GW causing tidal flooding in Florida...no worries.

[ClosedCaption]

how do you explain all the earlier warming periods?

I dont have to science explains it. The funny thing is that you accept some science while telling everyone to ignore other science.

How do you explain that? With evidence?

do you agree that man had nothing to do with climate change millions of years ago? or even thousands of years ago?

thats a yes or no question

So you dont have an explantion then...ok. You shouldnt believe shit you cant explain unless its faith based.

The science says that is correct because man didnt exist millions of years ago. I'm curious why you believe science can look into the past and you believe it but dismiss others.

What measure are you using to determine one correct and the other not correct?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Flooding has been going on for centuries. Add the fact that the region has an outdated drainage system in need of repair and you've got problems.

Nothing the liberals are proposing will change any of this. Redistributing wealth does not stop floods, tornadoes or change temps. Scientists revealed that during the Renaissance era, the core temp was slightly hotter than it is today.

Taking care of the planet is good. The stupid cap and trade plot is all about wealth redistribution and gaining control and has nothing to do with saving the earth.

Very true

We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not

Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it

^Astounding. That "thinking" would have to be premised on the notion that we have the slightest ability to alter climate change, much less cause it in the first place.

But we don't have any such ability.

Not only do we not bear any responsibility for any global warming, we also do not bear responsibility for any global cooling. We similarly lack any blame for failure to "fix" it because we also lack the first last or middle ability to do a god damn thing about it.

 

[Redfish]

I dont have to science explains it. The funny thing is that you accept some science while telling everyone to ignore other science.

How do you explain that? With evidence?

do you agree that man had nothing to do with climate change millions of years ago? or even thousands of years ago?

thats a yes or no question

So you dont have an explantion then...ok. You shouldnt believe shit you cant explain unless its faith based.

The science says that is correct because man didnt exist millions of years ago. I'm curious why you believe science can look into the past and you believe it but dismiss others.

What measure are you using to determine one correct and the other not correct?

the reasons for climate change in the past, as well as in the present and future are THEORIES. None of it can be proven. But yet, you want all of mankind to change the way it lives and pay homage to the prophet algore so that he will save the planet-------------do you have any idea how stupid that makes you look?

 

[ron4342]

well, you globull warming fanatics should move the cities (with your own monies) or wave your magic wands and stop all the globull warming stuff

anyone notice globull warming is always THE SKY IS FALLING fearmongering?

How did humans survive the great dust bowl with out the globull warmer freaks?

Stephanie will condemn those who support efforts to stop global warming right up until the moment the water is up to her nose. Then she will switch sides and start condemning the Democrats for allowing global warming to occur.

 

[Redfish]

Flooding has been going on for centuries. Add the fact that the region has an outdated drainage system in need of repair and you've got problems.

Nothing the liberals are proposing will change any of this. Redistributing wealth does not stop floods, tornadoes or change temps. Scientists revealed that during the Renaissance era, the core temp was slightly hotter than it is today.

Taking care of the planet is good. The stupid cap and trade plot is all about wealth redistribution and gaining control and has nothing to do with saving the earth.

Very true

We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not

Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it

^Astounding. That "thinking" would have to be premised on the notion that we have the slightest ability to alter climate change, much less cause it in the first place.

But we don't have any such ability.

Not only do we not bear any responsibility for any global warming, we also do not bear responsibility for any global cooling. We similarly lack any blame for failure to "fix" it because we also lack the first last or middle ability to do a god damn thing about it.

excellent!. the AGW believers never say what they want us to do (except send more money to the government). They have no solutions for their imaginary problem, they just believe it and cannot stand it if everyone does not subscribe to the same lunacy.

 

[Yurt]

not at all, Saying that is intellectually lazy unless changing times, populations and advances in technology has no effect on anything also. Is that what you're getting at? Now is just like then?



No problem, you just didnt understand. Glad I cleared that up for you.

how do you explain all the earlier warming periods?

I dont have to science explains it. The funny thing is that you accept some science while telling everyone to ignore other science.

How do you explain that? With evidence?

so we should have listened to the ice age fear mongers of the 70's?

you are the one ignoring science and believing only what you want to believe. i showed that scientists have been wrong. yet you can't admit that. you're simply incapable of honest debate on this topic.

 

[Redfish]

how do you explain all the earlier warming periods?

I dont have to science explains it. The funny thing is that you accept some science while telling everyone to ignore other science.

How do you explain that? With evidence?

so we should have listened to the ice age fear mongers of the 70's?

you are the one ignoring science and believing only what you want to believe. i showed that scientists have been wrong. yet you can't admit that. you're simply incapable of honest debate on this topic.

lierals are incapable of an honest debate on any topic-----------because they know that if the debate is open and honest, they will lose every time.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Flooding has been going on for centuries. Add the fact that the region has an outdated drainage system in need of repair and you've got problems.

Nothing the liberals are proposing will change any of this. Redistributing wealth does not stop floods, tornadoes or change temps. Scientists revealed that during the Renaissance era, the core temp was slightly hotter than it is today.

Taking care of the planet is good. The stupid cap and trade plot is all about wealth redistribution and gaining control and has nothing to do with saving the earth.

Very true

We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not

Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it

^Astounding. That "thinking" would have to be premised on the notion that we have the slightest ability to alter climate change, much less cause it in the first place.

But we don't have any such ability.

Not only do we not bear any responsibility for any global warming, we also do not bear responsibility for any global cooling. We similarly lack any blame for failure to "fix" it because we also lack the first last or middle ability to do a god damn thing about it.

And proof of that lies.....

 

[ClosedCaption]

how do you explain all the earlier warming periods?

I dont have to science explains it. The funny thing is that you accept some science while telling everyone to ignore other science.

How do you explain that? With evidence?

so we should have listened to the ice age fear mongers of the 70's?

No silly because that wasnt from scientists. Try to keep up bro

you are the one ignoring science and believing only what you want to believe. i showed that scientists have been wrong. yet you can't admit that. you're simply incapable of honest debate on this topic.

Scientists arent perfect so of course they are bound to be wrong sometime. What you didnt show was that the peer reviewed science is wrong.

Having trouble with that part

 

[RKMBrown]

Why did you say the artcle agreed with you when it didnt? And why when I asked for proof that more CO2 will be great for plants you replied with no proof?

I mean the first was a flat out lie, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on the second. Where's that proof bro?

Listen you lying/ignorant piece of shit (take your pick), and I say that with utmost respect, the title and opinions expressed in your linked article are just that. Opinions. The post you linked actually agrees with what I said. It's not my fault you can't read past the bullshit political and monetary gain based opinions to see the facts.

Whoa wait, you said the scientific article agreed with you 100% then when I quoted it showing you were lying thru your teeth now the scientific article is wrong and is nothign more than opinion?


Cool then link your own science that shows CO2 is like steroids for plants. Go ahead I dare you!

Fucking idiot

I provided a chart earlier. But I'll use your link to make you feel more at home with your fears. Below is the full article you linked to with my comments in blue:

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

17:00 16 May 2007 by David Chandler and Michael Le Page
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

The title is an opinion expressed by Chandler and Le Page that CO2 levels booting plant growth and food production is a myth. Oddly, their evidence points to the contrary.

According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most plants and animals will thrive as never before. fact, some accounts have said thus throughout modern history If it sounds too good to be true, that's because it is. This statement is what we call a sound bite. It is an opinion expressed by the authors. It worked cause it got you all hot and bothered.

CO2 is the source of the carbon that plants turn into organic compounds,fact and it is well established that higher CO2 levels can have a fertilising effect on many plants fact , boosting growth by as much as a third fact .

However, some plants already have mechanisms for concentrating CO2 in their tissues, known as C4 photosynthesis, fact so higher CO2 will not boost the growth of C4 plants this is a lie, even c4 plants benefit, albeit less than other plants from higher levels of co2 see C4 Plants.

Where water is a limiting factor, all plants could benefit fact. Plants lose water through the pores in leaves that let CO2 enter. fact Higher CO2 levels mean they do not need to open these pores as much, reducing water loss. fact

However, it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact of the fertilisation effect on plant growth. opinion Numerous groups around the world have been conducting experiments in which plots of land are supplied with enhanced CO2, fact while comparable nearby plots remain at normal levels. fact

These experiments suggest that higher CO2 levels could boost the yields of non-C4 crops by around 13 per cent. fact

Limiting factors

However, while experiments on natural ecosystems have also found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water. IOW the author says plants need water, fertilizer, and co2. Yeah well duh.

The regional climate changes that higher CO2 will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account. correct, plants needs water, food, co2, and sunlight.These indirect effects are likely to have a much larger impact than CO2 fertilisation. The authors are using fear uncertainty and doubt to make suppositions here.

For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. Note the use of the indefinite term "may." IOW the author is again making suppositions.

A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1ºC have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent (see Don't count on the trees). Are we talking about just trees or plants? Was there a shortage of water, or extra cloud cover as well coincident with the temperature rise? You'll note that was not mentioned. The article discounts all plant growth here, based on less growth of one particular region, presumably of one particular type of tree. All supposition and opinion without more facts.

Another complicating factor is ground level ozone due to air pollution, which damages plants. This is expected to rise in many regions over the coming decades and could reduce or even negate the beneficial effects of higher CO2 (see Climate change warning over food production).

In the oceans, increased CO2 is causing acidification of water. Recent research has shown that the expected doubling of CO2 concentrations could inhibit the development of some calcium-shelled organisms, including phytoplankton, which are at the base of a large and complex marine ecosystem (see Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem). That may also result in significant loss of biodiversity, possibly including important food species. Note to the use of "could" and "possibly" here. The author has no facts and instead introduces fear, uncertainty, and doubt covering his ass by using indefinite terms.

Levelling off

Some have suggested that the increase in plant growth due to CO2 will be so great that it soaks up much of the extra CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, significantly slowing climate change. But higher plant growth will only lock away CO2 if there is an accumulation of organic matter. Author implies organic matter is bad for us.

Studies of past climate changes suggest the land and oceans start releasing more CO2 than they absorb as the planet warms. Correct. As the recent ice age receeds the planet is warming up releasing co2. The latest IPCC report concludes that the terrestrial biosphere will become a source rather than a sink of carbon before the end of the century. Correct. Carbon based life is a sink for carbon.

What's more, even if plant growth does rise overall, the direct and indirect effects of higher CO2 levels will be disastrous for biodiversity. Oh that's funny. Success in some plants will be harmful to plants that preferred the ice age. ROFL true but funny as hell. We must bring back the ice age! ROFLBetween 20 to 30% of plant and animal species face extinction by the end of the century, according to the IPCC report. Yes species die off and are replaced by new species all the time. See Darwin for a more detailed explanation.

As for food crops, the factors are more complex. The crops most widely used in the world for food in many cases depend on particular combinations of soil type, climate, moisture, weather patterns and the infrastructure of equipment, experience and distribution systems. If the climate warms so much that crops no longer thrive in their traditional settings, farming of some crops may be able to shift to adjacent areas, but others may not. Rich farmers and countries will be able to adapt more easily than poorer ones. The author is saying more farmers will be more productive in more places, and somehow that is a negative against existing farmers in traditional spots. But yes prime growth areas change with weather patterns. This is obvious. The only thing constant with weather, is change.

Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible.Correct. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. Funny how he says virtually impossible then proceeds prognosticate... ROFLIn tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains.Again note the suppositions outlined by the use of "may" and "expected." All FUD here.

All these facts emphasized above support my statements to the letter.

 

[ClosedCaption]

do you agree that man had nothing to do with climate change millions of years ago? or even thousands of years ago?

thats a yes or no question

So you dont have an explantion then...ok. You shouldnt believe shit you cant explain unless its faith based.

The science says that is correct because man didnt exist millions of years ago. I'm curious why you believe science can look into the past and you believe it but dismiss others.

What measure are you using to determine one correct and the other not correct?

the reasons for climate change in the past, as well as in the present and future are THEORIES. None of it can be proven. But yet, you want all of mankind to change the way it lives and pay homage to the prophet algore so that he will save the planet-------------do you have any idea how stupid that makes you look?

So why are you believing one theory over the other again?

 

[Yurt]

So you dont have an explantion then...ok. You shouldnt believe shit you cant explain unless its faith based.

The science says that is correct because man didnt exist millions of years ago. I'm curious why you believe science can look into the past and you believe it but dismiss others.

What measure are you using to determine one correct and the other not correct?

the reasons for climate change in the past, as well as in the present and future are THEORIES. None of it can be proven. But yet, you want all of mankind to change the way it lives and pay homage to the prophet algore so that he will save the planet-------------do you have any idea how stupid that makes you look?

So why are you believing one theory over the other again?

pott/kettle....

 

[Redfish]

So you dont have an explantion then...ok. You shouldnt believe shit you cant explain unless its faith based.

The science says that is correct because man didnt exist millions of years ago. I'm curious why you believe science can look into the past and you believe it but dismiss others.

What measure are you using to determine one correct and the other not correct?

the reasons for climate change in the past, as well as in the present and future are THEORIES. None of it can be proven. But yet, you want all of mankind to change the way it lives and pay homage to the prophet algore so that he will save the planet-------------do you have any idea how stupid that makes you look?

So why are you believing one theory over the other again?

I don't "believe" any of them------they are theories.

why do you want to change the entire lifestyle of mankind based on an unproven theory?

 

[ClosedCaption]

the reasons for climate change in the past, as well as in the present and future are THEORIES. None of it can be proven. But yet, you want all of mankind to change the way it lives and pay homage to the prophet algore so that he will save the planet-------------do you have any idea how stupid that makes you look?

So why are you believing one theory over the other again?

pott/kettle....

Because of pots and kettles?

 

[ron4342]

Flooding has been going on for centuries. Add the fact that the region has an outdated drainage system in need of repair and you've got problems.

Nothing the liberals are proposing will change any of this. Redistributing wealth does not stop floods, tornadoes or change temps. Scientists revealed that during the Renaissance era, the core temp was slightly hotter than it is today.

Taking care of the planet is good. The stupid cap and trade plot is all about wealth redistribution and gaining control and has nothing to do with saving the earth.

Very true

We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not

Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it

^Astounding. That "thinking" would have to be premised on the notion that we have the slightest ability to alter climate change, much less cause it in the first place.

But we don't have any such ability.

Not only do we not bear any responsibility for any global warming, we also do not bear responsibility for any global cooling. We similarly lack any blame for failure to "fix" it because we also lack the first last or middle ability to do a god damn thing about it.

Think of what happens when your car burns 1 gallon of gasoline. You think it has disappeared but it hasn't. That gasoline is merely in a different form and we are breathing it. Now think about all the cars in your city that are pumping gas into the air. Now think about all the cars in the world that are pumping gas into the air. Now think about all the power plants in the world that are pumping gas into the air. Now think about all the other sources of pollution being pumped into the air. And finally think about the fact that this has been occurring for at least a century and that it is getting worse each day as more and more cars and power plants enter the picture. If 90+% of the scientists in the world think global warming is caused by man, I think I'll believe the scientists rather than you. Here is one more thing to think about, what if you are wrong? You do realize you may be betting your life or the lives of some of your loved ones. You do realize that?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sure it does RKM...It supports your bullshit so much it says in the first paragraph that its bunk.

But you typed in blue that you dont believe it soooo...I guess its wrong....the power of blue type wins over science again DAMMIT!

 

[Yurt]

I dont have to science explains it. The funny thing is that you accept some science while telling everyone to ignore other science.

How do you explain that? With evidence?

so we should have listened to the ice age fear mongers of the 70's?

No silly because that wasnt from scientists. Try to keep up bro

you are the one ignoring science and believing only what you want to believe. i showed that scientists have been wrong. yet you can't admit that. you're simply incapable of honest debate on this topic.

Scientists arent perfect so of course they are bound to be wrong sometime. What you didnt show was that the peer reviewed science is wrong.

Having trouble with that part

it wasn't scientists....lmao

i'm showing the peer reviewed date could be wrong due to historical trends. you want to ignore historical trends and be a fear monger like the scientists from the 1970s.....

 

[Yurt]

So why are you believing one theory over the other again?

pott/kettle....

Because of pots and kettles?

my lord you are a moron

 

[RKMBrown]

Sure it does RKM...It supports your bullshit so much it says in the first paragraph that its bunk.

But you typed in blue that you dont believe it soooo...I guess its wrong....the power of blue type wins over science again DAMMIT!

IOW they had you at their sound bite. We call folks like you "low information voters." Easily swayed by catch phrases, like change we can believe in, or affordable health care.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Come on CC. Keep up with your kabuki dance.