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

[Douger]

What's wrong with C02 ? It's being exhaled from your lungs.
Quit breathing.
Oxygen thief.

 

[hortysir]

Given the breadth of the lies told by Monkton, Senator Inhofe, Anthony Watt, ect. the only defense the denialists have is 'they are also liars'. Since the denialists here cannot deny the science, they must engage in character assasination.

Jones, Mann, and all were completely exonerated. Their science was reviewed and found to be solid. They were only reprimanded, rather mildly, for reacting as human beings to assholes that were harrassing them.

A developed science is predictive. The climatologists predicted that the temperatures would continue to go up, and they certainly have. They predicted that certain areas would see damaging heat waves, areas that are not prone to them. And that is exactly what we are seeing right now. They predicted more intense and frequent precipitation events. That too is quite evident today.

In the meantime the denialists stated that the temperture rise was done in 1998. And in spite of the fact that 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record, predicted cooler temperatures for this and coming years.

Great diversion!!

Now, tell me, what is happening in Russia, Europe and Asia?

 

[daveman]

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.

Russia, Europe, AND Asia??


So, pray tell, what has happened in these regions that has to do with this discussion?

Weather.

 

[uscitizen]

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?

Biggest cheerleader for ethanol?

Robert Dole, Republican.

Or have you conveniently forgotten all those ads he did for CARGIL?

And remember Justice Roberts used to work for Monsanto.

 

[konradv]

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

No, you're not sorry or you wouldn't be posting another clueless message that's been debunked repeatedly. More heat might make some areas more fertile, but it certainly wouldn't do so everywhere, making you post quite worthless, IMHO.

 

[westwall]

They have been scrutinized. It is called peer review. Were the denialists to face similiar scrutinization, none of their nonsense would see the light of day.

Yes peer reviewed by fellow travellers. If I go out and commit murder and am allowed to determine what evidence the prosecution gets to use what would you like to bet I am found innocent?

More on Oxburgh's eleven
Jul 18, 2010 Climate When my FoI request to Imperial led to the disclosure of the Hand and Hoskins emails, there were many redactions of names, which I found rather frustrating. From the language of many of the emails, it appeared that many of the names were of senior people and should thus have been disclosed. I queried this with Imperial who have now disclosed almost all of the relevant detail.

One interesting snippet has emerged from this. When the original emails were released I reported on an inquiry made to Lord Oxburgh by Oliver Morton of the Economist about how Oxburgh's Eleven papers were chosen. When he replied, Oxburgh said in essence that he didn't know.

What I received was a list from the university which I understand was chosen by the Royal Society The contact with the RS was I believe through [name redacted] but I don't know who he consulted. [Name redacted], when I asked him, agreed that the original sample was fair.

Well, now we know who the redactions were. The contact through with the Royal Society was through Martin Rees - we knew that already. The other redaction, the other person consulted about whether the sample of papers was reasonable, was...Phil Jones.

Now, whichever way you look at it, this is a funny question to put to the accused if one's objective is a fair trial. I mean, what could Jones say? "You've picked all my bad papers"? And of course Jones must have known that the sample was not representative.


- Bishop Hill blog - More on Oxburgh'seleven