Debate Now Maybe We Need More CO2 and Not Less?

[westwall]

Yes, they do!

And if you read the article you would already know that we destroying the forests at a record rate.

Deforestation is the permanent destruction of forests in order to make the land available for other uses. An estimated 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares) of forest, which is roughly the size of the country of Panama, are lost each year, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Some other statistics:​

• • About half of the world's tropical forests have been cleared (FAO)
  • Forests currently cover about 30 percent of the world’s land mass (National Geographic)
  • Forest loss contributes between 6 percent and 12 percent of annual global
  • carbon dioxide emissions (Nature Geoscience)
  • About 36 football fields worth of trees lost every minute (World Wildlife Fund (WWF))

So if the solution is forests then what are we going to do to stop deforestation?

According to some very positive results in slowing deforestation a carbon tax was not the solution. In the case of Brazil - Amazon - tropical forest - the solution looked like this:

"The recent 70% decline in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon suggests that it is possible to manage the advance of a vast agricultural frontier. Enforcement of laws, interventions in soy and beef supply chains, restrictions on access to credit, and expansion of protected areas appear to have contributed to this decline, as did a decline in the demand for new deforestation."

Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains

.

I read recently that here in the United States we are planting 30% more trees than we are cutting down. Some speculate there are more trees in the USA than there were when Columbus arrived here in the 15th Century.

Sadly that is not true elsewhere in the world, but your source suggests that we might be getting a handle on that too. Certainly that is where the focus needs to be and not in places that are already doing a good job of forest management. There is certainly a balance that needs to be achieved, but trees are a renewable resource so it would seem that if there is a will, that balance is manageable.

And the question again remains--are the higher CO2 levels a good thing or a bad thing?

I came at the question you posed from my belief that the planet is self-regulating and that the history of the earth has shown dramatic shifts in the climate which have been redressed over time.

I believe that CO2 is important to the life cycle and as such a good thing.

.

That doesn't get said much in the debate from the AGW proponent side though does it? The arguments there all seem to think that if we reduce CO2 dramatically, we save the Earth from catastrophic consequences. And it is almost never discussed how much CO2 we actually need or is beneficial.

Others posted the recent study that could show that higher CO2 levels decrease the nutrient value in some food crops. And if you Google for that, you find dozens if not hundreds of sites--all supporting IPPC conclusions--restating or reprinting information about that study. Such things go really viral very quickly. Among those, only the National Geographic seems to take a really scientific view about it that it is one study involving two fields of crops, it is not conclusive, and while it is important, it only provides speculation about what might be happening.

And it did not include tests of crops grown in hundreds and thousands of greenhouses in which CO2 is kept at levels much higher than occurs in nature. I find that rather odd.

So for me, that is something to file back as something to pay attention to. But not something that I see as conclusive because of my natural skepticism of possibly self-serving kinds of things in these debates. Who funded the study? I haven't been able to find out. And is it the next 'we're all doomed' scenario to keep the funding pouring in since they all seem to be running out of steam on the global warming thing that just isn't happening as the computer models predicted.

So if it is a problem, we should know soon enough. And

........and you have never heard me say that we are doomed. MOST of the world gets it. We'll find a way. My way.......listening to scientists....just costs less.

Actually, the preferred method of the AGW supporters requires the expenditure of 76 trillion dollars to reduce the global temperature by one degree in one hundred years.....maybe.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

I can positively assure you that that 76 trillion dollars could be far better spent developing methods to mitigate any deleterious effect that global warming would have. Because, you have to remember, not all of the effects are going to be bad. There will most likely be more benefits to a warmer world than there are negatives.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If the question is:

Should we focus on CO2 and CO2 only......

The answer is no. There are other factors involved.

But....the subject of the OP suggests that focusing on CO2 is wrong...because the environment can handle 1500ppm and everything is cool. That's without merit.

 

[LoneLaugher]

According to some very positive results in slowing deforestation a carbon tax was not the solution. In the case of Brazil - Amazon - tropical forest - the solution looked like this:

"The recent 70% decline in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon suggests that it is possible to manage the advance of a vast agricultural frontier. Enforcement of laws, interventions in soy and beef supply chains, restrictions on access to credit, and expansion of protected areas appear to have contributed to this decline, as did a decline in the demand for new deforestation."

Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains

.

I read recently that here in the United States we are planting 30% more trees than we are cutting down. Some speculate there are more trees in the USA than there were when Columbus arrived here in the 15th Century.

Sadly that is not true elsewhere in the world, but your source suggests that we might be getting a handle on that too. Certainly that is where the focus needs to be and not in places that are already doing a good job of forest management. There is certainly a balance that needs to be achieved, but trees are a renewable resource so it would seem that if there is a will, that balance is manageable.

And the question again remains--are the higher CO2 levels a good thing or a bad thing?

I came at the question you posed from my belief that the planet is self-regulating and that the history of the earth has shown dramatic shifts in the climate which have been redressed over time.

I believe that CO2 is important to the life cycle and as such a good thing.

.

That doesn't get said much in the debate from the AGW proponent side though does it? The arguments there all seem to think that if we reduce CO2 dramatically, we save the Earth from catastrophic consequences. And it is almost never discussed how much CO2 we actually need or is beneficial.

Others posted the recent study that could show that higher CO2 levels decrease the nutrient value in some food crops. And if you Google for that, you find dozens if not hundreds of sites--all supporting IPPC conclusions--restating or reprinting information about that study. Such things go really viral very quickly. Among those, only the National Geographic seems to take a really scientific view about it that it is one study involving two fields of crops, it is not conclusive, and while it is important, it only provides speculation about what might be happening.

And it did not include tests of crops grown in hundreds and thousands of greenhouses in which CO2 is kept at levels much higher than occurs in nature. I find that rather odd.

So for me, that is something to file back as something to pay attention to. But not something that I see as conclusive because of my natural skepticism of possibly self-serving kinds of things in these debates. Who funded the study? I haven't been able to find out. And is it the next 'we're all doomed' scenario to keep the funding pouring in since they all seem to be running out of steam on the global warming thing that just isn't happening as the computer models predicted.

So if it is a problem, we should know soon enough. And

........and you have never heard me say that we are doomed. MOST of the world gets it. We'll find a way. My way.......listening to scientists....just costs less.

Actually, the preferred method of the AGW supporters requires the expenditure of 76 trillion dollars to reduce the global temperature by one degree in one hundred years.....maybe.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

I can positively assure you that that 76 trillion dollars could be far better spent developing methods to mitigate any deleterious effect that global warming would have. Because, you have to remember, not all of the effects are going to be bad. There will most likely be more benefits to a warmer world than there are negatives.

Pffffffffffft!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Isn't a carbon tax just another public policy similar to protecting forested areas and enforcing laws?

Either way it was government intervention that was the incentive to reduce the rate of deforestation in just one nation. Only another 180 or so to go.

Brazil successfully reduced deforestation through enforcement of laws prohibiting illegal logging (a law that exists in many countries and that had been on their books for many years) and working with the agricultural sector, but carbon taxes did not play a role.

The effort to end deforestation is gaining momentum:

"Dozens of Governments, businesses, civil society and indigenous peoples participating in the United Nations Climate Summit in New York today pledged to halve deforestation by 2020 and to end within the following decade."

United Nations News Centre - Governments corporations pledge at UN summit to eliminate deforestation by 2030

Reducing deforestation is not enough. It needs to be reversed if you expect nature to be able to absorb the excess atmospheric CO2.

Note that it is primarily governments working to deal with this problem. Yes, there are a few corporations trying to gain free advertising out of "supporting" this referendum but it has no legal status at all. It depends upon the willingness of those nations to actually put those programs into practice.

In this nation we have activists trying to eliminate the EPA and privatize the Parks service so that they can cut down the forests and drill for more oil.

It isn't as though the USA is a role model for the rest of the world to follow.

The research I posted earlier and a number of similar studies point to the fact that trees are increasing the rate at which they absorb CO2, which in turn has increased their growth rates. Will fewer trees absorbing more CO2 have an effect over time?

.

The research I posted earlier showed that increased CO2 has a detrimental impact on other plants, specifically major food crops. The laboratory studies on the impact of higher CO2 levels on plant growth don't translate into the real world. In fact many of the same plants actually do worse because they enable greater insect growth rates and diseases.

Basically we are heading into uncharted waters and our predictions are only as good as our current data. Plankton blooms sound like a boon to sea life but they can have the opposite effect by lowering the oxygen content of the water. Rising temperatures mean greater evaporation rates which means that aquifers are being exhausted at a rate greater than they can be replenished.

We are gambling on an unknown outcome without any viable alternative if it fails. Is that a prudent thing to do if you expect your children and grandchildren to survive and prosper?

You haven't mentioned what your solution is. Personally I'm planting more trees. May I ask what your solution is?

To be honest I plant trees because I like them. Nothing to do with CO2 concerns.

.

I insist that for every tree that must be cut down that at least one is planted in it's place, if not two. I also actively reduce my own carbon emissions by driving a hybrid vehicle, replaced all my lights with LED's, upgraded my HVAC and hot water to high energy efficiency models. I will be replacing the roof in the next couple of years with a "green roof" too.

Yes, I take active steps to preserve the future for those that come after because we are merely the trustees of this planet, not it's owners. We have a duty to pass it on to the next generations in a better state than we received it IMO.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Isn't a carbon tax just another public policy similar to protecting forested areas and enforcing laws?

Either way it was government intervention that was the incentive to reduce the rate of deforestation in just one nation. Only another 180 or so to go.

Brazil successfully reduced deforestation through enforcement of laws prohibiting illegal logging (a law that exists in many countries and that had been on their books for many years) and working with the agricultural sector, but carbon taxes did not play a role.

The effort to end deforestation is gaining momentum:

"Dozens of Governments, businesses, civil society and indigenous peoples participating in the United Nations Climate Summit in New York today pledged to halve deforestation by 2020 and to end within the following decade."

United Nations News Centre - Governments corporations pledge at UN summit to eliminate deforestation by 2030

Reducing deforestation is not enough. It needs to be reversed if you expect nature to be able to absorb the excess atmospheric CO2.

Note that it is primarily governments working to deal with this problem. Yes, there are a few corporations trying to gain free advertising out of "supporting" this referendum but it has no legal status at all. It depends upon the willingness of those nations to actually put those programs into practice.

In this nation we have activists trying to eliminate the EPA and privatize the Parks service so that they can cut down the forests and drill for more oil.

It isn't as though the USA is a role model for the rest of the world to follow.

The research I posted earlier and a number of similar studies point to the fact that trees are increasing the rate at which they absorb CO2, which in turn has increased their growth rates. Will fewer trees absorbing more CO2 have an effect over time?

.

The research I posted earlier showed that increased CO2 has a detrimental impact on other plants, specifically major food crops. The laboratory studies on the impact of higher CO2 levels on plant growth don't translate into the real world. In fact many of the same plants actually do worse because they enable greater insect growth rates and diseases.

Basically we are heading into uncharted waters and our predictions are only as good as our current data. Plankton blooms sound like a boon to sea life but they can have the opposite effect by lowering the oxygen content of the water. Rising temperatures mean greater evaporation rates which means that aquifers are being exhausted at a rate greater than they can be replenished.

We are gambling on an unknown outcome without any viable alternative if it fails. Is that a prudent thing to do if you expect your children and grandchildren to survive and prosper?

You haven't mentioned what your solution is. Personally I'm planting more trees. May I ask what your solution is?

To be honest I plant trees because I like them. Nothing to do with CO2 concerns.

.

Then how is that a solution?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Brazil successfully reduced deforestation through enforcement of laws prohibiting illegal logging (a law that exists in many countries and that had been on their books for many years) and working with the agricultural sector, but carbon taxes did not play a role.

The effort to end deforestation is gaining momentum:

"Dozens of Governments, businesses, civil society and indigenous peoples participating in the United Nations Climate Summit in New York today pledged to halve deforestation by 2020 and to end within the following decade."

United Nations News Centre - Governments corporations pledge at UN summit to eliminate deforestation by 2030

Reducing deforestation is not enough. It needs to be reversed if you expect nature to be able to absorb the excess atmospheric CO2.

Note that it is primarily governments working to deal with this problem. Yes, there are a few corporations trying to gain free advertising out of "supporting" this referendum but it has no legal status at all. It depends upon the willingness of those nations to actually put those programs into practice.

In this nation we have activists trying to eliminate the EPA and privatize the Parks service so that they can cut down the forests and drill for more oil.

It isn't as though the USA is a role model for the rest of the world to follow.

The research I posted earlier and a number of similar studies point to the fact that trees are increasing the rate at which they absorb CO2, which in turn has increased their growth rates. Will fewer trees absorbing more CO2 have an effect over time?

.

The research I posted earlier showed that increased CO2 has a detrimental impact on other plants, specifically major food crops. The laboratory studies on the impact of higher CO2 levels on plant growth don't translate into the real world. In fact many of the same plants actually do worse because they enable greater insect growth rates and diseases.

Basically we are heading into uncharted waters and our predictions are only as good as our current data. Plankton blooms sound like a boon to sea life but they can have the opposite effect by lowering the oxygen content of the water. Rising temperatures mean greater evaporation rates which means that aquifers are being exhausted at a rate greater than they can be replenished.

We are gambling on an unknown outcome without any viable alternative if it fails. Is that a prudent thing to do if you expect your children and grandchildren to survive and prosper?

You haven't mentioned what your solution is. Personally I'm planting more trees. May I ask what your solution is?

To be honest I plant trees because I like them. Nothing to do with CO2 concerns.

.

I insist that for every tree that must be cut down that at least one is planted in it's place, if not two. I also actively reduce my own carbon emissions by driving a hybrid vehicle, replaced all my lights with LED's, upgraded my HVAC and hot water to high energy efficiency models. I will be replacing the roof in the next couple of years with a "green roof" too.

Yes, I take active steps to preserve the future for those that come after because we are merely the trustees of this planet, not it's owners. We have a duty to pass it on to the next generations in a better state than we received it IMO.

I drive a hybrid also. Every bulb is LED....and my wife works nights...so I take cold showers!!!!

 

[westwall]

First...Dr. Moore's argument is an opinion...and not necessarily founded on good science and that influences it's merit.

Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?

1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions or it should be disbanded.

The scientific consensus thus far is overwhelmingly in support of anthropogenic induced climate change. If substantial evidence came out that other factors are the main contributors, then that IPPC's mandate should be expanded. As of now, non-anthropogenic climate change is a fringe group with strong ties to the traditional energy sector and industry.

To demand that it should investigate, with equal fervor, ALL possible causes seems a really wasteful demand. When trying to find a cause for something - you quickly rule out the least likely or least supported causes, and concentrate on those that have the most evidence supporting them or that seem the most likely to produce an answer.

2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.

There are a lot of things essential to life and they are all interconnected. When one elements is out of balance it has a ripple effect through out ecosystems. Just because something is "good" doesn't mean that more of it is "better".

The problem with consensus science is it really isn't science. Consensus is the language of politics Coyote. If I ask a scientist what the speed of light is, or what the formula for Kinetic Energy is there is no referral to "well the consensus says". No, he will tell you the speed of light is 186,282.396 miles per second. They will tell you the formula for kinetic energy is 0.5 times the mass times the velocity squared.

Those are facts. Whenever you resort to consensus you are no longer dealing with facts, you are dealing with opinion. Science is not interested in opinion. It is ONLY interested in facts.

That's the problem with scientists who rely on the "consensus" method of support for their argument. It is an appeal to authority which itself is a logic fail. Add to that the fact that the "scientific consensus" is itself not really factual, and you have a very large problem with AGW "science".

No. That is BS. All of the scientists who have concluded that the earth is warming.....that we are the reason....and that it is bad......are USING FACTS to make that conclusion.

No, they're not. I hate to break it to you, but the overwhelming majority of AGW science is purely based on computer models that have been shown to have a warming bias built into them. Further, they ignore actual historical evidence of what the world has been like when it was warmer.

We actually have a written record going back three thousand years in some places and can track the various warming periods such as the Minoan, the Roman, and the medieval and universally the written record tells us that even when temps were over two degrees warmer than the present day (the Minoan Climate Optimum) there were NONE of the disasters that the alarmists tell us will occur if the global temp rises one degree. Not one.

The same is true in the paleontological record as well. The Paleocene Thermal Maximum witnessed the blooming of life across the globe. The mammalian life that populates the world today ORIGINATED during the PETM. These are facts. Facts that the alarmists ignore at every turn.

 

[westwall]

According to some very positive results in slowing deforestation a carbon tax was not the solution. In the case of Brazil - Amazon - tropical forest - the solution looked like this:

"The recent 70% decline in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon suggests that it is possible to manage the advance of a vast agricultural frontier. Enforcement of laws, interventions in soy and beef supply chains, restrictions on access to credit, and expansion of protected areas appear to have contributed to this decline, as did a decline in the demand for new deforestation."

Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains

.

I read recently that here in the United States we are planting 30% more trees than we are cutting down. Some speculate there are more trees in the USA than there were when Columbus arrived here in the 15th Century.

Sadly that is not true elsewhere in the world, but your source suggests that we might be getting a handle on that too. Certainly that is where the focus needs to be and not in places that are already doing a good job of forest management. There is certainly a balance that needs to be achieved, but trees are a renewable resource so it would seem that if there is a will, that balance is manageable.

And the question again remains--are the higher CO2 levels a good thing or a bad thing?

I came at the question you posed from my belief that the planet is self-regulating and that the history of the earth has shown dramatic shifts in the climate which have been redressed over time.

I believe that CO2 is important to the life cycle and as such a good thing.

.

That doesn't get said much in the debate from the AGW proponent side though does it? The arguments there all seem to think that if we reduce CO2 dramatically, we save the Earth from catastrophic consequences. And it is almost never discussed how much CO2 we actually need or is beneficial.

Others posted the recent study that could show that higher CO2 levels decrease the nutrient value in some food crops. And if you Google for that, you find dozens if not hundreds of sites--all supporting IPPC conclusions--restating or reprinting information about that study. Such things go really viral very quickly. Among those, only the National Geographic seems to take a really scientific view about it that it is one study involving two fields of crops, it is not conclusive, and while it is important, it only provides speculation about what might be happening.

And it did not include tests of crops grown in hundreds and thousands of greenhouses in which CO2 is kept at levels much higher than occurs in nature. I find that rather odd.

So for me, that is something to file back as something to pay attention to. But not something that I see as conclusive because of my natural skepticism of possibly self-serving kinds of things in these debates. Who funded the study? I haven't been able to find out. And is it the next 'we're all doomed' scenario to keep the funding pouring in since they all seem to be running out of steam on the global warming thing that just isn't happening as the computer models predicted.

So if it is a problem, we should know soon enough. And

........and you have never heard me say that we are doomed. MOST of the world gets it. We'll find a way. My way.......listening to scientists....just costs less.

Once upon a time the US Congress listened to genuine scientists too.

Then the Tobacco special interests produced scientists willing to lie for money.

Ever since then the scientific community has been treated with disdain which is unfortunate because they are the resource that provides us with the knowledge we need to survive.

You're resorting to ad homs now DT.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm telling you.....if conservatives want young people to vote for them....they had better have a come to Jeebus moment on this issue.

 

[Decus]

So planting more trees may be the solution or the increased uptake of CO2, as has been discussed in the research I posted, may independently of planting new trees also have a similar effect over time.

It would seem that trees do one heck of a job.

Yes, they do!

And if you read the article you would already know that we destroying the forests at a record rate.

Deforestation is the permanent destruction of forests in order to make the land available for other uses. An estimated 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares) of forest, which is roughly the size of the country of Panama, are lost each year, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Some other statistics:​

• • About half of the world's tropical forests have been cleared (FAO)
  • Forests currently cover about 30 percent of the world’s land mass (National Geographic)
  • Forest loss contributes between 6 percent and 12 percent of annual global
  • carbon dioxide emissions (Nature Geoscience)
  • About 36 football fields worth of trees lost every minute (World Wildlife Fund (WWF))

So if the solution is forests then what are we going to do to stop deforestation?

According to some very positive results in slowing deforestation a carbon tax was not the solution. In the case of Brazil - Amazon - tropical forest - the solution looked like this:

"The recent 70% decline in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon suggests that it is possible to manage the advance of a vast agricultural frontier. Enforcement of laws, interventions in soy and beef supply chains, restrictions on access to credit, and expansion of protected areas appear to have contributed to this decline, as did a decline in the demand for new deforestation."

Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains

.

I read recently that here in the United States we are planting 30% more trees than we are cutting down. Some speculate there are more trees in the USA than there were when Columbus arrived here in the 15th Century.

Sadly that is not true elsewhere in the world, but your source suggests that we might be getting a handle on that too. Certainly that is where the focus needs to be and not in places that are already doing a good job of forest management. There is certainly a balance that needs to be achieved, but trees are a renewable resource so it would seem that if there is a will, that balance is manageable.

And the question again remains--are the higher CO2 levels a good thing or a bad thing?

I came at the question you posed from my belief that the planet is self-regulating and that the history of the earth has shown dramatic shifts in the climate which have been redressed over time.

I believe that CO2 is important to the life cycle and as such a good thing.

.

That doesn't get said much in the debate from the AGW proponent side though does it? The arguments there all seem to think that if we reduce CO2 dramatically, we save the Earth from catastrophic consequences. And it is almost never discussed how much CO2 we actually need or is beneficial.

Others posted the recent study that could show that higher CO2 levels decrease the nutrient value in some food crops. And if you Google for that, you find dozens if not hundreds of sites--all supporting IPPC conclusions--restating or reprinting information about that study. Such things go really viral very quickly. Among those, only the National Geographic seems to take a really scientific view about it that it is one study involving two fields of crops, it is not conclusive, and while it is important, it only provides speculation about what might be happening.

And it did not include tests of crops grown in hundreds and thousands of greenhouses in which CO2 is kept at levels much higher than occurs in nature. I find that rather odd.

So for me, that is something to file back as something to pay attention to. But not something that I see as conclusive because of my natural skepticism of possibly self-serving kinds of things in these debates. Who funded the study? I haven't been able to find out. And is it the next 'we're all doomed' scenario to keep the funding pouring in since they all seem to be running out of steam on the global warming thing that just isn't happening as the computer models predicted.

So if it is a problem, we should know soon enough. And

The studies that I've seen point to the fact that if we cut out the use of cars entirely, the effects wouldn't even register. Cutting all industrial output would reduce CO2 by a couple of percentage points. I'm not sure how killing the economy will have a positive impact on anything.

Moving towards sustainable development, recycling and things like electric cars can be a reinvention of the economy and create new industries and employment opportunities. That said we're still going to need oil for a host of needs for the foreseeable future.

I'm more curious as to the impact of a weakening magnetic field around the earth as a cause for concern than the level of CO2. Our entire economy is based on electronics. How this will stand up to increased solar radiation is a bit more interesting for me.

We shall see as you say.

.

 

[westwall]

I read recently that here in the United States we are planting 30% more trees than we are cutting down. Some speculate there are more trees in the USA than there were when Columbus arrived here in the 15th Century.

Sadly that is not true elsewhere in the world, but your source suggests that we might be getting a handle on that too. Certainly that is where the focus needs to be and not in places that are already doing a good job of forest management. There is certainly a balance that needs to be achieved, but trees are a renewable resource so it would seem that if there is a will, that balance is manageable.

And the question again remains--are the higher CO2 levels a good thing or a bad thing?

I came at the question you posed from my belief that the planet is self-regulating and that the history of the earth has shown dramatic shifts in the climate which have been redressed over time.

I believe that CO2 is important to the life cycle and as such a good thing.

.

That doesn't get said much in the debate from the AGW proponent side though does it? The arguments there all seem to think that if we reduce CO2 dramatically, we save the Earth from catastrophic consequences. And it is almost never discussed how much CO2 we actually need or is beneficial.

Others posted the recent study that could show that higher CO2 levels decrease the nutrient value in some food crops. And if you Google for that, you find dozens if not hundreds of sites--all supporting IPPC conclusions--restating or reprinting information about that study. Such things go really viral very quickly. Among those, only the National Geographic seems to take a really scientific view about it that it is one study involving two fields of crops, it is not conclusive, and while it is important, it only provides speculation about what might be happening.

And it did not include tests of crops grown in hundreds and thousands of greenhouses in which CO2 is kept at levels much higher than occurs in nature. I find that rather odd.

So for me, that is something to file back as something to pay attention to. But not something that I see as conclusive because of my natural skepticism of possibly self-serving kinds of things in these debates. Who funded the study? I haven't been able to find out. And is it the next 'we're all doomed' scenario to keep the funding pouring in since they all seem to be running out of steam on the global warming thing that just isn't happening as the computer models predicted.

So if it is a problem, we should know soon enough. And

........and you have never heard me say that we are doomed. MOST of the world gets it. We'll find a way. My way.......listening to scientists....just costs less.

Actually, the preferred method of the AGW supporters requires the expenditure of 76 trillion dollars to reduce the global temperature by one degree in one hundred years.....maybe.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

I can positively assure you that that 76 trillion dollars could be far better spent developing methods to mitigate any deleterious effect that global warming would have. Because, you have to remember, not all of the effects are going to be bad. There will most likely be more benefits to a warmer world than there are negatives.

Pffffffffffft!

That is the actual UN report detailing the expenditure of funds to completely re-engineer the worlds energy systems, and economy, and the best you can come up with is pffffft?

Clearly when presented with facts you ignore them and choose to maintain your profound ignorance.

Don't you ever claim that Foxy insulted your intelligence. You just managed to do that to yourself entirely on your own.

 

[Coyote]

*cough*....no ad homs folks.....

 

[Derideo_Te]

SDZ Public Service Post!

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem
[ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

 

[Coyote]

SDZ Public Service Post!

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem
[ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Smart alek

"profound ignorance".....hmmm?

Sweetie....

 

[Foxfyre]

First...Dr. Moore's argument is an opinion...and not necessarily founded on good science and that influences it's merit.

Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?

1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions or it should be disbanded.

The scientific consensus thus far is overwhelmingly in support of anthropogenic induced climate change. If substantial evidence came out that other factors are the main contributors, then that IPPC's mandate should be expanded. As of now, non-anthropogenic climate change is a fringe group with strong ties to the traditional energy sector and industry.

To demand that it should investigate, with equal fervor, ALL possible causes seems a really wasteful demand. When trying to find a cause for something - you quickly rule out the least likely or least supported causes, and concentrate on those that have the most evidence supporting them or that seem the most likely to produce an answer.

2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.

There are a lot of things essential to life and they are all interconnected. When one elements is out of balance it has a ripple effect through out ecosystems. Just because something is "good" doesn't mean that more of it is "better".

It is said that even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn. And some of the world's most mentally challenged people occasionally come up with a gem of wisdom now and then. So whether Moore is a credentialed scientist or a janitor with a 4th grade education or a serial killer or whether or not it the statement was developed via good science, his stated opinion either has merit or it does not. Two plus two equals four no matter who says it or whether the person saying it has any understanding of what they are saying when they say it.

So it is the statements themselves and not the credibility or reputation or the motive of the person saying them that is the topic of this discussion.

I don't know that the scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports anthropogenic climate change. I do believe that those scientist who receive funding from people interested in achieving that verdict or scientists who need acceptance in certain professional circles overwhelmingly support anthropogenic climate change. I haven't seen much evidence of that from scientists who are not in that position, however. So I think the verdict is still out on that.

And given the plethora of credentialed and esteemed scientists who are not convinced that anthropogenically generated CO2 emissions are the primary culprit re climate change, I do think the IPPC should be giving equal merit to all factors of climate change so that we don't make disastrous errors in expensive and useless remedies that won't do a single thing to help.

So there I do take a position. I don't know whether CO2 is currently at sub-optimal levels and we need more of it, but I am really interested in exploring that.

I do have a very bad opinion of the IPCC and do believe if we are going to continue to fund that organization, it should be to look at all of climate change and not that which is politically correct to study. And if they are not going to do that, then we should not have to fund them and they should disband or be looking for private funding for whatever work they deem important.

 

[Decus]

SDZ Public Service Post!

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem
[ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Smart alek

"profound ignorance".....hmmm?

Sweetie....

What are clean debate rules? These are the kinds of comments I would expect in non-CDZ threads.

.

 

[Coyote]

First...Dr. Moore's argument is an opinion...and not necessarily founded on good science and that influences it's merit.

Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?

1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions or it should be disbanded.

The scientific consensus thus far is overwhelmingly in support of anthropogenic induced climate change. If substantial evidence came out that other factors are the main contributors, then that IPPC's mandate should be expanded. As of now, non-anthropogenic climate change is a fringe group with strong ties to the traditional energy sector and industry.

To demand that it should investigate, with equal fervor, ALL possible causes seems a really wasteful demand. When trying to find a cause for something - you quickly rule out the least likely or least supported causes, and concentrate on those that have the most evidence supporting them or that seem the most likely to produce an answer.

2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.

There are a lot of things essential to life and they are all interconnected. When one elements is out of balance it has a ripple effect through out ecosystems. Just because something is "good" doesn't mean that more of it is "better".

It is said that even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn. And some of the world's most mentally challenged people occasionally come up with a gem of wisdom now and then. So whether Moore is a credentialed scientist or a janitor with a 4th grade education or a serial killer or whether or not it the statement was developed via good science, his stated opinion either has merit or it does not. Two plus two equals four no matter who says it or whether the person saying it has any understanding of what they are saying when they say it.


So it is the statements themselves and not the credibility or reputation or the motive of the person saying them that is the topic of this discussion.

Every opinion has some merit...but not all opinions are equal when making claims. For example...if I was having a problem with recurring skin rash (which, I did!) - I would put more weight in the opinion of my dermatologist than I would in my geologist coworker, though I would consider his opinion.

I don't know that the scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports anthropogenic climate change. I do believe that those scientist who receive funding from people interested in achieving that verdict or who need acceptance in certain professional circles overwhelmingly support anthropogenic climate change. I haven't seen much evidence of that from scientists who are not in that position, however. So I think the verdict is still out on that.

That's where I disagree. It's an often used argument that scientists in support of anthropogenic global warming are funded by those with a vested interest in affirming it. That same argument applies to skeptics who are often funded by the energy industries, including, I might add, the Heartland Institute. At the very least, the funding issues should cancel each other out so we should look at the preponderance of evidence.

And given the plethora of credentialed and esteemed scientists who are not convinced that anthropogenically generated CO2 emissions are the primary culprit re climate change, I do think the IPPC should be given equal merit to all factors of climate change so that we don't make disastrous errors in expensive and useless remedies that won't do a single thing to help.

According to this study, the number of scientists who feel that human activity is not the primary cause of climate change is an increasingly shrinking group, a mere 3% with the consensus of scientists from multiple disciplines now being at 97%. : Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Given that, how could you justify the expenditure of money, research and time on factors that are not supported by the main body of science?

You state: ...so that we don't make disastrous errors in expensive and useless remedies that won't do a single thing to help

That is another problem. The first is what does the science say? The second (and third) is - what can or should we do about it (if anything) and will it make a difference.

The first is a statement of science - the theories that are best supported by available evidence and subject to change as more evidence becomes available. It is not a statement of policy.

The rest...is policy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

SDZ Public Service Post!

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem
[ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Smart alek

"profound ignorance".....hmmm?

Sweetie....

What are clean debate rules? These are the kinds of comments I would expect in non-CDZ threads.

.

Guidelines for the Structured Debate Zone (SDZ) can be found here;

Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The OP specified these Rules for this thread;

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic and relate opinions and observations as much as possible to the stated thread topic.

2. No ad hominem re persons, political parties, ideologies, or other members. Criticize or comment on the argument made and not the character or intent of those making it.

3. Links are not required to express your own opinion. If you post excerpts from or links to other sources, you must in your own words give a brief summary of what the content is and what you expect others to learn from the source.​

So no ad homs are allowed in this thread.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

SDZ Public Service Post!

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem
[ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Smart alek

"profound ignorance".....hmmm?

Sweetie....

What are clean debate rules? These are the kinds of comments I would expect in non-CDZ threads.

.

Off topic: The CDZ and the Structured Debate Zone run on separate rules. The Structured Debate Zone may or may not allow uncivility and it is up the OP to specify that. Ergo the posted rules for this debate only.

Right now we're leaving for a dinner date. Back later. . . . .

 

[Coyote]

SDZ Public Service Post!

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem
[ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Smart alek

"profound ignorance".....hmmm?

Sweetie....

What are clean debate rules? These are the kinds of comments I would expect in non-CDZ threads.

.

I'll answer this wearing my moderator hat. CDZ is CDZ. As DT and Foxfyre said, the Structured Debate forum is different. It's Zone 2 rules over all, but also adding in 3 specific rules that the OP sets. How strictly it's monitored and moderated depends on the OP and his/her desires. Often times, mild comments and banter can get the thread back to it's intended topic rather than coming down as a moderator. That's all it is