CO2 myth busted: Why we need more car...

CO2 myth busted: Why we need more carbon dioxide to grow food and forests

There are 101 comments on the NewsTarget.com story from Mar 31, 2013, titled CO2 myth busted: Why we need more carbon dioxide to grow food and forests. In it, NewsTarget.com reports that:

If you talk to the global warming crowd, carbon dioxide -- CO2 -- is the enemy of mankind.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NewsTarget.com.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#1 Mar 31, 2013
Really out of it. A mix of questions and dodgy claims.

Fact. AGW is established. There is no credible doubt of the greenhouse effect or the emissions record of industry and this is about 'polluting' a common sink, the atmosphere. A problem we have not yet dealt with on a global scale.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#3 Apr 1, 2013
Did Brian_G write this stupid, POS topic? The idea that more C02 is 'good' is so stupid, unscientific, and contrary to fact that it seems he must have.

We're warming, C02 is partly to blame, and we need to cut down on emissions. Those are facts, not Denier propaganda like this article.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#4 Apr 2, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Did Brian_G write this stupid, POS topic? The idea that more C02 is 'good' is so stupid, unscientific, and contrary to fact
When you don't have facts, you turn to religion which only requires 'belief' and a curious reluctance to look closely at the assumptions.

BG is trying to establish a 'religous dogma' about CO2 to substitute as a 'red herring' issue. He is rather ineffecive at it, but hasn't the wit to know that.
The Fact Is

Minneapolis, MN

#5 Nov 28, 2014
Once again we are seeing the opinions of experts regarded as scientific "fact" by believers of AACDDCGCD.

In the real world of science:
there is not a single science academy that submits a premise stating CO2 is, in fact, an environmental "problem" driving planetary warming.

When the scientific literature on CAGW no longer contains qualifiers such "may", "could", "suggests", "supports", "indicates" ...and so on: then let's debate your "facts".

But thus far all you have offered is scientifically dodgy opinions that CO2 is somehow bad.

Here are facts every science academy WILL confirm...
The Fact is: Carbon Dioxide is the first link in the 'food chain'.
The Fact is: Carbon Dioxide is vital for life on Earth.
The Fact is: Carbon is the basis for ALL life as we know it.

-Happy Thanksgiving
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#6 Nov 28, 2014
The Fact Is wrote:
Once again we are seeing the opinions of experts regarded as scientific "fact" by believers of AACDDCGCD.
In the real world of science:
there is not a single science academy that submits a premise stating CO2 is, in fact, an environmental "problem" driving planetary warming.
When the scientific literature on CAGW no longer contains qualifiers such "may", "could", "suggests", "supports", "indicates" ...and so on: then let's debate your "facts".
But thus far all you have offered is scientifically dodgy opinions that CO2 is somehow bad.
Here are facts every science academy WILL confirm...
The Fact is: Carbon Dioxide is the first link in the 'food chain'.
The Fact is: Carbon Dioxide is vital for life on Earth.
The Fact is: Carbon is the basis for ALL life as we know it.
-Happy Thanksgiving
Not so for Michael Brown and family and others like him.

What you don't understand is that science is impersonal:

Position in Brief


•Reviews the science and recommends action on reducing greenhouse gases as well as climate change adaptation strategies
•Encourages continued research and funding into the effects of climate change, while also emphasizing the importance of educating the public on the issue

“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.”(IPCC, 2007)“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.”(NRC, 2010a)“The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.”(NRC, 2010b, c)

This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publ...

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescie...
IBdaMann

Woodbridge, VA

#7 Nov 28, 2014
The Fact Is wrote:
Once again we are seeing the opinions of experts regarded as scientific "fact" by believers of AACDDCGCD.
Not "opinions of experts" but rather "dogma of religious fanatics." Did you notice that they try to talk ABOUT science, but they never produce any for public discussion AND they can NEVER discuss to any depth in their own words...they need to post links to material they don't understand.
The Fact Is wrote:
When the scientific literature on CAGW no longer contains qualifiers such "may", "could", "suggests", "supports", "indicates" ...and so on: then let's debate your "facts".
An astute observation on your part that is completely lost to them because they cannot discern religion from science. They think science is all about "maybe's" and "mights". They don't understand that science is a collection of falsifiable models whose truth is inherent.
The Fact Is wrote:
The Fact is: Carbon Dioxide is the first link in the 'food chain'. The Fact is: Carbon Dioxide is vital for life on Earth. The Fact is: Carbon is the basis for ALL life as we know it.
You're wasting your time. They are members of a wacky "anti-science" cult that demonizes the science you and I learned in grade school. That which is necessary for life, they call "pollution."
IBdaMann

Woodbridge, VA

#8 Nov 28, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
What you don't understand is that science is impersonal:
Of course. Science just happens to coincidentally agree with all of your wacky opinions, just like the Christian god happens to agree with any given Christian's opinions. It's funny how that works, especially since you don't understand any of the supposed science on which you claim your opinions are based.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Reviews the science and recommends action on reducing greenhouse gases as well as climate change adaptation strategies
It's amazing how it simply assumes "greenhouse gases" and "climate change" just as you do, without any attempt to establish and define these concepts. How religious. Notice the additional assumption that "greenhouse gases" must be reduced, whatever they might be.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Encourages continued research and funding into the effects of climate change, while also emphasizing the importance of educating the public on the issue
Encourages missionaries to preach the gospel and to encourage people to donate.
[QUOTE who="LessHypeMoreFact "]When you don't have facts, you turn to religion which only requires 'belief' and a curious reluctance to look closely at the assumptions.
Did you just summarize Global Warming in a nutshell? There's hope for you. You are one small step from a major revelation. Now, just reflect on the fact that you have never seen the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false) and try to produce that "science" that supposedly convinced you that "Global Warming is real." When you realize that you can't produce it for posting on this board, Grasshopper, you will have learned.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
BG is trying to establish a 'religous dogma' about CO2 to substitute as a 'red herring' issue.
It's no "red herring" and it's not a substitute for anything. There is no Global Warming science. You know it, I know it. Everything about Global Warming fanaticism is fueled by religious dogma.
tha Professor wrote:
The idea that more C02 is 'good' is so stupid, unscientific, and contrary to fact that it seems he must have.
That CO2 is essential for plant life, and thus for all life, more science exists than any carbon-based life form could digest in a lifetime yet you cannot provide any science to support your wacky opinions to the contrary. Don't you think it's about time you made an effort to snap out of your delusion disorder? Maybe just long enough to get a good laugh at what you've been preaching?
tha Professor wrote:
We're warming, C02 is partly to blame, and we need to cut down on emissions. Those are facts,
You have no science. All you spew is dogma.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Fact. AGW is established.
Fact: There is no such fact.
AGW is an established religion, as dangerous as it is fanatical.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
There is no credible doubt of the greenhouse effect
I suppose this is true if you get to speak for everyone else. Oooops, you don't. Maybe that's why there is nothing but doubt. You bear the burden of proof for your claims but you are too intellectually lazy to do so, so you simply claim that you have and that all doubt has been removed.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The ball is in your court to PROVE your case. Until then it's Doubt City.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
or the emissions record of industry and this is about 'polluting' a common sink, the atmosphere. A problem we have not yet dealt with on a global scale.
At its core, Global Warming is a Marxist plot to destroy its enemies: industry, the global economy, success of any type.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#9 Nov 28, 2014
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
When you don't have facts, you turn to religion which only requires 'belief' and a curious reluctance to look closely at the assumptions.
A perfect description of the religion followed by climate catastrophist crusaders.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
He is rather ineffecive[sic].
That sounds rude.
litesong

Everett, WA

#10 Nov 28, 2014
From the article:
.....food crops would grow far faster if the concentration of CO2 were closer to 1000ppm....
////////
Numerous toxic topix AGW denier liars have supported the above statement. At such an atmospheric level, interior poorly ventilated rooms would have C02 levels of 5-6000+ ppm CO2, a level that would cause major breathing difficulties for many humans, already burdened with lung difficulties. toxic topix AGW denier liars think they win points with such arguments..... specially if their arguments were realized & killed people.
IBdaMann

Woodbridge, VA

#11 Nov 28, 2014
litesong wrote:
From the article:
What's your first language? Are you Muslim?
litesong wrote:
At such an atmospheric level, interior poorly ventilated rooms would have C02 levels of 5-6000+ ppm CO2
Why? How do you figure?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#12 Nov 28, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
When you don't have facts, you turn to religion which only requires 'belief' and a curious reluctance to look closely at the assumptions.
BG is trying to establish a 'religous dogma' about CO2 to substitute as a 'red herring' issue. He is rather ineffecive at it, but hasn't the wit to know that.
No, he doesn't. Good diagnosis.:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#13 Nov 28, 2014
IBdaMann wrote:
<quoted text>
Not "opinions of experts" but rather "dogma of religious fanatics." Did you notice that they try to talk ABOUT science, but they never produce any for public discussion AND they can NEVER discuss to any depth in their own words..blah, blah, blah......
Yes, I've noticed Deniers doing that frequently. You included.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#14 Nov 28, 2014
IBdaMann wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your first language? Are you Muslim?..blah, blah.....
Why even ask? Unless it's an attack of course. Is he a 'global warming terrorist?' LOL

Moron.
Jim the Hoax Denier

Pasadena, TX

#15 Nov 28, 2014
SpacedOut wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so for Michael Brown and family and others like him.
Just like the anthropoglobalclimategenicwarm ingchange hoax, that statement has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with agitprop. Perhaps if the Gentle Giant had observed that stealing cigars, beating a shop owner, assaulting a cop, trying to steal his gun, and then trying to bum rush him was significantly more likely to reduce his lifespan than any effect from the hoax, he and his family might very well have enjoyed a Happy Thanksgiving. Alas, as with the hoaxers, rational observation didn't seem to be part of his repertoire.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#16 Nov 28, 2014
Jim the Hoax Denier wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like the anthropoglobalclimategenicwarm ingchange hoax, that statement has nothing to do with science...blah, blah, blah.......
Couldn't be a funnier juxtaposition of idiocies than that...LOL.:)
Jim the Hoax Denier

Pasadena, TX

#17 Nov 28, 2014
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Couldn't be a funnier juxtaposition of idiocies than that...LOL.:)
I take it your nic is an exercise in ironic juxtaposition. Then again, understanding the lowering of standards at Institutes of Higher Propaganda nowadays, it's entirely conceivable that such a tragedy may in fact be truth.
Weather or Climate

Minneapolis, MN

#18 Nov 29, 2014
A "Denier" writes:
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I've noticed Deniers doing that frequently. You included.
LOL

"Here are facts deniers deny and every science academy WILL confirm ...
The Fact is: Carbon Dioxide is the first link in the 'food chain'.
The Fact is: Carbon Dioxide is vital for life on Earth.
The Fact is: Carbon is the basis for ALL life as we know it."

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#19 Nov 29, 2014
Weather or Climate wrote:
A "Denier" writes:
<quoted text>LOL
"Here are facts deniers deny and every science academy WILL confirm ...
The Fact is: Carbon Dioxide is the first link in the 'food chain'.
The Fact is: Carbon Dioxide is vital for life on Earth.
The Fact is: Carbon is the basis for ALL life as we know it."
This makes LessFact a denier?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
CO2 is a combustion produce that is in NO way 'vital to life'. This is easily seen by any scientist sustaining life without providing CO2. To be 'vital' you would have to show that no life can exist without it.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Anyone that realises that life can exist without an input of CO2 to 'sustain' it is hardly an idiot. They probably understand what the worlds MEAN, unlike you.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
CO2 is not vital to life any more than ashes are vital to a fire. You can convert the ashes to wood again and have a fire, or you can split CO2+H20 to water and glucose but those are not vital life processes. Those are natural 'recycling' using a purely photochemical process. Life exists without CO2 so CO2 is, by definition, NOT 'vital to life'.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#20 Nov 29, 2014
Jim the Hoax Denier wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it your nic is an exercise in ironic juxtaposition. Then again, understanding the lowering of standards at Institutes of Higher Propaganda nowadays, it's entirely conceivable that such a tragedy may in fact be truth.
You can "take it" anyway you like, Denier cretin, but this was funny:

"Just like the anthropoglobalclimategenicwarm ingchange hoax, that statement has nothing to do with science."

You know...making up silly words and pretending that science is a "hoax," then saying someone ELSE's statement has "nothing to do with science." That's clueless and funny. Hypocritical. Stupid. That sort of stuff.:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#21 Nov 29, 2014
Weather or Climate wrote:
A "Denier" writes:
<quoted text>LOL
"Here are facts deniers deny and every science academy WILL confirm ...
The Fact is: Carbon Dioxide is the first link in the 'food chain'.
The Fact is: Carbon Dioxide is vital for life on Earth.
The Fact is: Carbon is the basis for ALL life as we know it."
Twaddle.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
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.

Food Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lots of Wheat But Not Enough Protein Sends Buye... 5 hr PILASERs PANACEA ... 6
News 110-year-old lobster saved from dinner menu 6 hr Lawrence Wolf 19
News Judge Calls State Incompetent & in Contempt Sat justice is just a... 1
News Gwyneth Paltrow reveals her secret obsession wi... Sat murder inc 1
News Recipe Exchange: Recipes recall Shoney's specialty (Oct '07) Jul 22 TmstrMick66 22
News What parents need to know about gummy vitamins Jul 22 mar 1
News Mint Indian Bistro packs plenty of flavor into ... Jul 21 Heavy Fed 1
More from around the web