i'm sorry, what's wrong with CO2 again?

[Liberty]

Doesn't more CO2 mean faster plant growth, which means more food for people? Why do liberals want to take food from people?

 

[IanC]

Anything that man does is evil and must be punished by catastrope. It is just as true now as it was in biblical times.

 

[xotoxi]

Doesn't more CO2 mean faster plant growth, which means more food for people? Why do liberals want to take food from people?

Your pretty much an idiot, aren't you?

 

[IanC]

Doesn't more CO2 mean faster plant growth, which means more food for people? Why do liberals want to take food from people?

Your pretty much an idiot, aren't you?

Do you deny that libbys are the reason that corn crops have been diverted for ethanol production, leading to higher food prices which hurt the poor of the world disproportionally?

 

[xotoxi]

Doesn't more CO2 mean faster plant growth, which means more food for people? Why do liberals want to take food from people?

Your pretty much an idiot, aren't you?

Do you deny that libbys are the reason that corn crops have been diverted for ethanol production, leading to higher food prices which hurt the poor of the world disproportionally?

What does that have to do with faster plant growth with more CO2?

 

[Liberty]

Doesn't more CO2 mean faster plant growth, which means more food for people? Why do liberals want to take food from people?

Your pretty much an idiot, aren't you?

why don't you disprove my point instead of openly being a douche?

 

[westwall]

Doesn't more CO2 mean faster plant growth, which means more food for people? Why do liberals want to take food from people?

Your pretty much an idiot, aren't you?

Let me correct your sentence so you don't look too much like an idiot.

You meant to write

"You're pretty much an idiot aren't you?"

You'll notice the change in the spelling of you're. Right? You see you're is a contraction of you are.

Your is a possessive form of you which I believe is called an attributive adjective in English classes.

 

[IanC]

You called Liberty an idiot for pointing out that increased CO2 helps plants grow faster, inferring that the cause for increased CO2 is worse than the benefits. I was pointing out that 'fixes' for one problem that gets a lot of press often involve 'The Law of Unintended Consequences' by causing worse problems than the original situation. As this forum deals mostly with AGW, I am warning that changes implimented to decrease CO2 emmissions will likely cause more harm than good.

 

[xotoxi]

Doesn't more CO2 mean faster plant growth, which means more food for people? Why do liberals want to take food from people?

Your pretty much an idiot, aren't you?

Let me correct your sentence so you don't look too much like an idiot.

You meant to write

"You're pretty much an idiot aren't you?"

You'll notice the change in the spelling of you're. Right? You see you're is a contraction of you are.

Your is a possessive form of you which I believe is called an attributive adjective in English classes.

Thank you. Help with grammar is always appreciated.

 

[Liberty]

You called Liberty an idiot for pointing out that increased CO2 helps plants grow faster, inferring that the cause for increased CO2 is worse than the benefits. I was pointing out that 'fixes' for one problem that gets a lot of press often involve 'The Law of Unintended Consequences' by causing worse problems than the original situation. As this forum deals mostly with AGW, I am warning that changes implimented to decrease CO2 emmissions will likely cause more harm than good.

exactly! now, METHANE on the other hand....curbing that SOB should be top priority, not life/food creating gases like CO2.

 

[IanC]

Take the high road. Don't stoop to the level of your opponents

 

[xotoxi]

Doesn't more CO2 mean faster plant growth, which means more food for people? Why do liberals want to take food from people?

Your pretty much an idiot, aren't you?

why don't you disprove my point instead of openly being a douche?

My bad. Increased CO2 does increase plant growth. You are correct.

 

[IanC]

You called Liberty an idiot for pointing out that increased CO2 helps plants grow faster, inferring that the cause for increased CO2 is worse than the benefits. I was pointing out that 'fixes' for one problem that gets a lot of press often involve 'The Law of Unintended Consequences' by causing worse problems than the original situation. As this forum deals mostly with AGW, I am warning that changes implimented to decrease CO2 emmissions will likely cause more harm than good.

exactly! now, METHANE on the other hand....curbing that SOB should be top priority, not life/food creating gases like CO2.

But I like eating beef! Cows are big methane producers but I don't want to do without them.

 

[Liberty]

You called Liberty an idiot for pointing out that increased CO2 helps plants grow faster, inferring that the cause for increased CO2 is worse than the benefits. I was pointing out that 'fixes' for one problem that gets a lot of press often involve 'The Law of Unintended Consequences' by causing worse problems than the original situation. As this forum deals mostly with AGW, I am warning that changes implimented to decrease CO2 emmissions will likely cause more harm than good.

exactly! now, METHANE on the other hand....curbing that SOB should be top priority, not life/food creating gases like CO2.

But I like eating beef! Cows are big methane producers but I don't want to do without them.

there are much larger methane sources out there, unfortunately its almost all natural. that was the point...i gaffed.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, the increased CO2 has definately helped with the Russian and European grain crops this year.

Increased CO2 does increase most plant growth. However, it also leads to climate change as the warming changes atmospheric circultation patterns. And we see the results now in Russia and Asia.

 

[Old Rocks]

exactly! now, METHANE on the other hand....curbing that SOB should be top priority, not life/food creating gases like CO2.

But I like eating beef! Cows are big methane producers but I don't want to do without them.

there are much larger methane sources out there, unfortunately its almost all natural. that was the point...i gaffed.

Natural, if you regard the heating of the Arctic resulting from the massive increase in Anthropogenic GHGs as natural.

 

[uscitizen]

Doesn't more CO2 mean faster plant growth, which means more food for people? Why do liberals want to take food from people?

It makes dropped cans of beer very hard to drink.

 

[taichiliberal]

Doesn't more CO2 mean faster plant growth, which means more food for people? Why do liberals want to take food from people?

For Your information:


Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done


Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done - Newsweek

 

[Liberty]

Doesn't more CO2 mean faster plant growth, which means more food for people? Why do liberals want to take food from people?

For Your information:


Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done


Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done - Newsweek

Credible source is credible.

 

[IanC]

So if the AGW alarmists throw a few individuals under the bus everything is Ok? The Himalayan glaciers aren' going to melt by 2035? Thank goodness. But why were we told that in the first place? It doesn't fix my respect for the alarmists when they finally correct mistakes that they shouldn't have made in the first place.