Paul Driessen: Carbon Dioxide: The Ga...

Paul Driessen: Carbon Dioxide: The Gas of Life

There are 25 comments on the Townhall story from Aug 15, 2013, titled Paul Driessen: Carbon Dioxide: The Gas of Life. In it, Townhall reports that:

It's amazing that minuscule bacteria can cause life-threatening diseases and infections -- and miraculous that tiny doses of vaccines and antibiotics can safeguard us against these deadly scourges.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Townhall.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
SpaceBlues

United States

#1 Aug 15, 2013
CORRECTED: Carbon Dioxide: The Gas of DEATH

Self-explanatory.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#2 Aug 16, 2013
Nonsense. CO2 is no more 'gas of life' or 'gas of death' than water. Water is beneficial where and how much it is needed and dangerous where it is too much or in the wrong place or time.

Making it an object of worship or hatred is silly. The issue is simply that EXCESS and UNINTENDED rise in CO2 is having consequences. And we need to deal with them.

Pollution is anything in wrong place or wrong quantity that has deleterious effects. CO2 above 280 ppm is obviously a pollutant.
SpaceBlues

United States

#3 Aug 16, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Nonsense. CO2 is no more 'gas of life' or 'gas of death' than water. Water is beneficial where and how much it is needed and dangerous where it is too much or in the wrong place or time.
Making it an object of worship or hatred is silly. The issue is simply that EXCESS and UNINTENDED rise in CO2 is having consequences. And we need to deal with them.
Pollution is anything in wrong place or wrong quantity that has deleterious effects. CO2 above 280 ppm is obviously a pollutant.
You are both ignorant and confused. LOL.

A dead one produces CO2 and continues to decay. Same true for plants as well.

My statement is scientifically true and without hate. Life and death cycle is very important.

CORRECTED: Carbon Dioxide: The Gas of LIFE and DEATH
SpaceBlues

United States

#4 Aug 16, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
CO2 above 280 ppm is obviously a pollutant.
NONSENSE.

You are not scientific to claim that.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#5 Aug 26, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
CO2 above 280 ppm is obviously a pollutant.
Actually, not YET obvious. There are no demonstrated deleterious effects that can, so far, be linked to CO2, unless you count increased plant growth as deleterious. ;)

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#6 Aug 26, 2013
That should have been "linked uniquely to CO2".
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#7 Aug 27, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Actually, not YET obvious. There are no demonstrated deleterious effects that can, so far, be linked to CO2, unless you count increased plant growth as deleterious. ;)
Hi Kiteman,
Please let these giants of intellectual discourse continue their repartee unhindered by third party reason.

This promises to be a concentration of disinformation here to for unprecedented on this thread.

You Go Girls!
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#8 Aug 27, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Actually, not YET obvious. There are no demonstrated deleterious effects that can, so far, be linked to CO2, unless you count increased plant growth as deleterious. ;)
Unfortunately for you, the Greenhouse effect and it's effect on global temperatures with rising GHG levels is not fringe science. It is well established and supported by almost ALL of the relevant researchers.

CO2 above 280 ppm is, from OUR perspective, a pollutant as defined.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#9 Aug 27, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately for you, the Greenhouse effect and it's effect on global temperatures with rising GHG levels is not fringe science. It is well established and supported by almost ALL of the relevant researchers.
CO2 above 280 ppm is, from OUR perspective, a pollutant as defined.
Yet 79 out of 79 of these "expert's" models have failed to predict that no appreciable increase has happened in the past 17 years. The don't seem so expert in that light.

It will be interesting to see how IPCC 5 will weasel word around that little fact.
SpaceBlues

United States

#10 Aug 27, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Yet 79 out of 79 of these "expert's" models have failed to predict that no appreciable increase has happened in the past 17 years. The don't seem so expert in that light.
It will be interesting to see how IPCC 5 will weasel word around that little fact.
You did it again. Scientific models trouble you. What's your beef?

Your post is incorrect.

Please eshocxplain your first sentence. What are you talking about? It is not a fact.

Clearly, you don't respect experts because you are not one and kingly you have not met one. The clue is the second sentence.

Your third sentence is also unprofessional because you have no idea about what IPCC does.

Do some learning, a lot!

SpaceBlues

United States

#11 Aug 27, 2013
Corrected: Please explain your first sentence. What are you talking about? It is not a fact.

Clearly, you don't respect experts because you are not one and shockingly you have not met one. The clue is the second sentence.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#12 Aug 27, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Corrected: Please explain your first sentence. What are you talking about? It is not a fact.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#13 Aug 28, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Clearly, you don't respect experts because you are not one and shockingly you have not met one. The clue is the second sentence.
KitemanSA wrote:
And the fact that instead of defending his claim he just points to another denier site. He doesn't even make up his own BS.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#14 Aug 28, 2013
I really don't know what all the hoopla is about, I just plotted out the HADCRUT4 data
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut4_ns_avg....
and the current world temperature is right on the linear trend of 0.047C per decade for the entire time series 1850 - 2013. Temperatures on average have been above that 0.47 trend line since 1993 or so. All that has to happen is for that linear trend to continue. And at some point I expect it probably will. There isn't some magical "Global Warming" stopped in 1997 going on.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#15 Aug 28, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
I really don't know what all the hoopla is about, I just plotted out the HADCRUT4 data
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut4_ns_avg....
and the current world temperature is right on the linear trend of 0.047C per decade for the entire time series 1850 - 2013. Temperatures on average have been above that 0.47 trend line since 1993 or so. All that has to happen is for that linear trend to continue. And at some point I expect it probably will. There isn't some magical "Global Warming" stopped in 1997 going on.
But you needed to plot back to 1850 the depths of the little ice age. The models in question predicted, based on their best science, that the temperature would rise steadily between @ 1990 and today. It hasn't. Their best science is wrong. HOW it is wrong; fundamentally, incomplete, I don't know, but it is wrong.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#16 Aug 28, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> But you needed to plot back to 1850 the depths of the little ice age. The models in question predicted, based on their best science, that the temperature would rise steadily between @ 1990 and today. It hasn't. Their best science is wrong. HOW it is wrong; fundamentally, incomplete, I don't know, but it is wrong.
You are right, the models are wrong, but I have no reason to believe that the trend of 0.75C over the last 163 years won 't eventually continue. In other words, contrary to some breathless headlines that "Global Warming has stopped", I doubt that it has.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#17 Aug 28, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right, the models are wrong, but I have no reason to believe that the trend of 0.75C over the last 163 years won 't eventually continue. In other words, contrary to some breathless headlines that "Global Warming has stopped", I doubt that it has.
Nor do you have reason to believe they wil continue. Almost all the rise was during a time of limited CO2 increase. Indeed, most of the rise PRECEDED the CO2 increase. You might have a reason to say the rise caused a CO2 increase, but not the other way around.

They oberved.
They theorized.
They hypothesized.
They tested.
The test failed.
The theory is NOT supported.
They did the science right.
The science says the theory is not supported.

Doesn't mean its wrong, but we certainly can't say it is right.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#18 Aug 29, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Nor do you have reason to believe they wil continue. Almost all the rise was during a time of limited CO2 increase. Indeed, most of the rise PRECEDED the CO2 increase. You might have a reason to say the rise caused a CO2 increase, but not the other way around.
You are confused and thinking of the exit from ice age. That is a different issue connected to the delayed release of CO2 from deep ocean currents.
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>
They oberved.
They theorized.
They hypothesized.
Yes. That is how science works. By collecting data and creating a potential explanation. But 'theorized' and 'hypothesized' are redundant. Technically, the 'hypothesis' is the tentative mechanism. Theory, on the other hand, is scientific conclusions which may incorporate hypothesis, data, experiments, etc.
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>
They tested.
There is and was no 'test' possible. The conclusions of the science are derived by analysis and cross checking the 'fingerprint' of AGW from the pattern of warming. More of a 'differential diagnosis' backed up by thousands of individual studies of the data.
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>
The test failed.
The theory is NOT supported.
The theory is well supported and acclaimed by every major science academy and 97+% of the research scientists.
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>
They did the science right.
Almost all did. But some failed. Mostly these then went on to be 'skeptics' who still sell out to the fossil fuel industry when they cannot get jobs within academia.
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>
The science says the theory is not supported.
You still don't understand the term 'theory' and use it as if it were 'hypothesis'.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php...
"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

To be a 'theory' it must be well supported by definition. Only hypothesis is debatable. Theory must be PROVEN to be invalid to be withdrawn, and if it is, then it is no longer theory.
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't mean its wrong, but we certainly can't say it is right.
We can say that YOU are wrong in every particular.
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#19 Aug 29, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused and thinking of the exit from ice age. That is a different issue connected to the delayed release of CO2 from deep ocean currents.
<quoted text>
Yes. That is how science works. By collecting data and creating a potential explanation. But 'theorized' and 'hypothesized' are redundant. Technically, the 'hypothesis' is the tentative mechanism. Theory, on the other hand, is scientific conclusions which may incorporate hypothesis, data, experiments, etc.
<quoted text>
There is and was no 'test' possible. The conclusions of the science are derived by analysis and cross checking the 'fingerprint' of AGW from the pattern of warming. More of a 'differential diagnosis' backed up by thousands of individual studies of the data.
<quoted text>
The theory is well supported and acclaimed by every major science academy and 97+% of the research scientists.
<quoted text>
Almost all did. But some failed. Mostly these then went on to be 'skeptics' who still sell out to the fossil fuel industry when they cannot get jobs within academia.
<quoted text>
You still don't understand the term 'theory' and use it as if it were 'hypothesis'.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php...
"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
To be a 'theory' it must be well supported by definition. Only hypothesis is debatable. Theory must be PROVEN to be invalid to be withdrawn, and if it is, then it is no longer theory.
<quoted text>
We can say that YOU are wrong in every particular.
How can there be a scientific theory if a testable hypothesis is not possible? Google searches have yielded little insight.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#20 Aug 29, 2013
>>=LessHypeMoreFact
::=Me

>> You are confused and thinking of the exit from ice age. That is a different issue connected to the delayed release of CO2 from deep ocean currents.
:: Nope. That time period represents the emergence of the world from the little ice age of the late 1700, early 1800s. They don't know where the CO2 came from in the early 1900s, but it WASN'T from humanity.

>> Yes. That is how science works. By collecting data and creating a potential explanation. But 'theorized' and 'hypothesized' are redundant.
:: Not quite. Theorizing means coming up with an eplanion for existant data. Hypothesizing means trying to PREDICT what sould come of an action based on the theory. Theorizing, explain the past. Hypothesize, predict the future. Very different things.

>> Technically, the 'hypothesis' is the tentative mechanism. Theory, on the other hand, is scientific conclusions which may incorporate hypothesis, data, experiments, etc.
:: Theories don't "include" hypotheses. Testing of hypotheses provides additional data upon which to theorize.

>> There is and was no 'test' possible. The conclusions of the science are derived by analysis and cross checking the 'fingerprint' of AGW from the pattern of warming. More of a 'differential diagnosis' backed up by thousands of individual studies of the data.
The hypotheses (79 models of what SHOULD happen to global temperatue if the theory was correct) set the stage for the test (ACTUAL measurement of global temperature) that failed to support th hypotheses.

>> The theory is well supported and acclaimed by every major science academy and 97+% of the research scientists.
:: Acclimation by any number of "scientists" is meaningless in the face of hard data. The hard data are not supportive of the theory. That is why the IPCC 5 is so delayed in coming out. It is also why AGW supporters are resorting to advertizing tactics... "97% of dentits agree..." Keep a close eye on the various AGW supporter's statements. They have the "but we still believe" flavor to them. After all, why let a great power concentrating theory go to waste, even in the face of scientific falsification.

>> Almost all did. But some failed. Mostly these then went on to be 'skeptics' who still sell out to the fossil fuel industry when they cannot get jobs within academia.
:: Oh goody, a conspiricist.

>>You still don't understand the term 'theory' and use it as if it were 'hypothesis'.
:: Nope. Some people insist on differentiating between thesis and theory. I could accept that distinction if you had used it. But hypo-thesis has a very specific meaning in valid scientific endeavor.

>>We can say that YOU are wrong in every...
:: The old fallacy "argumetum ad populum". The massive WE. In this case I suspect it is actually that "WEE little you" will say that I am wrong... but that data don't.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Do homeowners have a right to light on their so... 8 hr Solarman 1
News UPDATE 1-Norway's Saga in $2.9 bln deal to buil... 9 hr Solarman 1
News Solar Industry Sees the Opportunity to Build Pu... 15 hr Solarman 1
News USA Is Smashing Its Clean Energy Targets 15 hr Solarman 1
News Australia's government accused of abandoning re... 16 hr Solarman 1
News A sane approach to energy Mon Solarman 1
News Indigenous communities should be prominent play... Mon the answer 14
More from around the web