What if the climate meme was in the other direction?

[OohPooPahDoo]

if warming and more plentiful CO2 was considered a good thing instead of the present fad of thinking it is bad what sort of media stories would we see?

Its not a "fad" moron. Believe it or not, not everyone is as shallow as you.

-more cultivatable land leads to record food crops.

???? Please tell me you're aware that some crops do better in warmer weather and others do worse? please tell me you're aware that plants also need sunlight and the fact that its warmer at higher latitudes doesn't mean there is the additional sunlight that would be needed at higher latitudes to realize higher growth rates? THis is like really simple stuff you should have learned in grade school If a crop is grown at the right temperature but doesn't have enough light - then its fucked!

-warming has led to historical lows in hurricanes

Great. if it raises the SEA LEVEL coastal communities (most of America) are actually MORE at risk.

-cheap energy leds to improved conditions everywhere but especially the third world

You don't give a fuck about the 3rd world.

I could go on but my point is that almost all the evidence is equivical and can be spun in any direction. it just depends on who is telling the story.

You haven't even looked at the evidence !!!

 

[skookerasbil]

if warming and more plentiful CO2 was considered a good thing instead of the present fad of thinking it is bad what sort of media stories would we see?

Its not a "fad" moron. Believe it or not, not everyone is as shallow as you.

-more cultivatable land leads to record food crops.

???? Please tell me you're aware that some crops do better in warmer weather and others do worse? please tell me you're aware that plants also need sunlight and the fact that its warmer at higher latitudes doesn't mean there is the additional sunlight that would be needed at higher latitudes to realize higher growth rates? THis is like really simple stuff you should have learned in grade school If a crop is grown at the right temperature but doesn't have enough light - then its fucked!

Great. if it raises the SEA LEVEL coastal communities (most of America) are actually MORE at risk.

-cheap energy leds to improved conditions everywhere but especially the third world

You don't give a fuck about the 3rd world.

I could go on but my point is that almost all the evidence is equivical and can be spun in any direction. it just depends on who is telling the story.

You haven't even looked at the evidence !!!

Listen sweetie...........life is about comprehending "necessary tradeoffs"..................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88&feature=related]YouTube - ‪The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative‬‏[/ame]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

if warming and more plentiful CO2 was considered a good thing instead of the present fad of thinking it is bad what sort of media stories would we see?

Its not a "fad" moron. Believe it or not, not everyone is as shallow as you.


???? Please tell me you're aware that some crops do better in warmer weather and others do worse? please tell me you're aware that plants also need sunlight and the fact that its warmer at higher latitudes doesn't mean there is the additional sunlight that would be needed at higher latitudes to realize higher growth rates? THis is like really simple stuff you should have learned in grade school If a crop is grown at the right temperature but doesn't have enough light - then its fucked!

Great. if it raises the SEA LEVEL coastal communities (most of America) are actually MORE at risk.




You don't give a fuck about the 3rd world.

I could go on but my point is that almost all the evidence is equivical and can be spun in any direction. it just depends on who is telling the story.

You haven't even looked at the evidence !!!

Listen sweetie...........life is about comprehending "necessary tradeoffs"..................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88&feature=related]YouTube - ‪The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative‬‏[/ame]

Sorry I don't watch FOX Opinions.

 

[skookerasbil]

its not a "fad" moron. Believe it or not, not everyone is as shallow as you.


???? Please tell me you're aware that some crops do better in warmer weather and others do worse? Please tell me you're aware that plants also need sunlight and the fact that its warmer at higher latitudes doesn't mean there is the additional sunlight that would be needed at higher latitudes to realize higher growth rates? This is like really simple stuff you should have learned in grade school if a crop is grown at the right temperature but doesn't have enough light - then its fucked!

Great. If it raises the sea level coastal communities (most of america) are actually more at risk.




You don't give a fuck about the 3rd world.


You haven't even looked at the evidence !!!

listen sweetie...........life is about comprehending "necessary tradeoffs"..................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5khdhrnhh88&feature=related]youtube - ‪the difference between liberal and conservative‬‏[/ame]

sorry i don't watch fox opinions.

mslsd??

 

[rdean]

if warming and more plentiful CO2 was considered a good thing instead of the present fad of thinking it is bad what sort of media stories would we see?

-more cultivatable land leads to record food crops.

-warming has led to historical lows in hurricanes

-cheap energy leds to improved conditions everywhere but especially the third world

I could go on but my point is that almost all the evidence is equivical and can be spun in any direction. it just depends on who is telling the story.

Except that CO2 is a "bad thing" after an initial growth "spurt". Crops end up "poor quality" and "less nutritious".

2010 had 12 hurricanes, the 2nd most ever in one season.

Did anyone see that tornado with the base over a mile wide that traveled over 300 miles. It's been called the worst natural disaster since Katrina.

Sure glad it had nothing to do with "climate change". Just ask right wingers. I feel safe knowing how much they are in to "science".

many greenhouses spike the CO2 up to 1000ppm. more CO2 means more drought resistance.

hurricanes that would have been recorded 100 years ago have not gone up, only satellite spotted hurricanes have, for the obvious reason that we have satellites now.

there have been worse tornadoes in the past and the increase in smaller ones seen is due to radar not reality.

even NOAA and other agencies admit there is no correlation to 'climate change'

Then how would you know that? Last year was the second most active, and yet, how many hit land? But you know how many there were a hundred years ago? Amazing.

Provide reputable link to show CO2 is good for plants. Careful, because there are plenty from "Universities" that say the opposite. You get an initial growth spurt, but in the long run, they are less nutritious and of poor quality. This isn't right wing "speculation". It's well known from "research". Remember, right wingers don't do research. They interpret the research of "others".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

it doesn't even work in their climate models unless they really fudge the data they claim. So far, none of the climate models have been able to input the known weather/climate from the past and get their models to produce a good forecast for the weather/climate of now. And with the recent scandals in which prominent scientists have finally admitted that they have omitted mitigating data in order to keep the radical environmentalist bible intact, there is plenty of room for skepticism and incentive to look for better information.

It boggles the mind that so many are willing to hand over their freedoms, options, choices, and opportunities to politically motivated foreign groups, many of whom don't like us very much and don't have our best interests at heart. And they are willing to do this on information that is steadily being proved to be questionable or flawed.

and another clueless denier cultist with his head full of propaganda and misinformation peeps up with more denier cult myths.

In reality, the climate models are tested by what is called 'hindcasting' where they do, in fact, "input the known weather/climate from the past" and see if the model results match the historical record of what actually happened.

In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.

source: ipcc ar4 wg1 figures [ppt file]

another denier cult myth is the one you spew here with this nonsense: "recent scandals in which prominent scientists have finally admitted". Sorry bucko, but that's one of your myths, not reality. All of the trumped up "scandals" were debunked by a variety of official investigations that found no substance to the rather absurd allegations raised by the stooges for the fossil fuel industry.

Your post makes it clear that you have no idea what is going on with the world's climate or with the field of climate science. The scientific data that unequivocally shows global warming beyond the bounds of natural variability is not "steadily being proved to be questionable or flawed" as your denier cult myths tell you, rather it is steadily being verified and shown to be accurate and reflective of a very real crisis that threatens the future of our civilization and the earth's ecosystems.

lol!!!!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

and another clueless denier cultist with his head full of propaganda and misinformation peeps up with more denier cult myths.

In reality, the climate models are tested by what is called 'hindcasting' where they do, in fact, "input the known weather/climate from the past" and see if the model results match the historical record of what actually happened.

In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.

source: ipcc ar4 wg1 figures [ppt file]

another denier cult myth is the one you spew here with this nonsense: "recent scandals in which prominent scientists have finally admitted". Sorry bucko, but that's one of your myths, not reality. All of the trumped up "scandals" were debunked by a variety of official investigations that found no substance to the rather absurd allegations raised by the stooges for the fossil fuel industry.

Your post makes it clear that you have no idea what is going on with the world's climate or with the field of climate science. The scientific data that unequivocally shows global warming beyond the bounds of natural variability is not "steadily being proved to be questionable or flawed" as your denier cult myths tell you, rather it is steadily being verified and shown to be accurate and reflective of a very real crisis that threatens the future of our civilization and the earth's ecosystems.

mars-atmosphere[/quote]

lol!!!!!![/QUOTE]

How amazing! One retard laughs at the meaningless pictures some other retard posted in an apparent but moronically futile attempt to respond to some facts.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, one of them claims the moon is hollow, and the other is overweaningly proud of his lead sled.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yep, one of them claims the moon is hollow, and the other is overweaningly proud of his lead sled.

I've said there is more ream hard scientific experimental evidence, including the seismometers reading from the dropped Apollo 13 booster, indicating a hollow Moon than there is for AGW.

Can you show us one, laboratory experiment that shows us how a 60PPM increase in CO2 does ANY of the thing you allege? If not, why not?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, we have a 'defense' for the hollow moon, all we are waiting for is a defense of the lead sled that cannot run with a local 1972 Datsun.