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

[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

Credible source is credible.

And the detractors and nay sayers were proven WRONG! Yet many stubbornly hold onto the LIE! A pity.

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

Actually, if one follows the history of the whole thing carefully, you see that the most sensational claims get the most press coverage, while the careful, plodding and documented prognosis gets the short shrift. That way, it's easier for the nay sayers to point to the big headline failures and lump them in with ALL research in the field.

 

[IanC]

For Your information:


Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done


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

Credible source is credible.

And the detractors and nay sayers were proven WRONG! Yet many stubbornly hold onto the LIE! A pity.

Dude! You're not serious are you? That newspaper apologized for printing a story about 40% of the Amazon forest being at risk because of GW induced drought. This is the first time I ever heard about it. Just because someone, somewhere retracts a statement about the climategate league of shame that does not exonerate all of them for all of the misdirection and petty politics that are such a big part of climate science at this time.

 

[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.

Actually, if one follows the history of the whole thing carefully, you see that the most sensational claims get the most press coverage, while the careful, plodding and documented prognosis gets the short shrift. That way, it's easier for the nay sayers to point to the big headline failures and lump them in with ALL research in the field.

I have to agree with you somewhat. The vast majority or researchers are hard working and honest. The problems occur when IPCC directors take that honest work and 'correct' it until it fits their stated agenda.

 

[hortysir]

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?

 

[taichiliberal]

Credible source is credible.

And the detractors and nay sayers were proven WRONG! Yet many stubbornly hold onto the LIE! A pity.

Dude! You're not serious are you? That newspaper apologized for printing a story about 40% of the Amazon forest being at risk because of GW induced drought. This is the first time I ever heard about it. Just because someone, somewhere retracts a statement about the climategate league of shame that does not exonerate all of them for all of the misdirection and petty politics that are such a big part of climate science at this time.

Dude, as you are admitting you weren't aware of one of the key criticisms in this incident, let me give you some more information as to the exoneration of the IPCC and the sheer bogus status of "climate gate".


Hacked Email Scientists Exonerated of Misconduct for a Third Time

Hacked Email Scientists Exonerated of Misconduct for a Third Time | SolveClimate.com

 

[IanC]

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?

Old Rocks believes most of the current trend of warming temperatures is due to anthropologic increases of CO2. And that the droughts, storms, floods, etc are due to the increased temperatures. Not quite as crazy as pat robertson blaming homosexuals for making god give HIV to man as punishment but...

 

[taichiliberal]

Credible source is credible.

And the detractors and nay sayers were proven WRONG! Yet many stubbornly hold onto the LIE! A pity.

Dude! You're not serious are you? That newspaper apologized for printing a story about 40% of the Amazon forest being at risk because of GW induced drought. This is the first time I ever heard about it. Just because someone, somewhere retracts a statement about the climategate league of shame that does not exonerate all of them for all of the misdirection and petty politics that are such a big part of climate science at this time.

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.

Actually, if one follows the history of the whole thing carefully, you see that the most sensational claims get the most press coverage, while the careful, plodding and documented prognosis gets the short shrift. That way, it's easier for the nay sayers to point to the big headline failures and lump them in with ALL research in the field.

I have to agree with you somewhat. The vast majority or researchers are hard working and honest. The problems occur when IPCC directors take that honest work and 'correct' it until it fits their stated agenda.

Ahhh, but your last sentence wasn't quite true...as 3 reviews demonstrated

Hacked Email Scientists Exonerated of Misconduct for a Third Time

Hacked Email Scientists Exonerated of Misconduct for a Third Time | SolveClimate.com

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[IanC]

And the detractors and nay sayers were proven WRONG! Yet many stubbornly hold onto the LIE! A pity.

Dude! You're not serious are you? That newspaper apologized for printing a story about 40% of the Amazon forest being at risk because of GW induced drought. This is the first time I ever heard about it. Just because someone, somewhere retracts a statement about the climategate league of shame that does not exonerate all of them for all of the misdirection and petty politics that are such a big part of climate science at this time.

Actually, if one follows the history of the whole thing carefully, you see that the most sensational claims get the most press coverage, while the careful, plodding and documented prognosis gets the short shrift. That way, it's easier for the nay sayers to point to the big headline failures and lump them in with ALL research in the field.

I have to agree with you somewhat. The vast majority or researchers are hard working and honest. The problems occur when IPCC directors take that honest work and 'correct' it until it fits their stated agenda.

Ahhh, but your last sentence wasn't quite true...as 3 reviews demonstrated

Hacked Email Scientists Exonerated of Misconduct for a Third Time

Hacked Email Scientists Exonerated of Misconduct for a Third Time | SolveClimate.com

Exonerated of wilful misconduct but criticized for obstruction of open methodologies and data. Plus there was no investigation of the science, just whether there was actual fraud involved rather than petty politics.

 

[Old Rocks]

Almost all of what the denialists were demanding that the scientists take the time to give them is available on the net for the asking.

 

[Pappadave]

Double the CO2 emissions. We need more limestone! Pappadave

 

[The Infidel]

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.

Winner!

 

[taichiliberal]

Dude! You're not serious are you? That newspaper apologized for printing a story about 40% of the Amazon forest being at risk because of GW induced drought. This is the first time I ever heard about it. Just because someone, somewhere retracts a statement about the climategate league of shame that does not exonerate all of them for all of the misdirection and petty politics that are such a big part of climate science at this time.

I have to agree with you somewhat. The vast majority or researchers are hard working and honest. The problems occur when IPCC directors take that honest work and 'correct' it until it fits their stated agenda.

Ahhh, but your last sentence wasn't quite true...as 3 reviews demonstrated

Hacked Email Scientists Exonerated of Misconduct for a Third Time

Hacked Email Scientists Exonerated of Misconduct for a Third Time | SolveClimate.com

Exonerated of wilful misconduct but criticized for obstruction of open methodologies and data. Plus there was no investigation of the science, just whether there was actual fraud involved rather than petty politics.

Well....the "obstruction" was essentially from them being attacked based on the false premise of a hacker's BS, and then scrambling to get their case together despite all the hue & cry from the anti-climate change folks (IMHO, of course). Defensive to be assured, but in the end the review stated that it didn't prevent them from reaching a conclusion. I mean, all the hoop-la was based on the false premise of a an unknown hacker....so now it's back to essentially the same old tit-for-tat rehash of all the anti-climate arguments.

 

[Nosmo King]

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

Perhaps some rudimentary science will help you understand why increased CO2 is not as healthy as you might think.

Imagine raising the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere by another 15 points. Other than benefits to plant life, that increase means other gases in the atmosphere are squeezed out. It further means that water vapor has a harder time dispersing which increases the volatility of weather systems.

If oxygen is good for humans, why don't we just increase the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere? Up to say 26%? Can you imagine the effects that might bring?

Science: the bane of conservatives.

 

[rdean]

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

I feel "embarrassed" for having to explain something so "simple" to find out the truth. Especially since the Internet is right in front of you and you could find out on your own, if you actually wanted to.

Excess CO2 Starves Plants of Nitrogen Nutrients
Some biologists thought rising levels of carbon dioxide might stimulate plant growth, but a UC Davis study finds the greenhouse gas inhibits nitrate absorption. The finding carries significant implications for agriculture worldwide.

The findings have significant implications for agriculture, biologists said. They suggest that, as global warming continues and carbon dioxide levels rise, food may become poorer in quality and nutrition, and farmers may have to worry about crops that could be more prone to pest infestations (as plant eaters may have to eat more to get the same nutritional value as before).

Farmers will have to figure out how to fertilize their crops without poisoning them, researchers said, since ammonium (another form of inorganic nitrogen that can be used to feed plants) is not subject to the nitrate inhibition issue but can be toxic if not used wisely.

The Heat Is Online

Dr Ros Gleadow
Leaves of plants grown at elevated carbon dioxide have a lot less protein wheat, barley, rice, all of those in probably only 50 to 60 years time will have 15 to 20% less protein in them than they do now.

Catalyst: Toxic Crops - ABC TV Science

You might as well be eat cardboard.

 

[westwall]

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.

You are lyin through your teeth! At no time was the SCIENCE even reviewed you pathetic excuse for an environmentalist. You work for Evraz a company under all sorts of scrutiny for pollution in Russia and possibly here in the States and you have the gall to say the crap you do? Go crawl under a rock where you belong you maloderous twit! No enquiry has reviewed the science NOT ONE!


Thomas Fuller
Environmental Policy Examiner.SubscribeSponsor an Examiner .....View all of Thomas' articles Print14 comments.Global warming: An inquiry that doesn't look at the science cannot understand Climategate
July 7th, 2010 5:54 pm
.The Muir Russell inquiry has released its report, available here. As with other inquiries into the affair, the Russell review states that they did not examine the science and that the science is correct.
Other bloggers will certainly go into greater detail into the strengths and weaknesses of this inquiry. However, what I want to make clear is that this is the same modus operandi used by the government of the United Kingdom in all of its investigations into controversial actions or decisions--whether it be about Iraq, the Bloody Sunday massacre or the corruption scandal involving BAE and the Saudi government.

In each case, a number of inquiries are commissioned. They do not run simultaneously. The are each given specific terms of reference, which they don't always disclose. The terms of reference taken as a whole leave huge gaps in what should be investigated. The inquires consistently exonerate the principals they are investigating, but there is a wide sense of dissatisfaction among those following the issue, as it is clear that central questions were not addressed.

In the Russell report, Russell writes that the Oxburgh inquiry looked at the science. Lord Oxburgh has specifically stated that his inquiry did not look at the science. Nor did the Parliamentary sub-committee's one day hearing. Nor did either of the Penn State investigations.

The behaviour of the Climategate scientists cannot be understood or even traced effectively unless the scientific issues are examined in parallel. As the inquiry chose not to take oral testimony from witnesses and relied on submissions emailed before their terms of reference were clear, the science that drove their behaviour has been left unexamined.

I do not believe this was a whitewash. However, I do believe that the overarching framework of dealing with this issue using a series of segmented investigations of limited scope guaranteed that the vital issues would fall through the cracks. This is accepted behaviour in the UK, and I doubt if it was unintentiional.

Those of us who have followed Climategate for six months are sure to be disappointed by the feeling of things left undone. Our plight is surely less significant than those still waiting for closure on the UK government's decision to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq, or the massacre of innocent civilians in Northern Ireland 40 years ago. We ain't that important and neither is Climategate.

But in terms of making this issue go away, which is the obvious goal of all these investigations, it failed to do what it was meant to do. I have no doubt that on all the consensus websites there will be triumphant posts about all the investigations coming back with a 'not guilty' verdict for their champions.

But without looking at the science, they didn't look at Climategate.

Global warming: An inquiry that doesn't look at the science cannot understand Climategate - National environmental policy | Examiner.com

 

[IanC]

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.

You are lyin through your teeth! At no time was the SCIENCE even reviewed you pathetic excuse for an environmentalist. You work for Evraz a company under all sorts of scrutiny for pollution in Russia and possibly here in the States and you have the gall to say the crap you do? Go crawl under a rock where you belong you maloderous twit! No enquiry has reviewed the science NOT ONE!


Thomas Fuller
Environmental Policy Examiner.SubscribeSponsor an Examiner .....View all of Thomas' articles Print14 comments.Global warming: An inquiry that doesn't look at the science cannot understand Climategate
July 7th, 2010 5:54 pm
.The Muir Russell inquiry has released its report, available here. As with other inquiries into the affair, the Russell review states that they did not examine the science and that the science is correct.
Other bloggers will certainly go into greater detail into the strengths and weaknesses of this inquiry. However, what I want to make clear is that this is the same modus operandi used by the government of the United Kingdom in all of its investigations into controversial actions or decisions--whether it be about Iraq, the Bloody Sunday massacre or the corruption scandal involving BAE and the Saudi government.

In each case, a number of inquiries are commissioned. They do not run simultaneously. The are each given specific terms of reference, which they don't always disclose. The terms of reference taken as a whole leave huge gaps in what should be investigated. The inquires consistently exonerate the principals they are investigating, but there is a wide sense of dissatisfaction among those following the issue, as it is clear that central questions were not addressed.

In the Russell report, Russell writes that the Oxburgh inquiry looked at the science. Lord Oxburgh has specifically stated that his inquiry did not look at the science. Nor did the Parliamentary sub-committee's one day hearing. Nor did either of the Penn State investigations.

The behaviour of the Climategate scientists cannot be understood or even traced effectively unless the scientific issues are examined in parallel. As the inquiry chose not to take oral testimony from witnesses and relied on submissions emailed before their terms of reference were clear, the science that drove their behaviour has been left unexamined.

I do not believe this was a whitewash. However, I do believe that the overarching framework of dealing with this issue using a series of segmented investigations of limited scope guaranteed that the vital issues would fall through the cracks. This is accepted behaviour in the UK, and I doubt if it was unintentiional.

Those of us who have followed Climategate for six months are sure to be disappointed by the feeling of things left undone. Our plight is surely less significant than those still waiting for closure on the UK government's decision to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq, or the massacre of innocent civilians in Northern Ireland 40 years ago. We ain't that important and neither is Climategate.

But in terms of making this issue go away, which is the obvious goal of all these investigations, it failed to do what it was meant to do. I have no doubt that on all the consensus websites there will be triumphant posts about all the investigations coming back with a 'not guilty' verdict for their champions.

But without looking at the science, they didn't look at Climategate.

Global warming: An inquiry that doesn't look at the science cannot understand Climategate - National environmental policy | Examiner.com

Thanks for posting one of many articles detailing the weaknesses of these hearings. Acquittal of wrongdoing does not mean these guys acted properly. It means they got off with a warning and past and future publication should be scrutinized.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[editec]

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?

Biggest cheerleader for ethanol?

Robert Dole, Republican.

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