loathe root and branch through time immemorial -- so the task is presumably less time-consuming but will ultimately prove disappointing insofar as results are concerned.
I also recognize that you have fixated upon the idea that you have somehow been wronged, tricked or intellectually bested in some way that makes you feel that an entire group of people are responsible for the sins of an individual or individuals and deserve exceptionally harsh punishment, to say the least.
Which in turn leads me to consider that you haven't even slightly grasped the messages brought to humanity by either the Father or the Son.
And what happened to the cat? He was kinda cool.
Good point.
in the old days they used to pray for rain. i guess god was more powerful back then because now he is reduced to begging man for a change in the weather.
Amen brother, Proverbs 16:18-19
18Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling.19It is better to be humble in spirit with the lowly Than to divide the spoil with the proud.… The NWO Padre should reread this. That is, of course, assuming he was ever a godly man. He's clearly planning on dividing the spoil.LOL, the irony is numbing isn't it
Wait a minute. That doesn't make any sense.
If God is concerned about global warming, why doesn't He just create global cooling?
apparently the pope's god lost his mojo
If God is concerned about global warming, why doesn't He just create global cooling?
That's Pele's department.
Oh, I don't have a problem with using RICO on people who deny the reality of climate statistics.
But I'm not sure who we can get to prosecute the Federal government and every university on the planet as a single case.
Finally!
Carbon is not pollution. CO2 is plant food and higher levels will only increase crop yield.
18+ years with no warming.
There is no average global temperature. Measurement methodology is innacurate.
Environmentalism is now about governance, not conservancy.
The sun has more to do with it than we do.
Over the last 600 million years, it has rarely been colder and CO2 has rarely been lower.
Google "ICCC 9" and watch some videos.
There is no, and has never been any 97% consensus.
The IPCC had a mandate.
Warming drives CO2 'out-gassing', not the other way around.
NOBODY denies climate change. Some doubt humans caused it.
Lindzen, Michaels, Ball, Monckton.
Stop claiming 'science' if you are unwilling to do the research.
https://atokenmanblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/carbon-monoxide-co-and-ca...
https://atokenmanblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/wonky/
Methinks this is gonna' get ugly. So be it. It needs to be discussed seriously.
I would recommend ignoring up/down votes for this thread. And let's not get personal, let's talk some science and see some facts.
And if you want to talk economics, look into carbon tax and carbon markets...
And thank you very much ZH. It was about time.
Good post!
The 97% of scientists were the same cretins telling you not to eat eggs.
Good luck getting a serious discussion - you have a better chance telling the m'slimes you want to discuss Morehamhead's paedophilia.
As for the manmade bit - Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all show global warming. I am still waiting for the explanation from the believers.
Thank you.
I challenge anybody to debate the FACTS I have laid out above.
I dare you.
Do we have to use Morse Code to do it?
I'm not saying you're wrong. Governments are capable of anything. But if you live on a semi-tropical coast, good luck arguing with that Cat 4-5!
How many big hurricanes in the Gulf over the last ten 'warmest' years?
How many cities have been lost underwater?
Zero. Pretty good time to live on the coast, I'd say.
The prediction is not that there will be more hurricanes, but that there will be (some) hurricanes containing more energy which will occasionally be extra destructive -- that is, more outliers.
There is obviously no easy way to measure the average temperature, but there are a lot of people working on improving measurements incrementally. Perhaps you can make a contribution.
CO² is not a poison, as you seem to claim that others claim. In fact, there is no such thing as a poison, only incorrect dosages. The problem is that increased CO² takes at least 60 years before the earth's climate reaches a new equilibrium. The extra CO² will take thousands of years to draw down. Paleoclimate studies teach us that past episodes with higher concentratrations of CO² and matching temperatures would be less conducive to human life. In addition, there is the possibility of triggering positive feed-back mechanisms which takes any new equilibrium outside of human agency and puts it in the hands of geological scale processes.
So let it reach an equilibrium. Presto!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-Sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
It an ammonia anomaly caused by the Earth absorbing more sunlight due to humanoid activities and thus leaving less for the outer planets to process their atmospheres normally.
Are you suggesting that because of increased ammonia levels, the Earth is stealing other planets' solar radiation?
That's quite a theory. Can you back it up?
I think it's called a "joke"?
I really hope so.
With a large enough grant, sure thing.
lol
Next time you write a grant proposal, who ya gonna call?
This is what they will pay for:
“Projected future climate-related changes include increased global temperatures, melting sea ice and glaciers, rising sea levels, increased frequency of extreme precipitation events, acidification of the oceans, modifications of growing seasons, changes in storm frequency and intensity, air quality, alterations in species’ ranges and migration patterns, earlier snowmelt, increased drought, and altered river flow volumes. Impacts from these changes are regionally diverse, and affect numerous sectors related to water, energy, transportation, forestry, tourism, fisheries, agriculture, and human health. A changing climate will alter the distribution of water resources and exacerbate human impacts on fisheries and marine ecosystems, which will result in such problems as overfishing, habitat destruction, pollution, changes in species distributions, and excess nutrients in coastal waters. Increased sea levels are expected to amplify the effects of other coastal hazards as ecosystem changes increase invasions of non-native species and decrease biodiversity. The direct impact of climate change on commerce, transportation, and the economy is evidenced by retreating sea ice in the Arctic, which allows the northward expansion of commercial fisheries and provides increased access for oil and gas development, commerce, and tourism.”
http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html?keywords=noaa
use the link to NOAA-NFA-NFAPO-2014-2003949
Follow the money.
So 'they' (really "we") will only pay for those willing to examine the evidence, rather than those determined to promote a predetermined agenda that protects the financial interests of a handful of plutocrats, what's so wrong about that?
#gasgiantslivesmatter
This is an oversimplification. The presence of more oxygen does not mean you breathe more. Similarly, plants won't consume more carbon dioxide simply because there is more of it, especially when there is less plantlife consuming high levels of carbon dioxide.
One aspect of science is reductionism, looking at a single part to build an idea of how the whole works and then piecing more of the puzzle together. Looking at CO2 alone does not mean that scientists think it is the only factor, only a factor in which a correlation was found. Further, science tends to be further simplified and reduced in the abstracts and media to make it more accessible.
A big issue with the yay/nay of climate change debate is that everything in our time has been reduced to simplistic binaries and two-sided politics. 'Either you're with us or you're against us.' You have to choose a political side, and often this becomes inverted into the absurdity that if an idea is supported by another political party then the idea itself must be wrong. In reality there are truths and they can be exploited, that is a classic tactic of power and money politics. Today, liberals may exploit the politics of climate change for their own progress, and conservatives may exploit the denial of climate change for their own purposes.
Further, that great powers are speaking of climate change does not mean it is a lie, more than likely it means that their version of it holds some truths - to which there are much deeper, horrifying truths - and they simply exploit this to extend or recuperate power. Most likely global warming is happening and the political and capital organisations are making their move to exploit ideas and return them back to their own power. That a company wants to begin controlling water or wind power does not mean that the environment is not in trouble, rather they are most likely taking advantage of an opportunity at the expense of others, turning empathy and world healing as corruption - as any good sociopath will do.
To be clear, I believe that the sun is possibly at play, either by itself or together with the changes caused by industrialism. Whether or not it is climate change, and what exactly the numbers are, is bascially a false problem. In reality humans are destroying the environment, whether that be CO2 causing heat elevation, clearcutting the forests, dumping chemicals into rivers, building a mechanised ecosystem of radiation factories, or dropping depleted uranium and causing millions of people to flee their own environment. The world is becoming an aesthetic mess and when you clear away the forests to build a Tower of Babel the consequences will not be good.
"Similarly, plants won't consume more carbon dioxide simply because there is more of it, especially when there is less plantlife consuming high levels of carbon dioxide."
Plants will use available food in larger quantity as their growth demands
http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp
CO2 generator for greenhouses, maybe they know something you just think you know??
I agree. Besides, rapid carbon sequestration utterly destroyed the dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to undo the damage.
So you deny deforestation? You deny there are less algae blooms because of warmer ocean temperatures? Really? Fucking greenhouses? They are a mere pittance in over all bio mass.
That misrepresents the point. There is a limit to how much CO2 an organism may consume. It is reliant upon nutrients and access to sunlight, as well as the genetic limits imposed on the plant. Once plants begin to crowd they lose access to nutrients and sunlight, and therefore CO2 consumption falls. They cannot grow infinitely, nor solely due to the increase of CO2.
In other words, there may already be a surplus of CO2, so speaking of a second surplus and second growth is using Mr. Yellen as the muse for your version of environmentalism.
You created a strawman, and used an industry link while you were at it. Seems you use a capitalist infinite growth model for your understanding of ecosystems. Interesting.
You misrepresent your own points. I notice how now nutrients crowding etal are all brought into the argument as higher co2 stimulates plant growth and they hence use more. There may be a surplus of CO2, so go back to the the fossil sediment record, how is that "surplus" taken care of. Nice job wrapping in Mr. Yellen your a skilled manipulator of words, but your facts and thought pattern is lacking. A capitalist infinite growth model, amusing buzzwords can you do more than throw them about haphazardly?
Isn't capitalism based on the most efficient use of resources for the benefit of initiating ( capitalistic) individuals or groups of individuals, with the ( dubiously) assumed benefit for society? The thing is, with capitalism, there must be losers to feed the winners. If the planet, and a large portion of the population, are the losers, what does that say about the winners?
The problem with socialism, at this point in time, is humans are, for the most part, selfish and fearful. But with the advancement in robotics and AI, socialism is inevitable. In a captalistic sense, within 50 yrs we are all going to be obsolete.
You're like pancreatic cancer, but only more depressing.
No kidding! That was one of the more pathetic posts I've ever read here.
Robots are nothing but tools just like any other machine. They are not more of a threat to employment than farm combines or CNC lathes.
Idiots fret about humanoid robots stealing their jobs without paying attention to the myriad of automated, semi automated or manual machines that have already taken their jobs or greately reduced the demand for workers. Consider the effect giant shipping container vessels had on employment of sailors and dock workers, and all without robots.
The men that design and own the machines will never be obsolete, and neither will be those who can hold and defend land and charge rents for its use.
Everybody else is a burden.
Capitalism DOES NOT rely on winners and losers. It relies on all sides of every transaction being winners. When I purchase a product or service from you and am satisfied with the transaction, there are no losers. Competition, which exists irrespective of what arbitrarily named "system" we are functioning under, DOES create winners and losers, but that has little to do with capitalism, other than what socialists would like to attach to it. If you think there are not winners and losers under socialism/communism then you just haven't been paying attention...or don't want to. Socialism/communism is the ultimate in income disparity, and the bottom tends to be much farther down the scale as competition is so severe that structures are put into place to prevent virtually everyone but the very most ruthless and despotic from succeeding. America is heading in that direction, with more and more rules and layers of bullshit to wade through to do the simplest of things. And climate change is their trump card, the one set of rules that rules them all. A religious mandate to predetermine EVERY human activity, no matter how small. That which is not prohibited will be taxed. Period.
Actually your definition is wrong. Capitalism is a term introduced by Karl Marx to describe capital intensive industry as it presented in the nineteenth century. (Profitable) human trade is thousands of years older than capitalism.
What is also curious about capitalism is that in a capitalist society, there are only a few individuals who can be described as capitalists. Not so much because the rest of society is filled with dissenters, but there are relatively few people actually managing the capital at hand, a large part of which has been confiscated from the native Indians without due respect for property rights.
So grow more plants. Problem solved. I think Nature takes care of that itself, no?
Shhh and don't tell them that the Coast Redwoods and Giant Sequoia are growing faster than ever now with a little more co2 and warmer temps.
I agree that it is impossible not to over-simplify when trying to introduce alarmists to the truth. Clearly, more research (on their part) is warranted. However, there is an effort to subvert discussion in order to push certain globalist agendas. Environmentalism affects everybody and is therefore the best tool for control over all sovereign states when implemented through the UN and its agencies.
Yes pollution is a man-made problem, so let's talk about cancer. Where AGW is concerned, there is simply no evidence - unless you believe Holdren and his eugenisist minions.
There is an agenda at work, and the only arguments heard from alarmists are ad hominem, and fear-mongering. The 'deniers' are the ones who bring fact to the table.
Bill Gates wants CO2 levels at zero ppm.
Plants die at levels below 150 ppm.
The math is clear.
Yes, there is an agenda. But that does not mean the agenda created global warming/climate change. There is an agenda to use all the world's resources, does this mean the same agenda created these resources?
There is also an agenda for denialists, many believe in capitalism and cannot accept that their ideology has ended in vast networks of deathcamps.
"There is also an agenda for denialists, many believe in capitalism and cannot accept that their ideology has ended in vast networks of deathcamps."
Are you speaking of the vast network of Nazi deathcamps? Fascism was not capitalism, the State owned the factories and the operators were left alone, as long as they followed orders and produced what the State wanted for the war. They were left in corporate organizations for convenience, not for profit. A profit-motivated owner would have produced more Volkswagens, and no Panzers.
Perhaps you mean the Gulags of the Soviet Union, that stalwart stronghold of capitalism? Perhaps it was North Korea you were thinking of? Oh, I know, you were thinking of Cambodia!
What capitalist nation produced deathcamps? We interned the Japanese during WWII, but did not work them to death or gas them for their gold fillings. We put Indians on reservations, but did not work them to death. ... [agreed, our treatment of the native Americans was criminal, but not an adjunct of capitalism].
Capitalism is working to produce a surplus, then selling that surplus for a profit. How can a deathcamp make a profit? You have to pay guards, work transportation, food for the inmates, etc., etc. ... and the products, as made by slave labor, cannot maintain high quality standards. If you are going to criticize capitalism, criticize the built-in problems of environmental neglect and abuse without consequence, needless competition when cooperation would be more efficient, lack of emphasis on utility instead of desire (gold-plated trinkets instead of sturdy wares). Don't criticize capitalism the way the communists did - because capitalism CAN work, but communism cannot. Just ask Stalin - or his victims, who might have a better understanding than he did - or you do.
There are lots of statistics about the health costs and extra deaths caused by burning fossil fuels (enormous).
None of that has to do with CO² over-burden.
Thank you for an excellent post. I tend to value comment threads which attract the most well informed individuals.
One of my favorite people said to me once.
"Some people fight to live..I Live to fight"
She meant it. She still does.
Truth really would set us free.
"Over the last 600 million years, it has rarely been colder and CO2 has rarely been lower."
Yes, because the Sun has been gradually getting hotter and hotter over the Earth's history, while at the same time CO2 has been generally dropping over the same period, which tends to counteract each other and maintain a relatively stable temperature, within the bounds of ice ages and between periods. Eventually the Sun will eat up the Earth.
"Warming drives CO2 'out-gassing', not the other way around."
Actually, it is not a one-way process, it is both ways. To presume that only one of those processes drives the other is overly simplistic and does not accoutn for the feedback mechanisms in the climate. What you should have said was, "Warming drives CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide out-gassing; and CO2, methane and nitrous oxide off-gassing drive warming".
"Sun has been gradually getting hotter"
Records do not indicate this. CO2 has varied, as has temp.
Out-gassing has not been shown to drive temp.
There have been times when CO2 was much higher and temps lower, and vice versa.
The correlation is weak.
According to models of stellar evollution, never tested but just calculated, the sun and stars like the sun do not have a constant energy output. They start out somewhat cold and heat up as they burn. Thats just how stars work and has nothing to do with the climate in any planet. It happens to all (most?) giant balls of helium and hydrogen that collapse under their own weight until nuclear fusion heats the center enough the stabilize the collapse.
And the correlation is high, in fact.
In addition to the basic Physics (known since the nineteenth century), showing that trace gasses which absorb radiation at certain frequencies can act like plugging an extra gap in a grate, especially when that gap is still open -- that is, the effect is stronger with low concentrations and increases exponentially less as the concentration increases, it is exactly this high correlation which drives current theories about the effects of increased concentrations of CO².
Proving the correlation to be low would make you a giant of climatological science.
You are apparently referencing the work of the chemist Arrhenus. More up to date would be the work of Freeman Dyson in researching the properties of emmisive gasses. Dyson, a giant in Physics, has ambivalently described increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere as 'generally beneficial". My guess (hypothesis) is that you know nothing of the science. What is your calculation of ECS for CO2 ? What basis do you have for your claim of high correlation of CO2 to increasing global temperature. Please provide the data set. Time series of less than 10,000 yrs. will provide limited use in projection of future climatic states. Indexed, binned, or data that has been adjusted without accompanying code you can put where the sun don't shine. The IPCC so far has published AR1, AR2,...,AR5 as the consolidated results of the study groups- none of the early reports based on the GCMs have had any demonstrable skill in projecting temperature, precipitation, tropical storm frequency or strength.
Natural variability (noise) overwhelms the signal of the supposed warming. Learn some fucking math.
Seems you added some things to your post, very common fallacies playing as science.
CO2 will now replenish the soil, so very wrong statement.
Hasn't warmed in 18 years? Assuming this is true, it is a false data-point. If you take the highest point and then claim things are getting cooler you are assuming that warming is linear, which ignores the reality of how heat works. It is like saying that one has a fever and so long as they don't go past 104 again they are getting better, even if stuck in the 103s. It's a bit Fed-like with abstract math, so long as we don't go below 15,666 again everything is awesome.
"There is no average global temperature." I have no idea what this could mean, nor what you think it means. Apparently you think it means there is no global warming, but there is an average global temperature, it may just be too complex to calculate.
"Environmentalism is now about governance..." This has no bearing on whether or not there is climate change, so it is a fallacy. See my other post for more details.
Maybe the sun does have more to do with it, but can you prove this? It seems that most who deny climate change assume that since the sun warms the earth then it is responsible for all temperature variations and there could be no other cause. But this is like saying that since the engine in your causes produces most of the horsepower then fluctuations of power could not be the fault of the exhaust.
Have you ever lived in a large city and a rural setting with the same climate? Did you notice that it does not cool as much at night in the city? This is microclimate change run amok. If you know anything about gardening then you can perhaps relate, simply altering the landscape with trees and hills can create a microclimate for your food. This does not change the climate a lot, but it may give you an extra few weeks without frost. The same thing happens with cities but on a large scale and with destructive results. Of course, you can respond that cities only cover 3% of the earth (ignoring the large masses of land required to feed the cities, I will guess an additional 15%) so that would have no effect. But if you look at the science of fragility it only takes a small change in numbers for exponential crises and the loss of life. Only a small percentile change would have meant that earth would hold no life, and cancer can kill a human by taking over less than 3% of a body. Similarly, a military requires only 3% of the population to maintain control of ithe country.
600 million years is a huge timeline which basically makes the data meaningless. The question is the rate of change, as this suggests relative velocity of heat exchange compared with historical data, and suggests how violent the weather could become.
"Warming drives CO2 outgassing..." Why do you insist that it can't be the other way around? Seems you are assuming a localised entropy, or closed system, in which feedback results may be the source. But the environment is not a closed system and Warming driving CO2 may be a process of feedback runaway.
Again, I am in no way in agreement with the politics of socialist, liberal, etc. environmentalists, but I am a person who doesn't want to live in an apocalyptic hole, whatever the cause may be.
"Hasn't warmed in 18 years?"
The warming observed is below the margin of error for the tests.
"Apparently you think it means there is no global warming, but there is an average global temperature, it may just be too complex to calculate."
If it is too complex to calculate, why is it always brought up as a proof? Google "global average temperature" and you will se what I mean.
"Environmentalism is now about governance..." This has no bearing on whether or not there is climate change, so it is a fallacy. See my other post for more details.
Nobody denies climate change; it has always changed. I was simply raising the point to highlight the mandate of the IPCC which was determined before any conclusions were reached.
" Maybe the sun does have more to do with it, but can you prove this?"
I can't but Willie Soon et al. can, and have.
"Have you ever lived in a large city and a rural setting with the same climate? Did you notice that it does not cool as much at night in the city?"
ALL temperature measuring stations are in cities and are subject to 'heat island' effect which distorts average temperature reports. Look it up.
"600 million years is a huge timeline which basically makes the data meaningless."
It only makes the satellite data meaningless which has only been collected since the mid-eighties. Other temp records only go back 150 years. Not nearly enough to try to establish global warming/cooling trends.
""Warming drives CO2 outgassing..." Why do you insist that it can't be the other way around?"
Actual scientific evidence. This is easily researched.
"Again, I am in no way in agreement with the politics of socialist, liberal, etc. environmentalists, but I am a person who doesn't want to live in an apocalyptic hole, whatever the cause may be."
I agree.
"The warming observed is below the margin of error for the tests."
Exactly 50 angels can dance on the head of a pin.
You just can't detect them.
The system is self correcting or else the earth would be either a complete ball of ice, or a venusian hell.
Please explain with data, how the last ice age ended. Include the number of SUVs, MPG, and coal-fired generators in your data.
<sigh>
I realize there is probably no point in bothering, but point by point if you like:
1."18+ years with no warming."
i)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#/media/File:Karl_15_... (au contraire)
ii) 2014: still the hottest year on record!
2."There is no average global temperature. Measurement methodology is innacurate."
i) there does exist an 'average global temperature' at any given moment; perhaps you meant it's complicated to measure?
ii) Yes, well, like with any other collection of empirical data for any experiment, 'measuring' introduces uncertainties, but also like other experiments those uncertainties are accounted for in the conclusions; and in this case they certainly don't overwhelm the jist of the data.
3. "Environmentalism is now about governance, not conservancy"
i) why you jest set up that Strawman extraordinaire! Let's all knock 'im down!
(what ever happened to "Just because someone evil misuses a rifle doesn't mean rifles are evil"?)
4. "The sun has more to do with it than we do."
i) It can, but at least you concede we have something to do with 'it'.
For the sake of the following question, let's pretend your sun theory is correct:
Q. If the toilet's plugged with hair will shitting in it more solve the problem, or exacerbate it?
ii) anyway: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=5 (au contraire)
5."Over the last 600 million years, it has rarely been colder and CO2 has rarely been lower."
i.) so ideal conditions for human existence then?
5."Google "ICCC 9" and watch some videos."
i) it may just be me (yeeeeah), but I find a certain bias in the bios of the Heartland Institute's collection of speakers, IE ICE 9 appears a bit one sided, in that there is only one side of the question represented, which doesn't allow for much in the way of reasoned debate.
ii) I prefer peer-reviewed evidence myself
6. "There is no, and has never been any 97% consensus."
i) except, of course, amongst those scientists who specialize in the field
7. "The IPCC has a mandate"
i) Yes it sure does, a prudent one too, considering the seriousness of the consequences. And that mandate includes looking for "potential impacts of climate change, positive and negative" (emphasis mine)
8. "Warming drives CO2 'out-gassing', not the other way around."
i) I hear warming likes it both ways http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract
(chicken-egg)
9. "NOBODY denies climate change. Some doubt humans caused it."
i) and they labour intensely to nurture that doubt, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. And what's more: they are more than willing to bet your life on it.
ii) doesn't the first sentence contradict your assertion #1?
iii) doesn't the second sentence contradict your assertion #4?
iii) "NOBODY denies climate change" anymore, you mean. At least we've come that far.
10. "Carbon is not pollution. CO2 is plant food and higher levels will only increase crop yield."
i) (au contraire) http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-fo...
Ta da!
GoinFawr, I was rereading this thread this morning, left a pile of greenies for ya'. I did add one final comment...
I have a pair of fives on that one.
Capitalism is simply an endless process of the money changers kicking out the money changers. And climate change politics is just two sides of project bluebeam.
Those aren't chemtrails over California, they're NASA spaceships dropping mind control nanorobots.
Bomb the Boats. Feed the Fish.
The almighty controls the hvac on this big ball , by solar activity
Ever hear of the Wisconsin Glacier?
It's been warming here for 15,000 years!
All these brilliant climate scientists need to explain is how a mile of ice melted off N. America without a man made co2 explanation, none of them do that because they will have to admit its the Sun; then the scam ends, that is all..
Well I'm not a climate scientist but can easily answer your question. OF COURSE IT"S THE SUN!!!! Evrything comes from the Sun, except for volcanoes. It is called Milankovitch Cycles -- wobbles in the Earth's orbit that increase or decrease how much sunshine the Earth absorbs; look them up. These interact with other factors on the planet to create climate changes. Interestingly when an ice age ends and the ice melts it creates positive feedbacks that increase the warming trend even faster, like a darker land surface that absorbs more sunshine, and release of CO2 and nitrous oxides and methane from soil and aquatic ecosystems that were previously trapped under ice. This causes ice ages to come and go quite quickly when they do shift. In between is longer periods of more stable climate, until the Earth wobbles again shift us into or out of another ice age.
There is also the cycle where the solar system crosses the plane of the MW galaxy as it circles every 100K+ years. We crossed the plane in 2012(the Mayan Doomsday, remember? We all died) and are now heading away from the plane. This means eventual cooling, thousands of years out.
I guess we shall see. Edit: actually I won't be around then to see...
Couldn't edit. Access denied. So, here's an article that says that cycle is 33 million years old.
http://earthsky.org/human-world/will-our-solar-system-cross-the-galactic...
Two cycles ago, 66 million years ago, the dinos died out. The planet was warmer then than now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_ev...
There is also the cycle where the solar system crosses the plane of the MW galaxy as it circles.
http://earthsky.org/human-world/will-our-solar-system-cross-the-galactic...
Astronomers 'estimate' we crossed the plane 3 million years ago.
Welcome to the ZH Twilight Zone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y
Milankovitch cycles... glad someone else mentioned it so i didn't have to. Thumbs up!
CO2 is an essential gas of life every bit as important to life as we know it as is oxygen. Nobody is in a position to prove what the best concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is supposed to be. The current CO2 concentration of .038 percent is very low compared to the average concentration over the last 200 million years. Plus, higher levels of CO2 is excellent for plants, which we use as our primary food source, for building materials and is our source of oxygen. Free oxygen in the earth's atmosphere is the result of photosynthesis by plants. Oxygen is a very reactive element, without the contribution from plants, the oxygen released by all other natural sources combined would immediately combine with other elements (mainly forming metal oxides such as rust) and never accumulate in the atmosphere. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the source of life for our source of life, oxygen, which comes from plants.
it's less about magical levels and more about THE RATE of change
and the various systems (and species') ability to cope with (and adapt to) that change
(even an alcoholic and drug addict have to build up their tolerance)
if the rate of change (and level of CO2) causes a (geologically speaking) rapid increase in desertification, is that good for plants? To the ones that live there? To the people that live there and eat plants and drink water?
What do the geological (and biological) records say about the rate of change and the living system's ability to cope with a given rate?
Do the the geological records give us ANY guidance on a planet with (soon) 9 billion people competing for dimishing resources with a (geologically speaking) rapid rate of change? Or is this a brand new chapter?
Your post is some odd combination of ignorance and fantasy.
When a greenhouse gardener buys a new CO2 generator and starts it up, the rate of CO2 change his plants experience is something like 1,000+ years worth of man-made CO2 (in terms of atmospheric concentration) over the course of an hour or so. It doesn't hurt them at all. In fact, they start benefiting from the CO2 almost immediately (as soon as there's adequate sunlight to make use of it).
Rate of change of CO2 does not cause deserts to come into existence. (What would the mechanism even be?!?!) Not even the moronic "climate scientists" argue that. (Rather, they argue: high CO2 levels -> increased greenhouse effect -> warming -> bad things)
I'm sure someone somewhere would make an argument for CO2 rate of change being an issue for sea-life that is sensitive to ocean acidity (e.g. animals with calcium-based shells), but that wouldn't hold much water -- even the IPCC doesn't indicate a problem on that front. (In fact, I had some moron arguing that ocean acidification was going to kill these animals and it had been experimentally proven and was a well known fact by everyone with an aquarium. He was making that argument as a sort of fall-back "CO2 BAD!" position after I had pummeled his stupid CAGW arguments. I then slapped him with the IPCC report which indicated that even the highest expected ocean acidification would not result in such die offs, which really pissed him off because he's an IPCC true believer and he couldn't argue with his gods. More importantly, he had been outed as someone who was willing to forcefully state something as a strongly established fact when the reality was it was just some more shit he or someone else had made up.)
The "9 billion people competing for dimishing resources" thing is a much larger issue (much wider scope than just CO2/warming). E.g., the clearing of land for use by man obviously puts pressure on wildlife, and the widespread use of certain pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers may be problematic, and over-fishing is a concern, etc., but none of those is CAGW so they are pretty far off-topic for this thread.
Actually your response seems to be the ingnorant one. I don't see any mention in the original comment that he was suggesting that increased CO2 itself damages the plants, but rather that increased CO2 causes climate change which damages the plants adapted to the previous climate. Pretty obvious, I'm not sure how you could read that into his statements. Furthermore, studies have shown that increased CO2 does not increase crop yield for C4 plants, only C3 plants, and then only in controlled lab settings in which no other plant resources were limiting. In the real world, increased CO2 does little or nothing to increase farm productivity -- basically, because it isn't the limiting nutrient.
"none of those is CAGW so they are pretty far off-topic for this thread"
But yes they are AGW related because each of those diminishes biodiversity and the ability of ecosystems to migrate and change, so that when climate change does occur the ecosystems cannot react to form new ecosystems which the AGW deniers hold up as thiier main argument -- that humanity and the planet "will adapt".
Thank you, he seems to miss the "how things are connected" part
I didn't miss "the how things are connected part", rather I stated it was fantasy and called you out on it. A "rapid increase in desertification" as a result of man-made CO2 is a fantasy. It's speculation with no sound basis at all.
The CAGW crowd is composed of ignorant and/or irrational doomsayers who are always ready to point out any narrow area they can where the tiniest bit of warming would be in the least bit harmful to any "cuddly" species, and at the same time they completely ignore vast areas that would significantly benefit from warming (and completely ignore that we are in an interglacial in the middle of a fucking ice age and that returning to glaciation would be devastating and anything that might help avoid that could be the best thing for us). Go ahead and read one of the annual IPCC reports. In it you'll find plenty of examples of talk about this area or that becoming too warm for some species or another - oh so sad. What you won't find (at least in my experience - they could prove me wrong some day!) is the parts where they talk about areas becoming warm enough for a species to thrive (unless it's considered a "harmful species" whose thriving would be bad), because the "CO2 bad"/"warming bad" bias is absolute, so those parts do not exist.
.
First of all, there's way more C3 plants on this planet than C4 plants. In terms of crops C4 is pretty much sugar and high fructose corn syrup (sugar cane, corn) and sorghum. Rice, wheat, rye, oat, barley, potatoes, spinach, yams, soybean, peanut, and lots of others are C3. Most trees, shrubs and weeds are C3 as well. So even if right, your statement would be nearly irrelevant.
But your overly-general statement only "holds" in theoretical studies and those not based on adequate empirical evidence. But keep hanging on to those falsehoods because they're pretty much all you've got. When you actually run the experiment on more C4 plants you find that C4 plants (at least some C4 plants) benefit from increased CO2 (though on average not as much as C3 plants). For example:
"Both C4 and C3 species increased total biomass significantly in elevated CO2, by 33% and 44%, respectively."
[Wand, S. J. E., Midgley, G. F., Jones, M. H. & Curtis, P. S. "Responses of wild C4 and C3 grass (Poaceae) species to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration: a meta-analytic test of current theories and perceptions." Global Change Biol. 5, 723-741 (1999).]
"The growth stimulation was larger for C3 species than for C4 plants. However the difference in growth stimulation is not as large as expected as C4 plants also significantly increased in weight (41% for C3 vs. 22% for C4)."
[Poorter, Hendrik "Interspecific variation in the growth response of plants to an elevated ambient CO2 concentration" Advances in vegetation science Volume 14 pp 77-98 (1993)]
That's not to say there aren't some C4 plants that do not seem to benefit from more CO2 under some conditions (there are known cases - e.g. sorghum under well-watered conditions), but C4 plants are already a small minority on planet Earth, and the restricted set of C4 plants and conditions under which they do not benefit makes that minority even smaller. (And that a few plants do not benefit does not negate the benefit of all of the rest.)
No, not only in "controlled lab settings". It works in greenhouses just fine. (Note that that is the claim I actually made in my post.)
Now, am I "admitting" added CO2 won't help in non-greenhouse enviroments (e.g. natural environments, farms, gardens)? No. But unlike you, I don't argue things I don't know about, and I already knew CO2 works in greenhouses for lots of plants.
But now that you've "made me look" at non-greenhouse scenarios? I find that your claim is egregiously false:
"techniques of Free-Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE) have been developed that allow natural or agricultural ecosystems to be fumigated with elevated concentrations of CO2 in the field without use of chambers (Figure 1). As these experiments are the most naturalistic, they should provide the best indication of the responses of plants to increased CO2 under the real-world conditions of the future. This article therefore focuses on data from FACE experiments wherever these are available."
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmos...
(Oh no, I'm linking that climate denier site "Nature"!)
Not only do they indicate improved growth in CO2-enhanced conditions, but the plants need less water when there's more CO2. (It's because the leaf "pores" that let CO2 in also let water out. The plants have apparently long-ago evolved to adapt to varying CO2 levels and are "smart" enough to close those pores a bit when there's more CO2, still letting them get the CO2 they need while losing less water to the atmosphere. I wasn't even aware of this significant benefit of increased CO2 before, so thanks!)
And in other news, my dick is apparently AGW related...
Your argument is absurd. It's like saying: "Yes, I've got hardly any income, and I've just now taken out loans for a house, a car, a leisure boat, and a student loan so I can finally get a Masters in Basket Weaving, but the wife spending $40 on groceries is a Catastrophe! She's blowing the whole budget! How am I supposed to pay off those loans when they come due if she's spending money on fucking groceries!" AGW is a minor effect with a major benefit (cheap energy), much like buying groceries.
"new ecosystems" is just a gross overstatement of what will happen. We're talking minor gradual shifts, even if the AGW warming predictions were correct (and they're not - at least, they're not so far, and they're not backed by valid science, so it's somewhat improbable that they'll end up right in the end).
The other pressures on nature I listed are pretty major - they have a big noticeable impact. AGW is not. It's minor. And as far as I can tell, it's a minor net-positive change, not a negative one. Your argument is based on an "all change is bad" fallacy: "All change is bad because adapting to that little bit of extra change is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back!"
You forgot to mention Fukushima radiation pollution decimating ocean life across the Pacific. Or do you think that's fine also?
http://enenews.com
05:28 PM EST on September 22nd, 2015 | 556 comments PHOTOS: Mutations found in sea life along US West Coast — Deformed spines, brains, hearts, eyes reported by officials — Malformations include extra brain lobes, hunchbacks, parts of face missing, unusual limbs 12:21 PM EST on September 21st, 2015 | 445 comments Nuclear Expert: US West Coast being continuously exposed to Fukushima radioactive releases, it’s an ongoing tragedy — Marine Chemist: Impossible to stop nuclear waste flowing into ocean; “It never will be… that’s what keeps me up at night” — Radiation levels spiked 1,000% since floods (VIDEOS) 06:35 PM EST on September 17th, 2015 | 561 comments Yahoo News: Giant mutant fish caught off Japan causes concern about effects of Fukushima — NY Daily News: Monster catch raises questions about ecological impact of nuclear disaster — “We wonder if its the radiation that caused the fish to grow this big” (PHOTOS) 11:38 PM EST on September 15th, 2015 | 494 comments TV: Massacre along West Coast continues — Alarming, bleak situation as disease re-emerges — Hundreds of millions of sea stars estimated dead — Changes in cellular matrix observed, “a lot of interesting genes being found” — Other sea life disappearing as tidepool communities ‘shift’ (VIDEO)Hello Mr. INoReadTooGood, please look up the definition of "etc.", then reread my post and note where I use the term.
"Nobody is in a position to prove what the best concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is supposed to be."
I am. The best concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is the one which will tend to support a stable climate since we have grown as a species to fill almost every niche on the planet and any change in the climate will on the whole negatively affect us because it will result in loss of infrastructure and mass migration of affected peopel into other areas that are already overpolulated, kind of like the Syrian refugees crisis right now. If there were only a million people alive then sure, climate change might be a good thing for hhumanity oin the whole because there would be room enough for us to adapt. but we cannot adapt at 7 billion. Furthermore, what people fail to mention when they comfortabley remark that species always adapt to changing environments, is that in order for those species to adapt, many individual members of those speices had to die before new equilibria were achieved. I am guessing the poeple making those statements won't volunteer to be the ones who die...
Once they get off all public assistance, then they have a right to fucking complain!
The socialist pope supports climate change.... Which means that it's offically confirmed as a religion. Save the planet, rape an alter boy.
Seems like a lot of climate scientists agree that this is happening.
Just sayin.
Respectfully, no. A lot of media shills agree that this is happening.
Climate scientists DO NOT agree.
If Mann is your reference, you should look into him and his record of manipulating data.
*reminder* email scandal - have we forgotten already?
Oh you mean that scandal of 10's of thousands of hacked personal emails (I'd love to see Chevron's or any other oil company's hacked emails -- would probably be very revealing), of which a grand total of about 13 emails suggested wrongdoing, and even those didn't really do anything to invalidate the underlying science. If anything, the fact that 10's of thousands of emails revealed so little is proof positive to me that it is not a conspiracy, but that a few scientists are people too and sometimes distort things their own way a tad.
yes...a tad.
Good thing that these scientists' salaries depend on them deriving their peer reviewed conclusions from the facts then, rather than being contingent on producing results that protect a handful of plutocrat's stock portfolios
They are getting desperate and a desperate Leftist resorts to one thing rather quickly when their gravy train is threatened; Violence they have always resorted to violence. This time they conspire with government to initiate the violence nothing new. Keep ridiculing them, call them idiots and challenge their intelligence, use irony and ridicule its like garlic to a vampire. This too shall pass but I am very worried about what scare comes next they will use a false flag next time to ensure a long lasting scam, probably biological of some sort..
Progressives have always struggled with debate and rely heavily on the media to support to enforce their attacks on all opponents. They do not seek debate, they seek defeat and destruction of their "deniers". When the media fails to carry their water any longer, when the press fails to destroy the deniers, they are trapped by their own devices. All they can say is the debate is over because there never was a debate, only enforced professorial "consensus". Facts presented by alternative sources are considered invalid, not because their data is proven false, but because of its source.This is proof of the falsity of their "consensus" as they dare not contest the facts, only the source.
Its when they become most dangerous to self aware thinking beings who will not be herded by their lysenko inspired supposed superiors..
Global Warming, oops, Climate Change, is a mind control hoax designed to prevent people from thinking clearly or even thinking for themselves. It's kinda like Hitler's Big Lie that very few dared to challenge. It has reached that proverbial tipping point in mainstream thought like a runaway freight train where rational objection and healthy skepticism are treated as some form of religious heresy. 1984 is here and we don't even realize it.
Progressives did not bring about the "War on Drugs" or its big brother the " War on Terrorism". Media had a lot to do with the acceptance of both and the constitutional casualties.But this shit is not partisan!
No, they just enabled and offered moral support to the enemy. They were instrumental in creating the pretense, the reason for war. Progressives will argue till their dying day that it is us that is the enemy, and they do everything in their power to pit one against another.
"The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization".
BULLSHIT.
They call this 'science'...
If you don't see through the deception of the communist/environmentalist agenda..
Then you have been poisoned.
Textbook "begging the question" fallacy; the climate has NOT been stable. Moreover, the cool periods were accompanied by famine and starvation.
10,000 years ago the world was in an Ice Age. But there is no evironmentalist aganda, since I am one and I can assure you that the science is very solid and frightening. Ultimately, the financial catastrophe we are nearing is actually the first manifestation of the Malthusian Collapse that humanity will be facing in the future since we have drastically overshot the support mechanisms of the planet and fossil fuels are the only things holding us up. Food production is utterly dependent on fossil fuels. Since the world has been at Peak Oil for 10 years now, the economy can't grow anymroe and the ramifications of this for a ponzi scheme monetary system that must grow exponentially are prettty obvious.
If that is the case why bring down CO2 levels as more people will obviously survive and thrive during a warming period, history is clear on that point.... Unless the agenda is somewhat different...
Not quite that simple and obvious unfortunately. We have invested $trillions in coastal infrastructure that depends on the sea level staying where it is. A rise of a few meters will cause massive displacement as so much coastal infrastructure will be underwater, as well as entire countries (Bangladesh), so hundreds of million of people will need to migrate inland to already overpopulated areas. The most fertile areas are reiver deltas near the ocean so those will be lost, reducing food production. Furthermore, previously fertile areas may become deserts, just as much as some areas will become more fertile. Sure, some people will obviously win from a warming trend but most will not.
"A few meters" and we are being warned now of millimeters, you may wish to update the scale of your scare friend.. Actually it is exactly that simplle, a warmer earth means more food and more survive, the coastal regions will be moved, levied or abandoned.
"Sure, some people will obviously win from a warming trend but most will not." It is not possible for you or anyone else to know that.. What you may have meant to say was "dammit, do what i say, I know whats best"
And what of our "broken window" theory? Just think of the economic boom resulting from rebuilding all of the coastal infrastructure.
This is what is so great about our progressive protectors. They warn of health crisis's and then do everything they can to push our healthcare costs to the moon. They worry about humans everywhere while pushing for millions to be killed in the womb. They decry economic horrors from reduced spending and the absolute need for new construction and then proceed to tax us to prevent climate change that at worst will destroy "property" requiring economic stimulating construction, and potentially reduce crops for which taxpayers are currently paying for millions of acres of farmland to lay fallow. We are screaming about the negative effects of climate change while simultaneously killing babies, inventing reasons to piss away billions on nothing, and paying farmers not to grow crops, and preventing the production of farting livestock.
Makes perfect sense.
Umm.... huh? Who is this "they" you are referring to? Am I a member of "them"? You are falling into the classic trap of lumping everyone who has a different viewpoint than you into the "them" camp, and automatically blaming all the world's problems on "them". So as a member of "them", I am responsible for killing millions of babies? LOL
As to the "broken window theory" and the economic booms from rebuilding the coastal infrastructure, wow that sounds a lot like Keynesian theory to me! It goes like this.. the idea that if we become poorer because we lose infrastructure and capital then we have actually become wealthier (who are you, Paul Krugman?) because it stimulates people to go out and "produce" new infrastructure... That's why Keynesians think war is good because it stimulates a boom. In reality though afterwards the bills for that activity come due and the economy goes into recession. The point you are missing is that it requires resources to rebuild infrastructure, resources that we will not have due to running out of fossil fuels.
You have no problem grouping everyone into "We".
Umm, have you no understanding of exponential trends? Things start out slowly which indicates the beginning of a shift and then accelerate, that is how climate shifts into and out of ice ages -- it happens quickly. Once the ice sheets go, they are going to go fast, which appears to be happening.
And please, I don't need to be patronized, I have studied ecology in university and worked in that field for a few decades, I am sorry and a warmer Earth does not mean more food and "more survive" because as I pointed out in another post, many areas will become deserts. Furthermore, if we lose the most productive coastal areas then we lose all that food production.