Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You need to read some opposing views rather than follow the AGW party line.
You believe what "scientists" have to say when they are skeptics?
You'll ignore the 97% who have reached the same conclusion, while elevating the outliers paid by Exxon, and then point to them as "proof" that the science is not conclusive?
science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2
science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2
science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325(some say as high as 350) of today is is much lower than the 750-10000 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago
science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times
science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice
science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice
science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)
science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER...around 700-1500ppm compared to the current 320ppm
The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research (SCIENCE) demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. CO2 enriched plants grow rapidly and must also be supplied with the other five "essential elements" to ensure proper development and a plentiful harvest.
science shows As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels - below 225 ppm - will cease to grow or produce.
SCIENCE shows that plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration
common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.............yet the global warming liberals only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
why do liberals DENY science???...because with the science they cant get their TAX..so they manipulate the science
Little Acorn, is that you? I only ask because I've seen you copy and paste that before, and she's also a big copy and paste fiend. It gets boring to argue with people who don't take time to craft their own arguments to the situation at hand.
By "sourced material", you mean "he shameless plagiarized without using a citation" and by "actual science" you mean "blogs"
I can just see Librarians around the world, just banging their heads against the wall, muttering "information literacy....information literacy....information literacy"
My my my...
My "blogs" as you so kindly refer to them show the conversations of scientists. They show how and why they debunk one claim after another. They actively invite and encourage the AGW crowd of scientists to respond, and even flat out challenge them to answer the arguments against their assertions. Yet when one of them posts their scientific challenge questions on RC, they get booted. Why is that? Could it be because the AGW religion refuses to be challenged by science?
As far as what he sourced, why the concern about where it came from and whether or not it was his original content. I'd argue that none of our "opinions" on the subject come strictly from our own sources and work. The thing I find odd is your attempt to discredit HIM for not crediting the source of what he said rather than debate the content of what he said. The word that comes to mind when I think of those tactics is "juvenile".
i believe in science, REAL science, and not the crap the global warming crowd is foisting on us. the geologic record shows that it has been far warmer in the past. we also know that we are only 15,000 years out of the last ice age, and we know that the global climate can change very quickly, virtually overnight in geological time. point of fact the first decade out of the last ice age the global temps rose 7 degrees. but then lets consider something that the global warming crowd has NEVER answered including YOU. and that question is what is the actual global mean temperature? man has only been recording temperatures for the last 150 years or so, and before that its all guesstimations as to what the temps were. in the last 700,000,000 years global temps have been low enough that the earth was a snowball floating in space, and the temps rose to where they were about 15-20 degrees higher than they are today.
now lets talk about the CO2 levels, shall we? today they are 400ppm, that means if there was a stadium that held one million people, and tickets were sold, there would be only 400 sold. but lets go back into the past about 65 million years, and we find that CO2 levels were on the order of twice what they are today, but we didnt have heavy industry and big suvs rolling around back then. something else to consider is that man puts out only a tiny part of the total CO2 emitted in a year, the rest comes from nature.
one more thing regarding global warming, and that is that CO2 is actually a poor insulator when it comes to retaining heat. in fact water vapor is about 15 times more effective than CO2 is.
and last but not least, if you want to find out the truth about global warming, follow the money. look at who is making money off the claims, people like al gore who made 100 million from carbon credits. and those scientists who sold their souls to the government for grant money, etc. open your eyes and check the "facts" all the alarmists keep spewing with the same suspicion that you use when listening to conservatives make their points.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 05-12-2013 at 10:09 AM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
My "blogs" as you so kindly refer to them show the conversations of scientists. They show how and why they debunk one claim after another. They actively invite and encourage the AGW crowd of scientists to respond, and even flat out challenge them to answer the arguments against their assertions. Yet when one of them posts their scientific challenge questions on RC, they get booted. Why is that? Could it be because the AGW religion refuses to be challenged by science?
As far as what he sourced, why the concern about where it came from and whether or not it was his original content. I'd argue that none of our "opinions" on the subject come strictly from our own sources and work. The thing I find odd is your attempt to discredit HIM for not crediting the source of what he said rather than debate the content of what he said. The word that comes to mind when I think of those tactics is "juvenile".
I guess if "juvenile" you mean "using basic information literacy skills" then, um, yes I'm "juvenile".
And, yes, they are blogs. Real grown up scientists publish their findings in scientific journals. They have conversations and discussions at scientific conferences. They write "Letters to Nature" to point out strengths and weaknesses in each other's studies.
Starting a scientific opinion blog and expecting real scientists to chime in is like starting a Harry Potter fan site and expecting Daniel Radcliffe to write a post for you.
and last but not least, if you want to find out the truth about global warming, follow the money. look at who is making money off the claims, people like al gore who made 100 million from carbon credits. and those scientists who sold their souls to the government for grant money, etc. open your eyes and check the "facts" all the alarmists keep spewing with the same suspicion that you use when listening to conservatives make their points.
My favorite argument of all because it always conjures images of scientists in riced out Mercedes, rolling down the window, showing off their bling.
Ever actually meet a scientist? Most likely they're driving a beat up Volvo and wearing clothing from the Lands End clearance rack.
My favorite argument of all because it always conjures images of scientists in riced out Mercedes, rolling down the window, showing off their bling.
Ever actually meet a scientist? Most likely they're driving a beat up Volvo and wearing clothing from the Lands End clearance rack.
it doesnt matter what they drive, where they live, etc. if they are getting huge grants from the government, chances are they are going to be reporting what the government wants them to report so they can keep their grants coming in to keep their labs open. and by the way, i know rich people who drive cheap old cars even though they can afford the blinged out mercs and porsches.
I guess if "juvenile" you mean "using basic information literacy skills" then, um, yes I'm "juvenile".
And, yes, they are blogs. Real grown up scientists publish their findings in scientific journals. They have conversations and discussions at scientific conferences. They write "Letters to Nature" to point out strengths and weaknesses in each other's studies.
Starting a scientific opinion blog and expecting real scientists to chime in is like starting a Harry Potter fan site and expecting Daniel Radcliffe to write a post for you.
I didn't call YOU juvenile. I said your TACTICS brought that word to my mind.
Real or fake scientists can publish their work in scientific journals all they want. That does NOT remove the SCIENCE of having their work scrutinized, and supposedly still be held up as some kind of science if it is found to NOT have merit.
If I claim I found the largest diamond deposit in the world, published my claims in the We Be Geology and Stuff Scientific Journal, then someone actually fact checks me and determines I found a good sized dinosaur deposit, is my published work worth anything?
Science requires more than getting some article published. Furthermore, any and all "science" is subject to scrutiny and discredit. After all... science once said the sun revolved around the earth. Science once said that "blood letting" could cure many ills, when in fact it killed far, FAR more than it helped, if it in fact helped any at all.
If science can not stand up to scrutiny and challenges, it certainly is not science.
I didn't call YOU juvenile. I said your TACTICS brought that word to my mind.
Real or fake scientists can publish their work in scientific journals all they want. That does NOT remove the SCIENCE of having their work scrutinized, and supposedly still be held up as some kind of science if it is found to NOT have merit.
If I claim I found the largest diamond deposit in the world, published my claims in the We Be Geology and Stuff Scientific Journal, then someone actually fact checks me and determines I found a good sized dinosaur deposit, is my published work worth anything?
Science requires more than getting some article published. Furthermore, any and all "science" is subject to be scrutiny and discredit. After all... science once said the sun revolved around the earth. Science once said that "blood letting" could cure many ills, when in fact it killed far, FAR more than it helped, if it in fact helped any at all.
If science can not stand up to scrutiny and challenges, it certainly is not science.
Before your Largest Diamond Deposit In the World article would get published, it would be required to go through a process called Peer Review. This means that other scientists would read the article BEFORE it gets published and evaluate its credibility. That means if you didn't include GPS coordinates, or if you methods were not precisely explained, it would not be able to be published. The journal editor would find diamond deposit experts and ask them if they thought that your finding was plausible. The article would be sent back to you for revisions before it gets published. This process might even take a whole year.
In contrast, anyone can publish anything on a blog.
This might explain why there are so many human issues in the world...Our minds are moving slower because we are oxygen starved...Much like the poor in some nations who are slightly dumber from being protein starved...The more dull we get the harder it is to recover...Good bye humanity...much like bugs suffocating in a jar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
