It. Is. Directly. Relevant. The Oil industry has spent millions on the anti-science narrative. Yes they are and yes there is. Now you're just lying. What are they scientists in? And what relevance does fame have to anything? And why should I care about them when 97% of climate scientists who've been asked to give their thoughts on AGW agree that it's a fact? The motivation of "alarmists" is to alarm the world of its impending doom if we follow this road we're headed on.
Yes, they want to expand into other areas. That's what businesses do. However, consider the other facts. I'll single out Exxon, though I assure you that this is normal across the board. Over the past decade, ExxonMobil: 1. gave more than $2.3 million to corporate lobbying groups that deny climate change and block efforts to fight climate change. 2. gave $30 million to researchers and activist groups promoting disinformation about global warming. 3. gave $1.87 million to Republicans in Congress who deny climate change. 4. gave $454,000 to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Conspiracy theories have thier own forum;;this is the science forum. An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter. However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick. It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, 'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops. Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements. What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general? 1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2). On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer. 2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food. 3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat. 4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit 5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows. .Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures. In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change. Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects. Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses. https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
All i can tell you is to stay out of the Western part of the USA since you are so frightened you will resort to lying. We have deserts here where since you see warming as doom, you would die in minutes. Do not ever show up at Death Valley where it gets very hot. By the way, people like to go there even though it is rocking hot in most of the year.
Your so called scientific side is not good on science. Were it good, the "tipping point" said by Al Gore and politicians would not be a term used. Name the exact amount of CO2 you believe Earth can't handle so I can point you to several points that Earth did in fact tolerate CO2. I never saw such a cult over a beneficial gas. Obama got it classified pollution. Earth is in a gradual warming state. Note in the climate history how this has happened previously and with no help from humans. What solutions has the left come up with? 1. Driving us into shoebox sized cars. 2. Carbon Tax hikes galore. This is their aim. 3. No sea walls though they promise we need them. To fight their rising seas of course.
It's been too long since I studied Chemistry so I hope some of you are current. As I recall in college, the only school I studied Chemistry at, you balance chemical equations. They are called equations because they are balanced. I have the chemistry of burning gasoline. I have to question this though it is accurate. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_climate_change/p_burning_gasoline.html They cleverly are blocking us from copying it. But I can walk and chew gum at the same time, so here I go. What is on the left is entirely natural. What is on the right is due to burning gasoline. I want you to pay close attention to the water formed. Why don't the alarmists go over that part? Actually what we have on the two sides balance, chemically. You have 8 carbon dioxides yet it was already on the left side, "hidden" in plain sight in the left side of the equation. Then for one of you with actual background, give me the number we reach when earth is out of "control.?" I assume by control they mean mans control. I call that fiction. Man does not control climate. He has not yet learned to control weather. Had he done so, we would not have hurricanes nor Tornados and other weather phenomena..
Kamalayka wants to know the expertise of Ph.d's Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry Both are top notch climatologists. Ph.d. Lindzen himself has published peer reviewed papers numbering around 240 and is the author of a number of books in this field. Judith Curry was head of a climate department for a university and has testified to congress many times. Lindzen has also testified. By Curry Curry certainly is no slouch on climate
And I can show you PhD historians who deny the existence of Jesus. The fact is that the consensus supports AGW. If these two fellows had a legitimate view, it would have been put out there for peer review. Their colleagues must not take them seriously, which is why they appeal to the public.
Yes, but then you reply with more bullsht. If I ignore you, you'll think you've won this petty internet argument. Well, on second thought, I'll allow you the last word. I won't read it, though.
Environmentalist Hypocrisy and The Green Test http://EnvironmentalistHypocrisy.blogspot.com Daily Express Tuesday December 15,2009 CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
Curry is infamous for flirting with the denier community on the basis that some of them have "good ideas" and can't get their contrarian papers published. For instance, she has posted on Anthony Watts' blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegmann Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place. This and other shenanigans led Tamino of Open Mind to say, "Judith, your credibility is now below zero." In short, she's the Richard Lindzen of the South; or maybe the Roy Spencer of Georgia, take your pick.
In other words, she is a great climatologist and you don't like her. But Since AGW is not harming people on Earth, go ahead and trash fine scientists all day long. You have no proof, so have at it.
Robert, it is futile. Those people condemn their opposition with the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority, and then they proceed to use and abuse the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority. They never accept any point, or fact, or conclusion unless it suits their socialist/leftist/anti-capitalist worldview. Carbon dioxide paranoia isn't about science at all. It's about politics, and the hundreds of billions flowing from governments and private contributions to practitioners of the paranoia. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015 http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/ __________________ It is important to note that the widely quoted “97% of scientists” who are claimed to support anthropogenic global warming actually consists of 79 scientists hand-picked by a graduate student for a paper she published. This is not science, it is the anti-intellectual instigation of fear, for dollars, billions of dollars.
You personify the classic stereotype of the self-styled "environmentalist" who thinks you have all the answers, and anyone who deigns to disagree with you and that most notable "climate scientist," Al Gore, who by the way flunked out of the only science course he took in college, is extremely ignorant. Oh the arrogance of hypocrites who demand so much of others, and then fail to practice what they preach so sanctimoniously. Take Leonardo DiCaprio, please. And Al Gore. And Barack Obama. And on and on. The list is endless.
Well, latest reports are out about the Earth greening due to elevated CO2. A 140 million year decline in CO2 to levels that came close to threatening the survival of life on Earth can hardly be considered worth saving. Seas have been rising since the end of the last glaciation and it's lowest point 18,000 years ago and will continue to rise during this mild inter-glacial until the next glatiation period begins. Seas were higher during the last glaciation when man was not around to blame himself. Nothing new here except for the fact that man comes along and with very bad data from the past and a very short period of better data decides that all of a sudden it is all bad and all our fault.
