A Warmist has Declared the Science settled, He Lost

[westwall]

What do conservatives know about science? They believe that "Samson" grew weaker from a "haircut".

The Flintstones is a documentary.

Noah's Ark was a true historical event and the "Grand Canyon" is "proof".

Republicans teaching "Little Known Facts".

YouTube - Little Known Facts

Well this con knows a whole hell of a lot more about science than you ever will bucko.

Usually, when people brag that they know "so much", it's based on "delusional over confidence".

Recently I went to one of those seminars where they pay you $250 for a couple of hours to sit in front of a two way mirror at a big table with a bunch of engineers and talk about "engineering software, you know, 3d modeling, computational fluid dynamics, stress analysis and heat transfer and dynamic simulation.

It takes about 45 minutes or so to figure out who actually knows what they are talking about. So, how is it possible for half the people there to even be there when they clearly don't know what they are talking about?

It's because half of those people are managers and they don't actually use any of that software. To manage an engineering department, you only have to manage the results, you don't really need to use the tools. They just wanted the 250 bucks and thought they would BS their way through it, and they did.

You see, those that were managers talked about how they imagined the software worked, but they had no real experience. So it took the moderator some time to figure out who actually knew their stuff. You see, the moderator didn't know how to use it either. He was following questions that were given him. Every so often, he left to come back with new questions directed at certain people.

So what's the point? Well, I'm getting there.

That's like Republicans and science. They BS their way though how they "imagine" science to be. I've never met a Republican that you could get into a serious scientific discussion with because their ideas of science are so strange.
And not just science, but also scientists. What it takes to be a scientist, what real peer review means, what scientists actually do or even, "What is the Scientific Method".

So while you "brag" that you know "so much science", and maybe you do, based on other Republicans I've known, I doubt it.

What's especially hilarious are the conservatives on this board who say some bizarre nonsense, ended with, "There, you just got schooled". And then walk away giving themselves "virtual snap".

Who ever said I was a republican? I've been a Democrat my whole life numbnuts. I guess that blows your whole ridiculous theory out the window huh?

 

[westwall]

From the same report:

Why ED, you snivelling little bastard, you cherry pick your sources just like old fraud. Here is the WHOLE reference you twit. I highlighted the part you chose not to include to illustrate your pisstardedness. You will notice fellow readers that edthecynic, lying POS,
deleted the section that says

"at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent"

That my dear edthecynic lying pisstard is a 99%CL.


The Columbia accident, the selection of a booster for the Orbital Space Plane (OSP), and NASA’s recently renewed interest in exploring beyond low Earth orbit have led the Astronaut Office to reexamine its views on launch system safety. Although flying in space will always involve some measure of risk, it is our consensus that an order-of-magnitude reduction in the risk of loss of human life during ascent, compared to the Space Shuttle, is both achievable with current technology and consistent with NASA’s focus on steadily improving rocket reliability, and should therefore represent a minimum safety benchmark for future systems. To reach that target, the Astronaut Office offers the following recommendations.

The Astronaut Office recommends that the next human-rated launch system add abort or escape systems to a booster with ascent reliability at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent. The system should be designed to achieve or exceed its reliability requirement with 95% confidence.

The Astronaut Office recommends that new human-rated launch vehicle programs follow guidelines, such as those given in the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) Report and NASA’s Human Rating Requirements (NPG 8705), for safety-conscious management, requirements definition, concept development, and design selection.

The Astronaut Office recommends that NASA specify and maintain a set of formal, standardized, complete methods and processes to be used in predicting the reliability of human-rated spacecraft, and identify or create an independent body to verify those analyses.

The Astronaut Office recommends that the test program for the next human-rated launch system demonstrate its reliability through vigorous ground and flight testing of components and systems. The value of each test should be leveraged by proving a safe envelope larger than that expected during operations and by using flight data to validate system reliability models. After completion of the formal test program, the vigilance applied during testing to data gathering, analysis, and flight constraints should continue to be applied during operations. Reliability should be continuously reassessed.

The Astronaut Office believes that the next human-rated spacecraft must include a robust full-envelope abort or escape system. The safety of the overall system depends on the reliability of both the booster and the abort or escape system. As with the rocket itself, the abort or escape system reliability must be proven through flight testing.

See the first quote in my sig.

It clearly says that the higher CL is the GOAL for the NEXT human launch. That means that it was not the standard for all the past human launches. And more importantly, the 99% is not the CL, as it clearly says, it is 99% booster RELIABILITY during ascent with a 95% CL. So it says the goal is a 95% CL that the booster will be 99% reliable.
Learn to read.

at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent"


Why did you leave that part out there......ed.

 

[code1211]

REALITY is NOT SUBJECT to a vote.

If global warming is truly a problem, then what we currently believe on the issue isn't going to matter, much.

We will continue to experience weird weather, the ocieans will rise, the ice caps will melt and so forth.

Time will tell who among us (if anybody) is right.

Even gasping for their last breath in a parched land under the heat of a blazing sun, Republicans will never admit they were wrong.

The science of evolution and using the tools that understanding that science has brought us, among the scientific community, is considered one of the greatest achievement of mankind. Among some, it's considered THE greatest achievement.

But to those on the right, it's less believable than a flying glowing pigeon that makes up a trifecta of supreme magical power with an old bearded man in dirty wizard's robes who prefers underage virgins and his hung son.

So the proof is all around us for one and zero proof for the other. Which one do they prefer to believe? To the point of going to court and trying to force that belief on others?

And, apparently, reactionary, agenda driven Democrats will continue to rely on inbred preconceptions of a world that exists only in their deluded visions of Utopian Nirvana to support their biased, hate filled drive to exert control over people for no other reason than to display their innate superiority.

Dems hate large corporations which support the salaries and research of the 94% of scientists who self identify as Dems. Without the hated corporations, the scientists have no facilities and no income. Is it possible that the 94% who self ID as Dems don't have a clue when it comes to cause-effect?

If there is no cause effect, then much of the Global Warming Anthropogenic-caused logic makes sense.

You may have stumbled onto something here, R.

 

[westwall]

REALITY is NOT SUBJECT to a vote.

If global warming is truly a problem, then what we currently believe on the issue isn't going to matter, much.

We will continue to experience weird weather, the ocieans will rise, the ice caps will melt and so forth.

Time will tell who among us (if anybody) is right.

Even gasping for their last breath in a parched land under the heat of a blazing sun, Republicans will never admit they were wrong.

The science of evolution and using the tools that understanding that science has brought us, among the scientific community, is considered one of the greatest achievement of mankind. Among some, it's considered THE greatest achievement.

But to those on the right, it's less believable than a flying glowing pigeon that makes up a trifecta of supreme magical power with an old bearded man in dirty wizard's robes who prefers underage virgins and his hung son.

So the proof is all around us for one and zero proof for the other. Which one do they prefer to believe? To the point of going to court and trying to force that belief on others?

Wow, I suggest you look at the "tenets" of Global Warming there mr. dean. The "belief" in GW ticks off every box of a religion.

You are the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[edthecynic]

Why ED, you snivelling little bastard, you cherry pick your sources just like old fraud. Here is the WHOLE reference you twit. I highlighted the part you chose not to include to illustrate your pisstardedness. You will notice fellow readers that edthecynic, lying POS,
deleted the section that says

"at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent"

That my dear edthecynic lying pisstard is a 99%CL.


The Columbia accident, the selection of a booster for the Orbital Space Plane (OSP), and NASA’s recently renewed interest in exploring beyond low Earth orbit have led the Astronaut Office to reexamine its views on launch system safety. Although flying in space will always involve some measure of risk, it is our consensus that an order-of-magnitude reduction in the risk of loss of human life during ascent, compared to the Space Shuttle, is both achievable with current technology and consistent with NASA’s focus on steadily improving rocket reliability, and should therefore represent a minimum safety benchmark for future systems. To reach that target, the Astronaut Office offers the following recommendations.

The Astronaut Office recommends that the next human-rated launch system add abort or escape systems to a booster with ascent reliability at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent. The system should be designed to achieve or exceed its reliability requirement with 95% confidence.

The Astronaut Office recommends that new human-rated launch vehicle programs follow guidelines, such as those given in the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) Report and NASA’s Human Rating Requirements (NPG 8705), for safety-conscious management, requirements definition, concept development, and design selection.

The Astronaut Office recommends that NASA specify and maintain a set of formal, standardized, complete methods and processes to be used in predicting the reliability of human-rated spacecraft, and identify or create an independent body to verify those analyses.

The Astronaut Office recommends that the test program for the next human-rated launch system demonstrate its reliability through vigorous ground and flight testing of components and systems. The value of each test should be leveraged by proving a safe envelope larger than that expected during operations and by using flight data to validate system reliability models. After completion of the formal test program, the vigilance applied during testing to data gathering, analysis, and flight constraints should continue to be applied during operations. Reliability should be continuously reassessed.

The Astronaut Office believes that the next human-rated spacecraft must include a robust full-envelope abort or escape system. The safety of the overall system depends on the reliability of both the booster and the abort or escape system. As with the rocket itself, the abort or escape system reliability must be proven through flight testing.

See the first quote in my sig.

It clearly says that the higher CL is the GOAL for the NEXT human launch. That means that it was not the standard for all the past human launches. And more importantly, the 99% is not the CL, as it clearly says, it is 99% booster RELIABILITY during ascent with a 95% CL. So it says the goal is a 95% CL that the booster will be 99% reliable.
Learn to read.

at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent"


Why did you leave that part out there......ed.

So you have shifted from CL to "probability" of survival even AFTER I pointed out the difference!!! This 99% probability of survival has a 95% CL not a 99% CL. Admit it, either you are too stupid to know the difference between CL and reliability even after it has been explained to you, or you are playing dumb so people won't think you are a premeditated liar.

Why did you leave this part out?

"The Astronaut Office recommends that the next human-rated launch system add abort or escape systems to a booster with ascent reliability at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent. The system should be designed to achieve or exceed its reliability requirement with 95% confidence."

 

[rdean]

Well this con knows a whole hell of a lot more about science than you ever will bucko.

Usually, when people brag that they know "so much", it's based on "delusional over confidence".

Recently I went to one of those seminars where they pay you $250 for a couple of hours to sit in front of a two way mirror at a big table with a bunch of engineers and talk about "engineering software, you know, 3d modeling, computational fluid dynamics, stress analysis and heat transfer and dynamic simulation.

It takes about 45 minutes or so to figure out who actually knows what they are talking about. So, how is it possible for half the people there to even be there when they clearly don't know what they are talking about?

It's because half of those people are managers and they don't actually use any of that software. To manage an engineering department, you only have to manage the results, you don't really need to use the tools. They just wanted the 250 bucks and thought they would BS their way through it, and they did.

You see, those that were managers talked about how they imagined the software worked, but they had no real experience. So it took the moderator some time to figure out who actually knew their stuff. You see, the moderator didn't know how to use it either. He was following questions that were given him. Every so often, he left to come back with new questions directed at certain people.

So what's the point? Well, I'm getting there.

That's like Republicans and science. They BS their way though how they "imagine" science to be. I've never met a Republican that you could get into a serious scientific discussion with because their ideas of science are so strange.
And not just science, but also scientists. What it takes to be a scientist, what real peer review means, what scientists actually do or even, "What is the Scientific Method".

So while you "brag" that you know "so much science", and maybe you do, based on other Republicans I've known, I doubt it.

What's especially hilarious are the conservatives on this board who say some bizarre nonsense, ended with, "There, you just got schooled". And then walk away giving themselves "virtual snap".

Who ever said I was a republican? I've been a Democrat my whole life numbnuts. I guess that blows your whole ridiculous theory out the window huh?

Absolutley not.

My quote:

Usually, when people brag that they know "so much", it's based on "delusional over confidence".

Where does it say "Republican"? Wow, for someone who knows so much "science", you're not very "observant" and you "jump to conclusions". Definitely seems more Republican than Democrat.

Hey, you want a real hoot? There's some nutjob who's been using the following site as a "source":

CO2 Science

You have to read one of their "premier" articles: The Increasing Vigor of Earth's Terrestrial Plants

Makes you beg the question, "If CO2 was good for plants, then why don't they pump greenhouses full of CO2 and grow giant squash?"

HA HA HA HA HA HA

Ok, we'll let Mr. Science EXPERT figure that one out.

I can't wait.

 

[westwall]

See the first quote in my sig.

It clearly says that the higher CL is the GOAL for the NEXT human launch. That means that it was not the standard for all the past human launches. And more importantly, the 99% is not the CL, as it clearly says, it is 99% booster RELIABILITY during ascent with a 95% CL. So it says the goal is a 95% CL that the booster will be 99% reliable.
Learn to read.

at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent"


Why did you leave that part out there......ed.

So you have shifted from CL to "probability" of survival even AFTER I pointed out the difference!!! This 99% probability of survival has a 95% CL not a 99% CL. Admit it, either you are too stupid to know the difference between CL and reliability even after it has been explained to you, or you are playing dumb so people won't think you are a premeditated liar.

Why did you leave this part out?

"The Astronaut Office recommends that the next human-rated launch system add abort or escape systems to a booster with ascent reliability at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent. The system should be designed to achieve or exceed its reliability requirement with 95% confidence."

Not at all. you deleted the pertinent section which verified my contention that space travel had to have a 99%CL to launch you claimed a 95% CL. They are working on a replacement for the shuttle and it has to have at least a 99.9% chance of success to be produced.

Otherwise you would not have edited out that particular section now would you? edtheditor. You're arguing over the definition of "is" and you are just digging your hole deeper.

 

[edthecynic]

at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent"


Why did you leave that part out there......ed.

So you have shifted from CL to "probability" of survival even AFTER I pointed out the difference!!! This 99% probability of survival has a 95% CL not a 99% CL. Admit it, either you are too stupid to know the difference between CL and reliability even after it has been explained to you, or you are playing dumb so people won't think you are a premeditated liar.

Why did you leave this part out?

"The Astronaut Office recommends that the next human-rated launch system add abort or escape systems to a booster with ascent reliability at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent. The system should be designed to achieve or exceed its reliability requirement with 95% confidence."

Not at all. you deleted the pertinent section which verified my contention that space travel had to have a 99%CL to launch you claimed a 95% CL. They are working on a replacement for the shuttle and it has to have at least a 99.9% chance of success to be produced.

Otherwise you would not have edited out that particular section now would you? edtheditor. You're arguing over the definition of "is" and you are just digging your hole deeper.

No, you are trying to substitute a 95% CL of 99% reliability for a 99% CL. The article clearly says there is a 95% CL that the booster is 99% reliable. For your misinterpretation to be correct it would read that there was a 99% CL that the booster was 99% reliable. Why would they say that the CL is 95% if the 99% reliability was the same as the CL? You are trying to change the definition of "is" and you are exposing CON$ervative dishonesty instead.

 

[Andy]

The battle to get Americans to accept the science behind climate change has been “lost,” Dear idiot, not the science but the propaganda war.
I realise you have no idea they are different things.

I have a simple question in several parts.

1) If the Vostok Ice core records show the temperature going up and down for many millenia, how do we know with certainty that the temperature changes are not normal?

2) If the science is settled, can you point me to an accepted chart that shows the following?

a) the temperature trend line with mankind's influence removed (10,000 years will do fine)
b) the temperature trend line with mankind's influence added

That would be settled science. But science can't come even close to such a comparison.

 

[edthecynic]

The battle to get Americans to accept the science behind climate change has been “lost,” Dear idiot, not the science but the propaganda war.
I realise you have no idea they are different things.

I have a simple question in several parts.

1) If the Vostok Ice core records show the temperature going up and down for many millenia, how do we know with certainty that the temperature changes are not normal?

2) If the science is settled, can you point me to an accepted chart that shows the following?

a) the temperature trend line with mankind's influence removed (10,000 years will do fine)
b) the temperature trend line with mankind's influence added

That would be settled science. But science can't come even close to such a comparison.

1) The Vostok ice cores show that the interglacial warm periods were 10,000 years or less. According to that natural cycle the Little Ice Age should have become a full blown Ice Age but something seems to have interrupted this natural cycle.

2) The problem with comparing data from 10,000 years to the present data is you have to combine proxy data with direct instrument measurements, which deniers say you should never do after CRU tried it. Where proxy data and direct instrument data have overlapped the proxy data has been shown to be highly inaccurate. It is the direct instrument measurements that are used to show mankind's possible influence on the environment.

 

[rdean]

The battle to get Americans to accept the science behind climate change has been “lost,” Dear idiot, not the science but the propaganda war.
I realise you have no idea they are different things.

I have a simple question in several parts.

1) If the Vostok Ice core records show the temperature going up and down for many millenia, how do we know with certainty that the temperature changes are not normal?

2) If the science is settled, can you point me to an accepted chart that shows the following?

a) the temperature trend line with mankind's influence removed (10,000 years will do fine)
b) the temperature trend line with mankind's influence added

That would be settled science. But science can't come even close to such a comparison.

I think that one of the problems the right has with "science" is the refulal to look at the "big picture". They are always looking for a "way around". They are as bad as Wall Street Bankers looking for the next "loophole".

Global warming for instance, in the simple world of the right wing, earths temperature increasing by 1 degree would mean that today in Chicago, instead of 84 degrees, it's 85 degrees.

Another example is "snow". If there is more snow, then it must be colder, so global warming is a lie. If you point out that with less ice covering the oceans, a rise in water temperature, increased evaporation, that evaporation being deposited over land at higher altitudes, obviously, you end up with snow. What you get is "evaporation is merely a "theory" - you can't see it. Possibly an "over the top" example, but probably not.

So much for the right and science.

Do you know that many right wingers don't see a connection between "science" and "technology".

I noticed no one answered the question: If CO2 is so good for plants, then why don't they pump greenhouses full of CO2 and grow giant squash?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The battle to get Americans to accept the science behind climate change has been “lost,” Dear idiot, not the science but the propaganda war.
I realise you have no idea they are different things.

I have a simple question in several parts.

1) If the Vostok Ice core records show the temperature going up and down for many millenia, how do we know with certainty that the temperature changes are not normal?

2) If the science is settled, can you point me to an accepted chart that shows the following?

a) the temperature trend line with mankind's influence removed (10,000 years will do fine)
b) the temperature trend line with mankind's influence added

That would be settled science. But science can't come even close to such a comparison.

I think that one of the problems the right has with "science" is the refulal to look at the "big picture". They are always looking for a "way around". They are as bad as Wall Street Bankers looking for the next "loophole".

Global warming for instance, in the simple world of the right wing, earths temperature increasing by 1 degree would mean that today in Chicago, instead of 84 degrees, it's 85 degrees.

Another example is "snow". If there is more snow, then it must be colder, so global warming is a lie. If you point out that with less ice covering the oceans, a rise in water temperature, increased evaporation, that evaporation being deposited over land at higher altitudes, obviously, you end up with snow. What you get is "evaporation is merely a "theory" - you can't see it. Possibly an "over the top" example, but probably not.

So much for the right and science.

Do you know that many right wingers don't see a connection between "science" and "technology".

I noticed no one answered the question: If CO2 is so good for plants, then why don't they pump greenhouses full of CO2 and grow giant squash?

Agrimoney.com | Sugar giant heralds beet - and tomato - boosts

The use of raised carbon dioxide concentrations had "doubled crop yields in the glasshouse".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global Warming: it's an article of faith

 

[rdean]

I have a simple question in several parts.

1) If the Vostok Ice core records show the temperature going up and down for many millenia, how do we know with certainty that the temperature changes are not normal?

2) If the science is settled, can you point me to an accepted chart that shows the following?

a) the temperature trend line with mankind's influence removed (10,000 years will do fine)
b) the temperature trend line with mankind's influence added

That would be settled science. But science can't come even close to such a comparison.

I think that one of the problems the right has with "science" is the refulal to look at the "big picture". They are always looking for a "way around". They are as bad as Wall Street Bankers looking for the next "loophole".

Global warming for instance, in the simple world of the right wing, earths temperature increasing by 1 degree would mean that today in Chicago, instead of 84 degrees, it's 85 degrees.

Another example is "snow". If there is more snow, then it must be colder, so global warming is a lie. If you point out that with less ice covering the oceans, a rise in water temperature, increased evaporation, that evaporation being deposited over land at higher altitudes, obviously, you end up with snow. What you get is "evaporation is merely a "theory" - you can't see it. Possibly an "over the top" example, but probably not.

So much for the right and science.

Do you know that many right wingers don't see a connection between "science" and "technology".

I noticed no one answered the question: If CO2 is so good for plants, then why don't they pump greenhouses full of CO2 and grow giant squash?

Agrimoney.com | Sugar giant heralds beet - and tomato - boosts

The use of raised carbon dioxide concentrations had "doubled crop yields in the glasshouse".

I was just waiting for some moron to post that shit. I was goading and goading, waiting for just the right person and "Wallah". Look who pops up. This research has been going on all over the world for some time. Ususally I don't like to play "gotcha" because when you have facts on your side, you don't need to. But just this once, I wanted to see what it was like.

Imagine if we depended on the very few existing Republican scientists? We'd all be dead.

-------------------------------------------

Some biologists had theorized earlier that rising greenhouse gas levels would encourage plant growth over the long term because of the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plant physiologists from the University of California, Davis, may have further dashed those hopes.

They’ve shown that too much carbon dioxide, which plants need for energy, actually can inhibit a plant’s ability to assimilate nitrates – nitrogen-based nutrients pulled from the soil that plants use to make enzymes and other essential proteins.

Without those essential proteins, plant health – and food quality – may suffer, the researchers say in a study published online Thursday in the journal Science.

Plants get little benefit from increases in CO2 - Spokesman.com - May 15, 2010

BEIJING] Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could make rice and wheat grow faster but be less nutritious, say Chinese scientists. The impact on agriculture could be profound.

Rising carbon dioxide could make crops less nutritious - SciDev.Net

insects will confront less nutritious host plants that will induce both lengthened larval ..... by increased CO2 and negatively affected by the insect ...

http://faculty.ucr.edu/~john/24 Cons.Biol.pdf

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

 

[rdean]

I think that one of the problems the right has with "science" is the refulal to look at the "big picture". They are always looking for a "way around". They are as bad as Wall Street Bankers looking for the next "loophole".

Global warming for instance, in the simple world of the right wing, earths temperature increasing by 1 degree would mean that today in Chicago, instead of 84 degrees, it's 85 degrees.

Another example is "snow". If there is more snow, then it must be colder, so global warming is a lie. If you point out that with less ice covering the oceans, a rise in water temperature, increased evaporation, that evaporation being deposited over land at higher altitudes, obviously, you end up with snow. What you get is "evaporation is merely a "theory" - you can't see it. Possibly an "over the top" example, but probably not.

So much for the right and science.

Do you know that many right wingers don't see a connection between "science" and "technology".

I noticed no one answered the question: If CO2 is so good for plants, then why don't they pump greenhouses full of CO2 and grow giant squash?

Agrimoney.com | Sugar giant heralds beet - and tomato - boosts

The use of raised carbon dioxide concentrations had "doubled crop yields in the glasshouse".

I was just waiting for some moron to post that shit. I was goading and goading, waiting for just the right person and "Wallah". Look who pops up. This research has been going on all over the world for some time. Ususally I don't like to play "gotcha" because when you have facts on your side, you don't need to. But just this once, I wanted to see what it was like.

Imagine if we depended on the very few existing Republican scientists? We'd all be dead.

-------------------------------------------

Some biologists had theorized earlier that rising greenhouse gas levels would encourage plant growth over the long term because of the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plant physiologists from the University of California, Davis, may have further dashed those hopes.

They’ve shown that too much carbon dioxide, which plants need for energy, actually can inhibit a plant’s ability to assimilate nitrates – nitrogen-based nutrients pulled from the soil that plants use to make enzymes and other essential proteins.

Without those essential proteins, plant health – and food quality – may suffer, the researchers say in a study published online Thursday in the journal Science.

Plants get little benefit from increases in CO2 - Spokesman.com - May 15, 2010

BEIJING] Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could make rice and wheat grow faster but be less nutritious, say Chinese scientists. The impact on agriculture could be profound.

Rising carbon dioxide could make crops less nutritious - SciDev.Net

insects will confront less nutritious host plants that will induce both lengthened larval ..... by increased CO2 and negatively affected by the insect ...

http://faculty.ucr.edu/~john/24 Cons.Biol.pdf

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Still waiting for that snappy scientific right wing comeback.

 

[Old Rocks]

The battle to get Americans to accept the science behind climate change has been “lost,” Dear idiot, not the science but the propaganda war.
I realise you have no idea they are different things.

I have a simple question in several parts.

1) If the Vostok Ice core records show the temperature going up and down for many millenia, how do we know with certainty that the temperature changes are not normal?

2) If the science is settled, can you point me to an accepted chart that shows the following?

a) the temperature trend line with mankind's influence removed (10,000 years will do fine)
b) the temperature trend line with mankind's influence added

That would be settled science. But science can't come even close to such a comparison.

If you actually would do a bit of research, you could find the answer for every one of those questions.

Science has, indeed, answered every one of those questions. Just to get you started, here is a real scientist at the top of his craft;

A23A

And this is who the Dr. Alley is;

Richard Alley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Richard B. Alley (born 1957) is an American geologist and Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at the Pennsylvania State University.[3] He has authored more than 170 refereed scientific publications about the relationships between Earth's cryosphere and global climate change,[1] and is recognized by the Institute for Scientific Information as a "highly cited researcher."[4]


Alley was awarded the Seligman Crystal in 2005 "for his prodigious contribution to our understanding of the stability of the ice sheets and glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland, and of erosion and sedimentation by this moving ice."[1] Alley is one of several Penn State earth scientists who are contributors to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Prize with Al Gore.

In 2005 he was also the first recipient of the Louis Agassiz Medal for his "outstanding and sustained contribution to glaciology and for his effective communication of important scientific issues in the public policy arena".[7] His award citation stated "He is imaginative, sharp and humorous, and remains a thorn in the backside of the Bush administration."[7]

In 2008 Alley was elected to the National Academy of Sciences.

 

[Andy]

So show me the charts.

And tell me when the natural cycle would be heading colder if man's influence were removed.

These should not be difficult questions for a settled science.

 

[westwall]

Agrimoney.com | Sugar giant heralds beet - and tomato - boosts

The use of raised carbon dioxide concentrations had "doubled crop yields in the glasshouse".

I was just waiting for some moron to post that shit. I was goading and goading, waiting for just the right person and "Wallah". Look who pops up. This research has been going on all over the world for some time. Ususally I don't like to play "gotcha" because when you have facts on your side, you don't need to. But just this once, I wanted to see what it was like.

Imagine if we depended on the very few existing Republican scientists? We'd all be dead.

-------------------------------------------

Some biologists had theorized earlier that rising greenhouse gas levels would encourage plant growth over the long term because of the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plant physiologists from the University of California, Davis, may have further dashed those hopes.

They’ve shown that too much carbon dioxide, which plants need for energy, actually can inhibit a plant’s ability to assimilate nitrates – nitrogen-based nutrients pulled from the soil that plants use to make enzymes and other essential proteins.

Without those essential proteins, plant health – and food quality – may suffer, the researchers say in a study published online Thursday in the journal Science.

Plants get little benefit from increases in CO2 - Spokesman.com - May 15, 2010

BEIJING] Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could make rice and wheat grow faster but be less nutritious, say Chinese scientists. The impact on agriculture could be profound.

Rising carbon dioxide could make crops less nutritious - SciDev.Net

insects will confront less nutritious host plants that will induce both lengthened larval ..... by increased CO2 and negatively affected by the insect ...

http://faculty.ucr.edu/~john/24 Cons.Biol.pdf

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Still waiting for that snappy scientific right wing comeback.

Here you go.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl4kgnAObQ4]YouTube - CO2 Induced Cowpea Plant Growth[/ame]

 

[westwall]

I think that one of the problems the right has with "science" is the refulal to look at the "big picture". They are always looking for a "way around". They are as bad as Wall Street Bankers looking for the next "loophole".

Global warming for instance, in the simple world of the right wing, earths temperature increasing by 1 degree would mean that today in Chicago, instead of 84 degrees, it's 85 degrees.

Another example is "snow". If there is more snow, then it must be colder, so global warming is a lie. If you point out that with less ice covering the oceans, a rise in water temperature, increased evaporation, that evaporation being deposited over land at higher altitudes, obviously, you end up with snow. What you get is "evaporation is merely a "theory" - you can't see it. Possibly an "over the top" example, but probably not.

So much for the right and science.

Do you know that many right wingers don't see a connection between "science" and "technology".

I noticed no one answered the question: If CO2 is so good for plants, then why don't they pump greenhouses full of CO2 and grow giant squash?

Agrimoney.com | Sugar giant heralds beet - and tomato - boosts

The use of raised carbon dioxide concentrations had "doubled crop yields in the glasshouse".

I was just waiting for some moron to post that shit. I was goading and goading, waiting for just the right person and "Wallah". Look who pops up. This research has been going on all over the world for some time. Ususally I don't like to play "gotcha" because when you have facts on your side, you don't need to. But just this once, I wanted to see what it was like.

Imagine if we depended on the very few existing Republican scientists? We'd all be dead.

-------------------------------------------

Some biologists had theorized earlier that rising greenhouse gas levels would encourage plant growth over the long term because of the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plant physiologists from the University of California, Davis, may have further dashed those hopes.

They’ve shown that too much carbon dioxide, which plants need for energy, actually can inhibit a plant’s ability to assimilate nitrates – nitrogen-based nutrients pulled from the soil that plants use to make enzymes and other essential proteins.

Without those essential proteins, plant health – and food quality – may suffer, the researchers say in a study published online Thursday in the journal Science.

Plants get little benefit from increases in CO2 - Spokesman.com - May 15, 2010

BEIJING] Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could make rice and wheat grow faster but be less nutritious, say Chinese scientists. The impact on agriculture could be profound.

Rising carbon dioxide could make crops less nutritious - SciDev.Net

insects will confront less nutritious host plants that will induce both lengthened larval ..... by increased CO2 and negatively affected by the insect ...

http://faculty.ucr.edu/~john/24 Cons.Biol.pdf

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

The video above shows the first contention to be quite simply ludicrous.

The second point about CO2 could cause vegies and rice et al to be less nutritious is likewise not supported by fact. The reason why veggies etc. are not as good today as back in the 1950's is because they are bred for looks not nutrition.

Looks Great, Less Nutritious? | Mother Jones

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rdean didn't read any of the articles he posted, this is so fucking tiring.

I posted where people are actually growing giant produce in an enriched CO2 environment and Freddo posts articles that says theoretically that shouldn't happen!

What a fucking retard!

Rdean, you're smart, not like everyone says, like DUMB! And you want respect too because you pounced on my article showing stuff really happening with articles that says Global Warming will make us starve!

Read the stuff you link to, try it once...or don't, just keep humiliating yourself