Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30925 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31557 Feb 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Let me put that proof out again.
<quoted text>
Awww. she is JEALOUS....
That is why she screams when anyone posts any real science and not character insults like here 100% of the time.
You can’t even be original Commander TROLL!!!! See that Bull S. degree again got you walloped and in the crapper. That Ha HA you hear is the void between your ears called an echo.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#31558 Feb 17, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>You can’t even be original Commander TROLL!!!! See that Bull S. degree again got you walloped and in the crapper. That Ha HA you hear is the void between your ears called an echo.
The degree-LESS, obviously uneducated PHD can only make up mindless rants.

so will just vote her another peanut.
SpaceBlues

Cypress, TX

#31559 Feb 17, 2013
What are you going to be, faxless?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31560 Feb 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
What are you going to be, faxless?
There is a new drug discovered spaced out spacedoutblues. Take one pill and you and walloped again and again will wake up feeling your--self again and again. Quick go to your local sheeplebots store and get one while you can.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#31563 Feb 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are out of your cotton picking mind.
Why, plants consume CO2 and emit O2 as a byproduct. If you had them in a sealed enviroment long enought they would deplete the CO2 levels to a point they could not survive.

Nothing but basic biology. The type of stuff they teach in grade school. So you would want to ventelate a hot house/green house so that the plants would have a steady supply of CO2. Why else would one ventelate a hot house. Certainly not to lower the temperature.
mc

Springfield, NJ

#31564 Feb 19, 2013
Check out greenenergyefficientproducts.com ! Even if you don't believe in global warming, these "green" products will save you money! Everyone likes saving money.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31565 Feb 19, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Why, plants consume CO2 and emit O2 as a byproduct. If you had them in a sealed enviroment long enought they would deplete the CO2 levels to a point they could not survive.
Nothing but basic biology. The type of stuff they teach in grade school. So you would want to ventelate a hot house/green house so that the plants would have a steady supply of CO2. Why else would one ventelate a hot house. Certainly not to lower the temperature.
Funny thing is, we've discovered something else you obviously know nothing about, but hold forth upon anyway. After all.

1. I doubt there is any greenhouse anywhere in the world that is so airtight that no CO2 could enter. And since greenhouses are always associated with human beings, their comings and goings would allow for some degree of air exchange.

2. You ventilate a greenhouse, dear valley girl, primarily because they have a tendency to overheat, especially solar greenhouses. So, yes, you ventilate to lower the temperature. In your all or nothing world, you think opening up a greenhouse on a winter day would freeze everything inside. That's why the greenhouse operator moderates the temperature, controls the temperature, because you don't want it 20 degrees and you don't want it 105 degrees. You can burn your seedlings completely up on one sunny late winter or early spring day if you don't cool the air and keep them watered.

3. Ventilation and air movement also help the plant leaves to breathe. That's not because you necessarily need to supply CO2 but because still air can leave a "coating" of dead air on the leaves, slightly interfering with their physiological functions.

4. You could say, for argument's sake, that the Earth is a sealed environment. So the plants with which we share this orb are not absorbing all the CO2 nor oversupplying us with O2. What is happening with that?

How many more times will you have to make a complete fool of yourself before you go back to playing with the children and leave discussions of science to the big boys and girls?

Actually?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#31566 Feb 19, 2013
Thanks, Tina's science IQ is nonexistant.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#31567 Feb 21, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thing is, we've discovered something else you obviously know nothing about, but hold forth upon anyway. After all.

1. I doubt there is any greenhouse anywhere in the world that is so airtight that no CO2 could enter. And since greenhouses are always associated with human beings, their comings and goings would allow for some degree of air exchange.

2. You ventilate a greenhouse, dear valley girl, primarily because they have a tendency to overheat, especially solar greenhouses. So, yes, you ventilate to lower the temperature. In your all or nothing world, you think opening up a greenhouse on a winter day would freeze everything inside. That's why the greenhouse operator moderates the temperature, controls the temperature, because you don't want it 20 degrees and you don't want it 105 degrees. You can burn your seedlings completely up on one sunny late winter or early spring day if you don't cool the air and keep them watered.

3. Ventilation and air movement also help the plant leaves to breathe. That's not because you necessarily need to supply CO2 but because still air can leave a "coating" of dead air on the leaves, slightly interfering with their physiological functions.

4. You could say, for argument's sake, that the Earth is a sealed environment. So the plants with which we share this orb are not absorbing all the CO2 nor oversupplying us with O2. What is happening with that?

How many more times will you have to make a complete fool of yourself before you go back to playing with the children and leave discussions of science to the big boys and girls?
Actually?
You are funny.

1. They may not be completely airtight but they are tight enought that it would only be a matter of time before the CO2 levels fell below what the plants could survive on. With automation, the majority of commercial greenhouses do not require people passing through several times a day. In fact a fully automated one would only need someone once a week. Watering for example could be handled better if humans were not around with a timer.

2. As for the temperature, if your raising tropical plants you would want to keep it 105. As for normal plants, a energy efficent greenhouse would not be opening the vents to lower heat because then at night you would need to replace that heat. It would be better to leave them close to keep the heat in. You seem to forget that the sun provides less heat in the winter time because of the tilt of the earth and that you have less sunlight on any given day. Also, if your example of humans passing through all the time would also cool your greenhouse without needing to vent the heat.

3. Sorry, but if the air in the greenhouse is being heated and cooled then the air would be moving. Also, when the sprinklers turn on the falling water would also cause the air to be displaced. If what you said was true then every house plant and potted plant in an office would be dead. Instead they seem to survive with just a little water.

4. I would agree that the earth is a self contained system but how well we understand it is in doubt. Maybe you might remember the Biosphere 2 project. It was an attempt to set up a completely self contained biosphere complete with it's own controlled climate. A repeatable experiment as BrainG would most likely call it. It turned out to be a failure in that instead of providing a self contrained enviroment for those five people it.

You ask how many times am I going to make a fool out of myself. I could ask you the same question. Maybe if you had bothered to doublecheck your facts before posting you would of not appeared so foolish this time. If you had any experience with greenhouse aka hothouses you would of understood that it is better to warm than to cool. You talk about big boys and girls and part of being in taht discussion is to actually know something about the subject before saying something.

http://www.biospherics.org/

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31569 Feb 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You are funny.
1. They may not be completely airtight but they are tight enought that it would only be a matter of time before the CO2 levels fell below what the plants could survive on. With automation, the majority of commercial greenhouses do not require people passing through several times a day. In fact a fully automated one would only need someone once a week. Watering for example could be handled better if humans were not around with a timer.
2. As for the temperature, if your raising tropical plants you would want to keep it 105. As for normal plants, a energy efficent greenhouse would not be opening the vents to lower heat because then at night you would need to replace that heat. It would be better to leave them close to keep the heat in. You seem to forget that the sun provides less heat in the winter time because of the tilt of the earth and that you have less sunlight on any given day. Also, if your example of humans passing through all the time would also cool your greenhouse without needing to vent the heat.
3. Sorry, but if the air in the greenhouse is being heated and cooled then the air would be moving. Also, when the sprinklers turn on the falling water would also cause the air to be displaced. If what you said was true then every house plant and potted plant in an office would be dead. Instead they seem to survive with just a little water.
4. I would agree that the earth is a self contained system but how well we understand it is in doubt. Maybe you might remember the Biosphere 2 project. It was an attempt to set up a completely self contained biosphere complete with it's own controlled climate. A repeatable experiment as BrainG would most likely call it. It turned out to be a failure in that instead of providing a self contrained enviroment for those five people it.
You ask how many times am I going to make a fool out of myself. I could ask you the same question. Maybe if you had bothered to doublecheck your facts before posting you would of not appeared so foolish this time. If you had any experience with greenhouse aka hothouses you would of understood that it is better to warm than to cool. You talk about big boys and girls and part of being in taht discussion is to actually know something about the subject before saying something.
http://www.biospherics.org/
Biosphere 2 failed because of personnel problems. That mission ended prematurely when disputes between the crew and the management erupted into hostility.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31570 Feb 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You are funny.
1. They may not be completely airtight but they are tight enought that it would only be a matter of time before the CO2 levels fell below what the plants could survive on. With automation, the majority of commercial greenhouses do not require people passing through several times a day. In fact a fully automated one would only need someone once a week. Watering for example could be handled better if humans were not around with a timer.
2. As for the temperature, if your raising tropical plants you would want to keep it 105. As for normal plants, a energy efficent greenhouse would not be opening the vents to lower heat because then at night you would need to replace that heat. It would be better to leave them close to keep the heat in. You seem to forget that the sun provides less heat in the winter time because of the tilt of the earth and that you have less sunlight on any given day. Also, if your example of humans passing through all the time would also cool your greenhouse without needing to vent the heat.
3. Sorry, but if the air in the greenhouse is being heated and cooled then the air would be moving. Also, when the sprinklers turn on the falling water would also cause the air to be displaced. If what you said was true then every house plant and potted plant in an office would be dead. Instead they seem to survive with just a little water.
4. I would agree that the earth is a self contained system
http://www.biospherics.org/
1. You are stupid. A greenhouse tight enough to keep out MOLECULES of CO2 would not be a greenhouse at all, but a hollow glass sphere. Yes, automatic watering systems are used, but not in all greenhouses. How about harvesting? Will that be done by some Teener robots?
2. You are stupid. Some tropical plants (orchids and bromeliads, for instance) grow in the cool understory of the jungle. They absolutely cannot stand constant sun and high temperatures. Different plants require different greenhouse environments. In your black and white world, all plants need the same amount of water, sun, nutrients, and humidity. WRONG! Even the same plant can require different amounts of these things at different stages of the plant's life. Do a little research on commercial or residential greenhouses, especially on greenhouse equipment catalogs, and you'll see the vast assortment of fans, vents, shades, and misters that are offered due to the fact that GREENHOUSES NEED VENTILATION! Look at the variety of heat storage methods to hold in the radiant heat gain for nightime after the heated air has been cooled.
3. You are stupid. Every house and office plant is not the same. Few thrive without careful attention. A schefflera is not a hothouse tomato. A greenhouse is not an office. You say the air will be moving because it's heated and cooled, but you are arguing here about not having the cooling!
4. You are stupid.
There are lean-to, stand-alone, dugout, solar, and automated greenhouses, ranging in size from a few square feet to several acres, at all non-tropical latitudes, growing nearly every kind of plant man has domesticated and some he has not. When you say that greenhouses don't need ventilation, you are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that
you are stupid.
But we've come to expect that of you.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31571 Feb 21, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Biosphere 2 failed because of personnel problems. That mission ended prematurely when disputes between the crew and the management erupted into hostility.
Well, you can't blame Teener for making that mistake. After all, you know there isn't that much difference between greenhouse mechanics and human nature. I mean, they're practically the same thing!
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#31572 Feb 21, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Biosphere 2 failed because of personnel problems. That mission ended prematurely when disputes between the crew and the management erupted into hostility.
My take was insurmountable technical and personal problems.
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#31574 Feb 21, 2013
Our future is melting before our very eyes.

..

Powell said:


Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

Adding:


Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

The notable US science writer Phil Plait “marveled” at Powell’s “persistence in unearthing the facts and figures”, saying:


His premise was simple: if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

But Powell’s findings were clear, says Plait:


There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#31575 Feb 21, 2013
Our future is melting before our very eyes.

Fiddling With The Data While The World Burns

Today, there is simply no excuse for the denial of climate science, often exemplified at its most egregious in the UK by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, influential newspapers with large circulations of around two million each. Columnist James Delingpole and reporter David Rose can lay claim to being the worst and most persistent offenders. Delingpole wrongly asserted last October that the UK Met Office ‘has finally conceded what other scientists have known for ages: there is no evidence that “global warming” is happening.’ Rose pushed the same anti-science line that ‘global warming stopped 16 years ago’. Despite the Met Office explaining the science personally to Rose, last month he continued to publish the same discredited nonsense, even warning that ‘the Thames will be freezing over again‘. The Met Office has repeatedly rebutted error-strewn articles by these propagandists in the Mail and Mail on Sunday, pointing to ‘a series of factual inaccuraces‘,‘misleading information‘ and journalism that is ‘entirely misleading‘.

George Monbiot has highlighted how Rose’s climate science writing ‘show[s] the same uncritical reliance on dodgy sources that caused [his] catastrophic mistakes about Iraq’. To Rose’s credit, he confessed to feeling “shame and regret for having supported the Iraq war.” But worse than that, his journalism had ‘helped make the case for war, presenting “evidence” now known to be bogus of Saddam’s links with Al Qaeda and stocks of WMD.’ No such mea culpa has yet appeared, either from Rose or the Mail stable, for serial offences against climate science and professional standards in responsible reporting.

When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing, and indeed pushing, climate ‘skepticism’, is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 “clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.”
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31576 Feb 21, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Our future is melting before our very eyes.
..
Powell said:
Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.
Adding:
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.
The notable US science writer Phil Plait “marveled” at Powell’s “persistence in unearthing the facts and figures”, saying:
His premise was simple: if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.
But Powell’s findings were clear, says Plait:
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.
When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.
YES.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31577 Feb 21, 2013
ALLOW ME TO REPEAT MYSELF:

Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

YES.
litesong

Everett, WA

#31578 Feb 21, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
ALLOW ME TO REPEAT MYSELF:
I repeated my positive icons to your posts.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31580 Feb 24, 2013
Wow this thread is still going strong. It looks like deniers will keep denying until the world melts around. Even then it won't matter to them b/c they don't give a crap about their future grand kids. They can't fathom a world past their next paycheck. These are simpleminded people with little vision of the future. No, they would rather trust a high school educated blogger than a PHd, b/c everyone's opinion is equal.

But the bigger truth is that this stuff is just too scary for some people to believe. They can't accept it b/c they're afraid to. I say this as a Christian and a Republican. I believe that we are morally obligated to be good stewards of this earth. Not screw it up for future generations.

Deniers can deny the existence of anything. There are still people who deny the moon landing or the holocaust. These people are the gift that keeps on giving to the oil companies.

And no I'm not a Rhino. I believe in conservatism, both financially and environmentally. The Republican party is the party of the clean air and water act. Why have we let the dems take that from us? It's time for R's to come back to our roots.
litesong

Everett, WA

#31581 Feb 24, 2013
joe bob tacks wrote:
Republican party is the party of the clean air and water act. Why have we let the dems take that from us? It's time for R's to come back to our roots.
Glad to see you're a bit less radical than other re-pubic-lick-uns. But re-pubic-lick-uns weren't the party of clean air & water. You've been listening to too many re-pubic-lick-uns, telling how good re-pubic-lick-uns are.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min VetnorsGate 1,420,004
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 min Dr Guru 222,732
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min Abe 239,817
News Samuel L. Jackson echoes Morgan Freeman, says T... (Oct '11) 3 min Slave wages 50
News In presidential elections, size doesn't always ... 10 min Go Blue Forever 20
News Most Americans Oppose Trump's Positions On Immi... 2 hr Which Position 3
News Austria far-rightist's presidential bid draws i... (Mar '10) 5 hr Wall Failure 97
More from around the web