Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30932 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.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31639 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've written about why I believe climate change mitigation is a hoax: the complete lack of experimental tests. I have an objective standard for my beliefs, I'll change my mind about climate change mitigation when I see compelling experimental evidence.
What would cause you to change your mind about climate change mitigation? If your beliefs are based on reason instead of emotion, you should be able to answer that question.
Yes, you've spammed endlessly on a subject which isn't even being discussed so as to evade the necessity of discussing the subject at hand - global warming, specifically AGW.

You have no standards, Brainless. You are a troll, and as a troll, obviously you're the "emotional" one - you get excited by trolling and starting conflicts.

How pathetic. Why not give it up?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31640 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If man made greenhouse gas emissions change climate then we are already mitigating climate change against global cooling, the catastrophic ice age scenario. The only difference between that theory and the alarmists; we've actually seen ice ages but nobody has seen catastrophic man made global warming.
Daffy troll Brainless_G puts yet another spin on his favorite offtopic post - not only is it about "mitigation," but we're already "mitigating" something we didn't know we were mitigating!

So now mitigation works and is good, Brainless, is that what you're trying to pretend??

LOL (rolling eyes)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31641 Mar 18, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Yes, you've spammed endlessly on a subject which isn't even being discussed so as to evade the necessity of discussing the subject at hand - global warming, specifically AGW. You have no standards, Brainless. You are a troll, and as a troll, obviously you're the "emotional" one - you get excited by trolling and starting conflicts.
^^^This is mere name-calling, not discussing the issues. I've stated my standards; a compelling experimental test for climate change mitigation.

Why does it bother you that I want to discuss mitigation?

.
tha Professor wrote:
How pathetic. Why not give it up?
Climate always changes, for me the issue is mitigation. Why won't tha Professor answer my question?

Let's try again:

What would cause you to change your mind about climate change mitigation?
SpaceBlues

United States

#31642 Mar 18, 2013
Before the English industrialization, climate variations involved only one degree Celsius temperature zig-zags. Not so with what's happening under man-made global warming.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31643 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is mere name-calling, not discussing the issues. I've stated my standards; a compelling experimental test for climate change mitigation.
Why does it bother you that I want to discuss mitigation?
.
<quoted text>Climate always changes, for me the issue is mitigation. Why won't tha Professor answer my question?
Let's try again:
What would cause you to change your mind about climate change mitigation?
There's nothing wrong with discussing mitigation. However, in the past you've said (many times) that because we haven't done specific mitigation experiments, that makes all of AGW/CC science wrong. That's just nonsense.

What we can do for mitigation is a reasonable discussion. Remember, though, that when you're in a hole, the 1st thing to do is to stop digging. We need to start reducing, & eliminating as much as possible, carbon emissions into the atmosphere. It'll be MUCH easier to not emit it in the 1st place than to try to remove it later.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31644 Mar 18, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
There's nothing wrong with discussing mitigation. However, in the past you've said (many times) that because we haven't done specific mitigation experiments, that makes all of AGW/CC science wrong. That's just nonsense.
^^^The quote above misstates my position, I've never claimed all anthropogenic global warming and climate change science is wrong.

I've claimed, we haven't done ANY climate change mitigation experiments and that makes climate change mitigation a hoax.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
What we can do for mitigation is a reasonable discussion. Remember, though, that when you're in a hole, the 1st thing to do is to stop digging.
Remember, if you're digging a well, the last thing you want to do is stop digging. Drill here, drill now and explore everywhere.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
We need to start reducing, & eliminating as much as possible, carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
My children emit carbon, so do my pets. I support carbon emissions because when we stop emitting CO2 we die.

Don't beleive me? Then try holding your breath.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It'll be MUCH easier to not emit it in the 1st place than to try to remove it later.
Plants do a superb job removing CO2 from the air and turning it into food and other goods. The more CO2 in the air, the easier it is for plants to survive and the less water they lose to the air.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#31645 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Plants do a superb job removing CO2 from the air and turning it into food and other goods. The more CO2 in the air, the easier it is for plants to survive and the less water they lose to the air.
CO2 is only one factor in how well plants do.

More CO2 will mean plants do less well.

This can be proved with an experiment.

That's a real experiment, not Brian's phony one.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/201...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31646 Mar 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
CO2 is only one factor in how well plants do. More CO2 will mean plants do less well. This can be proved with an experiment. That's a real experiment, not Brian's phony one.[URL deleted]
This link is from Fair Games citation above:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/...
The stimulation of plant growth by elevated CO2 concentration has been widely observed. Such fertilization, and associated carbon storage, could dampen future increases in atmospheric CO2 levels and associated climate warming1. However, the CO2 fertilization of plant biomass may be sensitive to nitrogen supply2, 3, 4. Herein we show that in the latest decade of a long-term perennial grassland experiment, low ambient soil nitrogen availability constrained the positive response of plant biomass to elevated CO2, a result not seen in the first years (1998–2000) of the study. From 2001 to 2010, elevated CO2 stimulated plant biomass half as much under ambient as under enriched nitrogen supply, an effect mirrored over this period by more positive effects of elevated CO2 on soil nitrogen supply (net nitrogen mineralization) and plant nitrogen status under enriched than ambient nitrogen supply. The results did not strongly support either the progressive nitrogen limitation hypothesis, or the alternative hypothesis of priming of soil nitrogen release by elevated CO2. As nitrogen limitation to productivity is widespread, persistent nitrogen constraints on terrestrial responses to rising CO2 are probably pervasive. Further incorporation of such interactions into Earth system models is recommended to better predict future CO2 fertilization effects and impacts on the global carbon cycle.
Fair Game's conclusion: "More CO2 will mean plants do less well." is contradicted by the experiment. Climate models do less well without experimental tests and those tests show high hopes of new plant growth sequestering much more atmospheric CO2 is wrong.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#31647 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>This link is from Fair Games citation above:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/...
<quoted text>
Fair Game's conclusion: "More CO2 will mean plants do less well." is contradicted by the experiment. Climate models do less well without experimental tests and those tests show high hopes of new plant growth sequestering much more atmospheric CO2 is wrong.
Read but not understood.

"As nitrogen limitation to productivity is widespread, persistent nitrogen constraints on terrestrial responses to rising CO2 are probably pervasive."

There's not enough Nitrogen for CO2 to fertilize.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31648 Mar 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Read but not understood.
"As nitrogen limitation to productivity is widespread, persistent nitrogen constraints on terrestrial responses to rising CO2 are probably pervasive." There's not enough Nitrogen for CO2 to fertilize.
That contradicts Fair Game's original statement: "More CO2 will mean plants do less well." CO2 is a fertilizer, sure if you fertilize but forget to water, your plants will die. That doesn't mean CO2 harms plants.

CO2 is essential to life; emitting CO2 into the air might be the most productive thing Fair Game has ever done. It certainly beats hairbrained claims like: "More CO2 will mean plants do less well."

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#31649 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That contradicts Fair Game's original statement: "More CO2 will mean plants do less well." CO2 is a fertilizer, sure if you fertilize but forget to water, your plants will die. That doesn't mean CO2 harms plants.
CO2 also causes warming which also causes drought.

Ask the US farmers about their plants dying.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31650 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is mere name-calling, not discussing the issues. I've stated my standards; a compelling experimental test for climate change mitigation.
Why does it bother you that I want to discuss mitigation?
.
<quoted text>Climate always changes, for me the issue is mitigation. Why won't tha Professor answer my question?
Let's try again:
What would cause you to change your mind about climate change mitigation?
A standard trolling post doesn't constitute "standards," Brian. It constitutes a repetitive, offtopic method of trolling climate-change threads and attempting to derail or rechannel the discussion as well as disrupting it. You know this, of course, but pretend innocence, which makes you disingenuous.

I've asked you numerous questions about your trolling method and had them basically ignored or re-routed back to your one and only topic, so why would I answer any of YOUR questions? I know what you are and what you do here, which is why I mock you.

Surely that's not a surprise to you?:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31651 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The quote above misstates my position, I've never claimed all anthropogenic global warming and climate change science is wrong.
I've claimed, we haven't done ANY climate change mitigation experiments and that makes climate change mitigation a hoax.

>>Which is itself a false claim.

<quoted text>Remember, if you're digging a well, the last thing you want to do is stop digging. Drill here, drill now and explore everywhere.

>>IOW, make AGW worse...another irresponsible and deliberately provocative position you take.

<quoted text>My children emit carbon, so do my pets. I support carbon emissions because when we stop emitting CO2 we die.
Don't beleive me? Then try holding your breath.

>>Completely and utterly disingenous as well as offtopic.

<quoted text>Plants do a superb job removing CO2 from the air and turning it into food and other goods. The more CO2 in the air, the easier it is for plants to survive and the less water they lose to the air.

>>Again disingeuous and supportive of irresponsible INCREASES in CO2 and warming. And you really claim to wonder why no one takes you seriously, Brainless?:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31652 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That contradicts Fair Game's original statement: "More CO2 will mean plants do less well." CO2 is a fertilizer, sure if you fertilize but forget to water, your plants will die. That doesn't mean CO2 harms plants.
CO2 is essential to life; emitting CO2 into the air might be the most productive thing Fair Game has ever done. It certainly beats hairbrained claims like: "More CO2 will mean plants do less well."
A claim which was backed by a link, and which you've done utterly nothing to refute. You just make statements as if they were facts because you say them. Is that "science," Brainless_G?:)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31653 Mar 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
CO2 also causes warming which also causes drought.
So, CO2 doesn't harm plants, it helps. Droughts harm plants. As if there's never been droughts before man made global warming?

.
Fair Game wrote:
Ask the US farmers about their plants dying.
Wheat Crop Seen Near Record as U.S. Drought Recedes: Commodities
By Luzi Ann Javier - Mar 19, 2013 1:16 PM GMT+0100

Farmers from Australia to Europe to the U.S. are poised to reap the second-largest wheat crop on record as fields recover from drought and heat waves, boosting global stockpiles for the first time in four years.
Output will climb 4.3 percent to 690 million metric tons, about 10 million tons short of the all-time high set two years ago, the United Nations estimates...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/whea...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31654 Mar 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
A standard trolling post doesn't constitute "standards," Brian. It constitutes a repetitive, offtopic method of trolling climate-change threads and attempting to derail or rechannel the discussion as well as disrupting it. You know this, of course, but pretend innocence, which makes you disingenuous.
I've asked you numerous questions about your trolling method and had them basically ignored or re-routed back to your one and only topic, so why would I answer any of YOUR questions? I know what you are and what you do here, which is why I mock you.
Surely that's not a surprise to you?:)
I've told you, all I need to convince me to back climate change mitigation is to see the results of a compelling experimental tests.

I'll ask again:

What would cause you to change your mind about climate change mitigation?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#31655 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've told you, all I need to convince me to back climate change mitigation is to see the results of a compelling experimental tests.
I'll ask again:
What would cause you to change your mind about climate change mitigation?
Why would I try to "convince" a troll of anything? LOL!
litesong

Everett, WA

#31656 Mar 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Before the English industrialization, climate variations involved only one degree Celsius temperature zig-zags. Not so with what's happening under man-made global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sJp3_DcN1i4XX
As stated from another topix AGW thread:

Also, AGW energy enhanced atmosphere causes warm fronts to move into the Arctic more vigorously..... one reason for the exceptional Arctic warming. Simultaneously, Arctic cold fronts are more vigorously driven south to populated regions, quite often setting cold records as far south as Mexico, Central America, China & India.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#31657 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>So, CO2 doesn't harm plants, it helps. Droughts harm plants. As if there's never been droughts before man made global warming?
.
<quoted text>Wheat Crop Seen Near Record as U.S. Drought Recedes: Commodities
By Luzi Ann Javier - Mar 19, 2013 1:16 PM GMT+0100
Farmers from Australia to Europe to the U.S. are poised to reap the second-largest wheat crop on record as fields recover from drought and heat waves, boosting global stockpiles for the first time in four years.
Output will climb 4.3 percent to 690 million metric tons, about 10 million tons short of the all-time high set two years ago, the United Nations estimates...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/whea...
CO2 and global warming make droughts worse.

1 good year out of four is good?

Parts of the US are still in severe drought, of course.
litesong

Everett, WA

#31658 Mar 19, 2013
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
This is mere name-calling, not discussing the issues. I've stated my standards.....
As "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" states, its standards are beyond 'mere name-calling'.
"brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener.

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 15 min Mothra 60,135
News Republican Frontrunners Avoid Climate Change (Nov '15) 27 min Into The Night 103
News 31 scientific societies just told Congress to t... 36 min Patriot AKA Bozo 1
News Climate change implicated in France floods 3 hr Into The Night 23
News Denying the deniers 3 hr Into The Night 11
News Former astronaut scoffs at global warming (Feb '09) 3 hr Into The Night 2,404
Terrible News: The Greenland Ice Sheet is Growing 3 hr Into The Night 71
More from around the web