Who still takes global warming seriously?

Full story: Farmington Daily Times

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.

Comments (Page 1,510)

Showing posts 30,181 - 30,200 of30,825
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 09

San Marcos, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31464
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Plants don't like the heat caused by CO2. They stop respirating and therefore, stop growing.
Too much CO2 is bad and you are a bad, bad boy for promoting it.
Ask my tomatoes.
We Have been here before. Big Goof does not agree that it can be too hot for tomatoes to pollinate. Oh Well, he does not understand much else either except how to blather on and on.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31465
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Did you forget to water your tomatoes?
Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Yes, heat & CO2 can be good for SOME plants, but typically they need more water & more fixed nitrogen (from soil bacteria). Droughts will reduce access to both these things. It also depends on whether they use C3 or C4 photosynthesis.

The bottom line is that AGW/CC is terrible for msot plants overall. Don't forget the current droughts in Brazil. You've heard of "the lungs of the world"? If the Amazon rainforest makes the transition to open savannah, we'll be in deep doo-doo, so to speak.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31466
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

4

1

1

Only if you believe in scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31467
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

Tina Anne talking about NASA's official climatology site explaining How Scientists know there is global warming:

Looked on by who as science sites. The only ones who seem to are like yourself who are in need of something you can offer as proof. the fact that they have as much fiction as fact would indicate that they are anything but a science site. It could be said that they are nothing more than left wing ideology sites.
You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to explain why NASA's official climatology website is not really science or proof, but it is ideology.

And when you only put out right wing anti-science websites, you scream foul at anyone calling them what they are.

HA HA HA
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you have to call what I provide right wing means that there has to be a left wing version. It also points out that the discussion is about politics and not science. Science has no right wing or left wing.
There are conservatives who take the scientific view too. They'd take NASA's website seriously, dear.

And I have already demonstrated ALL the world renown science organizations like NASA take the same position they do in warming about the dangers of man made global warming.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

You wanted a site with an offical NASA logo and I found one.
Liar! You found me an article about Roy Spencer who worked for NASA many years ago. I proved the NASA climatologists had also debunked the paper you put out, and gave you a citation by BBC showing his editor (of a satellite magazine) was so upset by his flawed analysis, that he resigned his position to show the extent of his humiliation.)

THAT doesn't come anywhere near being a "official NASA website."
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And as for your world renown agencies, have you ever taken a look at what some of them are renown for? A few are world renown for the serious mistakes they have made. NASA has lost satellites, the IPCC had so many mistakes that they were considering asking for the head of the IPCC to step down.
wow== talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
You're already made so many EGREGIOUS MONSTROUS MISTAKES here, most people would hide their face in shame, dear.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31468
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Plants don't like heat? Any proof, like evidence of more plant life at the poles than on the equator?
.
<quoted text>Did you forget to water your tomatoes?
Seen any in the Sahara desert?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/...

While it is true a greenhouse effect has a CO2 fertilization effect -- this is only true if there is enough rain and fertilizer to sustain the added growth. Turns out the real world doesn't work like a commercial greenhouse.

There are season cereals (Wheat, rye, triticale, oats, barley, and spelt) that grow in moderate weather but cease to grow in hot climates.

A study of the warming from this century has shown a very uneven distribution of rains
And the warmer temperatures means more evaporation of moisture in the soil leading to MORE intense and larger drought areas

More important global warming has been estimated to harm the oceans. This has the greatest negative effect of all!

(i) Science studies have shown that as the surface water of the oceans warmed up, phytoplankton biomass declined -- which means that there will be less ocean plants to uptake this greenhouse gas and less food in the chain for ocean life.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/061206...

(ii) Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid, resulting in ocean acidification. This is already killing off the coral reefs and creating dead spots.

<<New study says oceans' chemistry changing rapidly
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_sc/...

WASHINGTON The chemistry of the oceans is changing faster than it has in hundreds of thousands of years because of the carbon dioxide being absorbed from the atmosphere, the National Research Council reported Thursday.

Carbon dioxide and other industrial gases have been a concern for several years because of their impact on the air, raising global temperatures in a process called the greenhouse effect.
One factor easing that warmth has been the amount of CO2 taken up by the oceans, but that has also caused scientific concerns because the chemicals make the water more acidic, which can affect sea life.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the pH of ocean water has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 and a further decline of 0.2 to 0.3 units is expected by the end of this century, according to the Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Science.
The current rate of change "exceeds any known change in ocean chemistry for at least 800,000 years," the report said.
As most folks will remember from school chemistry, pH is a measure of how alkaline or acidic something is. A pH of 7 is neutral, while higher numbers are more alkaline and lower numbers are more acidic.

As the ocean becomes more acidic scientists have raised concern about dissolving coral reefs and potential effects on fish and other sea life.

For example, studies have shown that increasing seawater acidity affects photosynthesis, nutrient acquisition, growth, reproduction and individual survival of certain sea life.

++++++++++

So cut the right wing crap, ok?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31469
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

PHD wrote:
The cactus likes heat.
Eat cactus on your cheeseburger, then.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31470
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian, Teener, other deniers on here, they can't help it. They watch Fox News.

Fox News Claims Solar Won't Work in America Because It's Not Sunny Like Germany

With Fox, it's hard to tell if this is ignorance or dishonesty. They must not know how to use a computer; that's the ignorance part. That's pretty bad, since probably 75% of the people in the US and the UK know how to use a search engine.

So it must be dishonesty. They assume their audience is stupid so they tell these outrageous lies. And their audience believes them.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31471
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
We Have been here before. Big Goof does not agree that it can be too hot for tomatoes to pollinate. Oh Well, he does not understand much else either except how to blather on and on.
And too hot for the blooms to set.

He probably never grew anything in his life but toenail fungus.

I take care of my tomatoes. They produce, but not like they do during milder summers (that's below 95F).

These idiots are so tiresome.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31472
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Seen any in the Sahara desert?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/...
While it is true a greenhouse effect has a CO2 fertilization effect -- this is only true if there is enough rain and fertilizer to sustain the added growth. Turns out the real world doesn't work like a commercial greenhouse.
There are season cereals (Wheat, rye, triticale, oats, barley, and spelt) that grow in moderate weather but cease to grow in hot climates.
A study of the warming from this century has shown a very uneven distribution of rains
And the warmer temperatures means more evaporation of moisture in the soil leading to MORE intense and larger drought areas
More important global warming has been estimated to harm the oceans. This has the greatest negative effect of all!
(i) Science studies have shown that as the surface water of the oceans warmed up, phytoplankton biomass declined -- which means that there will be less ocean plants to uptake this greenhouse gas and less food in the chain for ocean life.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/061206...
(ii) Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid, resulting in ocean acidification. This is already killing off the coral reefs and creating dead spots.
<<New study says oceans' chemistry changing rapidly
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_sc/...
WASHINGTON The chemistry of the oceans is changing faster than it has in hundreds of thousands of years because of the carbon dioxide being absorbed from the atmosphere, the National Research Council reported Thursday.
Carbon dioxide and other industrial gases have been a concern for several years because of their impact on the air, raising global temperatures in a process called the greenhouse effect.
One factor easing that warmth has been the amount of CO2 taken up by the oceans, but that has also caused scientific concerns because the chemicals make the water more acidic, which can affect sea life.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the pH of ocean water has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 and a further decline of 0.2 to 0.3 units is expected by the end of this century, according to the Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Science.
The current rate of change "exceeds any known change in ocean chemistry for at least 800,000 years," the report said.
As most folks will remember from school chemistry, pH is a measure of how alkaline or acidic something is. A pH of 7 is neutral, while higher numbers are more alkaline and lower numbers are more acidic.
As the ocean becomes more acidic scientists have raised concern about dissolving coral reefs and potential effects on fish and other sea life.
For example, studies have shown that increasing seawater acidity affects photosynthesis, nutrient acquisition, growth, reproduction and individual survival of certain sea life.
++++++++++
So cut the right wing crap, ok?
Your last statement exemplifies all of your scientific science fiction.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31473
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Eat cactus on your cheeseburger, then.
Try it you may like it.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31474
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You're absolutely right that scientific facts don't come in left & right political versions. But by denying AGW/CC you're taking on ALL mainstream science organizations & media. You think Scientific American, Discover, New Scientist, Science, Nature & all of them were ALL taken over by leftists? What, did they storm the barricades all at once?
Remember, 8 of the 12 largest companies in the world by revenue are oil companies. They all have profound economic interests in AGW/CC denial. The other 4 also have interests in denial, but careful laws could make them more neutral.
The bottom line is that there is way, way, way, way, WAY more money in AGW/CC denial than there is in supporting it.
So - WHAT NASA site? If you posted te link, I didn't see it. Can you repost?
And the IPCC has been remarkably accurate overall since they made their correction for aerosols in 1995. They're human, so they make occasional mistakes, but they've been minor, despite the aggressive right wing spin.
Actually those laws that you think they are against would make them more profitable. After all, what is going to replace oil. Wind and solar are at the mercy of the weather and cannot supply the energy needed to run the modern world. Lets not forget the host of chemicals produced from oil. Some of which there are no subsititues. When pointing out that eight of the twelve largest companies are oil companies you failed to point out why they are the largest.

As for the magazines mention, who do you think the editors are, not scientist but journalism majors. They all need to sell subscription and who better to part from their money than the foolish. After all, others would realize that they could find the same information for free online.

Something else people like you seem to deny is that climate change has been happening as long as the earth has had a climate. It has been warmer and cooler in the past. The planet has had multiple ice ages and the earth had periods in between when it warmed. Periods when man or even mammels did not exist. How many of those same magazine that were around in the seventies were publishing articles about an approaching ice age or Mathus's Population Bomb theory. They publish what people are interested in enough to purchase a magazine. The same reason why Playboy and Penthouse publishes air brushed pictures of women for with the same ethics.

And NASA has made more than a few mistakes and those mistakes had nothing to do with RW spin. In some cases it was nothing more than NASA playing the political game to procure a larger slice of the pie. With looming cuts and a nasty budget battle in the future they are not the only government agency looking to stave off budget cuts.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31475
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Plants don't like the heat caused by CO2. They stop respirating and therefore, stop growing.
Too much CO2 is bad and you are a bad, bad boy for promoting it.
Ask my tomatoes.
Funny, but plants seem to love the heat in a hot house. And try increasing the CO2 in that hot house for your tomato's. You be surprised at the increase in quanity and quality. Not to mention the warmth, tomatos seem to really not like the cold.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31476
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to explain why NASA's official climatology website is not really science or proof, but it is ideology.
And when you only put out right wing anti-science websites, you scream foul at anyone calling them what they are.
HA HA HA
<quoted text>
There are conservatives who take the scientific view too. They'd take NASA's website seriously, dear.
And I have already demonstrated ALL the world renown science organizations like NASA take the same position they do in warming about the dangers of man made global warming.
<quoted text>
Liar! You found me an article about Roy Spencer who worked for NASA many years ago. I proved the NASA climatologists had also debunked the paper you put out, and gave you a citation by BBC showing his editor (of a satellite magazine) was so upset by his flawed analysis, that he resigned his position to show the extent of his humiliation.)
THAT doesn't come anywhere near being a "official NASA website."
<quoted text>
wow== talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
You're already made so many EGREGIOUS MONSTROUS MISTAKES here, most people would hide their face in shame, dear.
That is the second time I have seen you use the word "knots". I have to wonder if the facts are tying you up in knots.

At one time NASA also was on the global cooling band wagon. It was less about what they believed and more about how to squeeze out more money from Washington. Right now every government agency is facing a ten percent cut and a big budget battle is already forming. There are also those who calculate bond rating who are looking at that and looking at lowing the US credit rating which would raise the cost of borrowing.

So, NASA is trying to make the right noises the keep it's funding from being cut. Keep in mind the NOAA, NAS, DOD, NEA, EPA, DOE, and a host of other agencies are trying as well. Some of them are using the claim that climate change research is properly there area and NASA should stay out of it. That all the money allocated to climate reserach should be theirs.

All you have is a few NASA web sites that function similar to position papers. Something that can change with the political winds in hours if not minutes. From the same group that at one time supported the idea that Canada would be buried in ice by now.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31477
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Ha Ha HA the wallop10 AKA walloped again and again gets walloped again and again!!! Smell the fresh air and its another great day!!!

Since: Mar 09

San Marcos, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31478
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, but plants seem to love the heat in a hot house. And try increasing the CO2 in that hot house for your tomato's. You be surprised at the increase in quanity and quality. Not to mention the warmth, tomatos seem to really not like the cold.
Gee! I wonder why they bother to ventilate greenhouses?
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31479
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee! I wonder why they bother to ventilate greenhouses?
With you in it to exhaust excess hot air.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31480
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually those laws that you think they are against would make them more profitable. After all, what is going to replace oil. Wind and solar are at the mercy of the weather and cannot supply the energy needed to run the modern world. Lets not forget the host of chemicals produced from oil. Some of which there are no subsititues. When pointing out that eight of the twelve largest companies are oil companies you failed to point out why they are the largest.
As for the magazines mention, who do you think the editors are, not scientist but journalism majors. They all need to sell subscription and who better to part from their money than the foolish. After all, others would realize that they could find the same information for free online.
Something else people like you seem to deny is that climate change has been happening as long as the earth has had a climate. It has been warmer and cooler in the past. The planet has had multiple ice ages and the earth had periods in between when it warmed. Periods when man or even mammels did not exist. How many of those same magazine that were around in the seventies were publishing articles about an approaching ice age or Mathus's Population Bomb theory. They publish what people are interested in enough to purchase a magazine. The same reason why Playboy and Penthouse publishes air brushed pictures of women for with the same ethics.
And NASA has made more than a few mistakes and those mistakes had nothing to do with RW spin. In some cases it was nothing more than NASA playing the political game to procure a larger slice of the pie. With looming cuts and a nasty budget battle in the future they are not the only government agency looking to stave off budget cuts.
Obviously oil is valuable even if you exclude burning it for energy. This despite the fact that government policy, by NOT having a carbon tax, grossly & horrendously distorts the market.

Far too many of us suffer from the psychotic delusion that it is "free" to dump carbon into the atmosphere. It is NOT free. Until that cost is included in the price of oil & other fossil fuels, the market can NEVER be free, or reflect reality.

If you think science journals are published by journalists, you don't understand science. Science must produce results that can be verified by others. A scientist simply CAN'T lie or distort (as a rule), because if other scientists can't reproduce the same results, then any subterfuge or deception will be discovered. If a scientist is found to have been deliberately deceptive, that scientist's academic career is generally over. So scientists don't lie, & the ONLY thing they care about is being right. When they're pvoven to be right (e.g. before or after they die) doesn't matter nearly as much.

If general science journals just wanted to sell copy, they could hype plenty of other stories, from the Yellowstone supervolcano to the nonsense about cycle 25 that you hear from deniers. If they hype AGW/CC theory, it's because it's proven fact.

Yes, we've had climate change for billions of years. It's been warmer & colder than it is now. That is 100.0000000000% irrelevant to the danger now. The ONLY reason it matters is that these variations have helped us understand the influences on climate.

Human civilization was developed with HOLOCENE climate & with HOLOCENE sea levels. Sure, the dinosaurs did fine when it was a lot warmer, but sea level was ~70 meters higher.

Our agriculture would collapse during dinosaurian conditions. We have trillions of dollars of infrastructure within a few meters of sea level. Of COURSE we could tolerate higher temps, but it would be unimaginably expensive & deadly to change.

Again, if you think NASA has "made mistakes," post the link. If it's the nonsense you posted before about Roy Spencer, it means nothing.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31481
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Scientist correct errors to discover their corrections are in error. Ever wonder why they use terms as prediction,my opinion, could be, should be,as a rule and forecast? Scienceis fact not fiction as mentioned above.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31482
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to explain why NASA's official climatology website is not really science or proof, but it is ideology.
And when you only put out right wing anti-science websites, you scream foul at anyone calling them what they are.
HA HA HA
<quoted text>
There are conservatives who take the scientific view too. They'd take NASA's website seriously, dear.
And I have already demonstrated ALL the world renown science organizations like NASA take the same position they do in warming about the dangers of man made global warming.
<quoted text>
Liar! You found me an article about Roy Spencer who worked for NASA many years ago. I proved the NASA climatologists had also debunked the paper you put out, and gave you a citation by BBC showing his editor (of a satellite magazine) was so upset by his flawed analysis, that he resigned his position to show the extent of his humiliation.)
THAT doesn't come anywhere near being a "official NASA website."
<quoted text>
wow== talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
You're already made so many EGREGIOUS MONSTROUS MISTAKES here, most people would hide their face in shame, dear.
"You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to explain why NASA's official climatology website is not really science or proof"

That's how she got the nickname of "Twisty".
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31483
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, but plants seem to love the heat in a hot house. And try increasing the CO2 in that hot house for your tomato's. You be surprised at the increase in quanity and quality. Not to mention the warmth, tomatos seem to really not like the cold.
Sorry, Valley Girl, wrong again!

You only wish it were that simple.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 30,181 - 30,200 of30,825
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••