The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low

[longknife]

Let's see the environmentalists attack this article @ The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low

We all know they will.

The United States is needlessly penalizing itself and squandering its resource endowment, all because of the big lie that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming. The Chinese, in contrast, merely pay lip service to that big lie. The only reason they are making a token effort on the “global warming” front is to encourage Western countries to continue hobbling their own economies. One can be forgiven for thinking that there must be some truth in the global warming notion given how much noise its advocates have made. But as with most causes promoted by leftist ideologues, the truth is exactly the opposite to their claim. The fact of the matter is the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere remains dangerously low at four hundred parts per million. In fact the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the better for all forms of life on planet Earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. What a steaming pile of shit that article is. No truth in it at all. One scientific society has been forced by it's members to change it's stand on AGW. That society is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Here is the story on that;

American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2006 the AAPG was criticized for selecting Michael Crichton for their Journalism Award for Jurassic Park and "for his recent science-based thriller State of Fear", in which Crichton exposed his skeptical view of global warming.[6] Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part.[7] The AAPG's award for journalism lauded "notable journalistic achievement, in any medium, which contributes to public understanding of geology, energy resources or the technology of oil and gas exploration." The name of the journalism award has since been changed to the "Geosciences in the Media" Award.[8]
The criticism drew attention to the AAPG's 1999 position statement[9] formally rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate. The Council of the American Quaternary Association wrote in a criticism of the award that the "AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."[10]
As recently as March 2007, articles in the newsletter of the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs stated that "the data does not support human activity as the cause of global warming"[11] and characterize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports as "wildly distorted and politicized."[12]
2007 AAPG revised position[edit]
Acknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[13] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.
The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."[14]
AAPG also withdrew its earlier criticism of other scientific organizations and research stating, "Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

 

[gnarlylove]

Let's see the environmentalists attack this article

When you try to demonstrate your position by a primarily political media source, you should always wonder if what they are saying is true. In other words, be skeptical.

In the case of your link, "powerful conservative voices" is a good reason to assume the views expressed in the article were deeply influenced by politics. In other words, politics influenced science. The reason we can confirm this is the reason given above by Old Rocks. The way good science works is science begets policy/politics, and it should never work the other way around where politics begets one's science and objective understanding of reality. However, its obvious you are under the impression that politics can and should influence science so much so that it changes the conclusions of thousands of scientists. In which case your article is entirely correct and there is nothing to attack.

But if you think objective reality is worth looking at like cause and effect relations then you can examine observations about reality. You can and should leave politics aside when it comes to reality and science. In doing so one will note in observations that CO2 is increasing as it will into May, after which the planet absorbs some CO2.

But if you think a political pundit has views that sound pretty and fit your pre-determined conclusions about reality, then I have nothing to say.

 

[TheOldSchool]

China's carbon dioxide policy: wear a face mask

 

[mamooth]

Increasing CO2 tends to make weeds and vines grow faster than crops and trees. So it's a mixed bag, as the increased weed and vine growth chokes off the growth of the crops and trees.

And it also ignores the other things that make plants grow like ... well, rain. And rain. And especially rain. Moisture levels dwarf any CO2 effects.

 

[westwall]

Let's see the environmentalists attack this article

When you try to demonstrate your position by a primarily political media source, you should always wonder if what they are saying is true. In other words, be skeptical.

In the case of your link, "powerful conservative voices" is a good reason to assume the views expressed in the article were deeply influenced by politics. In other words, politics influenced science. The reason we can confirm this is the reason given above by Old Rocks. The way good science works is science begets policy/politics, and it should never work the other way around where politics begets one's science and objective understanding of reality. However, its obvious you are under the impression that politics can and should influence science so much so that it changes the conclusions of thousands of scientists. In which case your article is entirely correct and there is nothing to attack.

But if you think objective reality is worth looking at like cause and effect relations then you can examine observations about reality. You can and should leave politics aside when it comes to reality and science. In doing so one will note in observations that CO2 is increasing as it will into May, after which the planet absorbs some CO2.

But if you think a political pundit has views that sound pretty and fit your pre-determined conclusions about reality, then I have nothing to say.

You mean like Think Progress? Oh, the irony!

 

[westwall]

Increasing CO2 tends to make weeds and vines grow faster than crops and trees. So it's a mixed bag, as the increased weed and vine growth chokes off the growth of the crops and trees.

And it also ignores the other things that make plants grow like ... well, rain. And rain. And especially rain. Moisture levels dwarf any CO2 effects.

Yeah, sure. The only "study" that presented that crapola I could find is this one...

Wolfe, W., L. Ziska, C. Petzoldt, A. Seaman, L. Chase, and K.Hayhoe, 2007: Projected change in climate thresholds in the northeastern U.S.: implications for crops, pests, livestock, and farmers. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13(5-6), 555-575.

And they neglected to have food crops present in the beds they used for their "study". They were able to show quite conclusively that CO2 makes plants grow. THERE WAS NO CONTROL however, so their study is shit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's see the environmentalists attack this article

When you try to demonstrate your position by a primarily political media source, you should always wonder if what they are saying is true. In other words, be skeptical.

In the case of your link, "powerful conservative voices" is a good reason to assume the views expressed in the article were deeply influenced by politics. In other words, politics influenced science. The reason we can confirm this is the reason given above by Old Rocks. The way good science works is science begets policy/politics, and it should never work the other way around where politics begets one's science and objective understanding of reality. However, its obvious you are under the impression that politics can and should influence science so much so that it changes the conclusions of thousands of scientists. In which case your article is entirely correct and there is nothing to attack.

But if you think objective reality is worth looking at like cause and effect relations then you can examine observations about reality. You can and should leave politics aside when it comes to reality and science. In doing so one will note in observations that CO2 is increasing as it will into May, after which the planet absorbs some CO2.

But if you think a political pundit has views that sound pretty and fit your pre-determined conclusions about reality, then I have nothing to say.

You mean like Think Progress? Oh, the irony!

No, like the members of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists that forced the board purchased by the oil companies to change the policy statement of that organization. Like the policy statements by the Geological Society of America and American Geophysical Society. Or that of the American Meteological Society.

 

[westwall]

When you try to demonstrate your position by a primarily political media source, you should always wonder if what they are saying is true. In other words, be skeptical.

In the case of your link, "powerful conservative voices" is a good reason to assume the views expressed in the article were deeply influenced by politics. In other words, politics influenced science. The reason we can confirm this is the reason given above by Old Rocks. The way good science works is science begets policy/politics, and it should never work the other way around where politics begets one's science and objective understanding of reality. However, its obvious you are under the impression that politics can and should influence science so much so that it changes the conclusions of thousands of scientists. In which case your article is entirely correct and there is nothing to attack.

But if you think objective reality is worth looking at like cause and effect relations then you can examine observations about reality. You can and should leave politics aside when it comes to reality and science. In doing so one will note in observations that CO2 is increasing as it will into May, after which the planet absorbs some CO2.

But if you think a political pundit has views that sound pretty and fit your pre-determined conclusions about reality, then I have nothing to say.

You mean like Think Progress? Oh, the irony!

No, like the members of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists that forced the board purchased by the oil companies to change the policy statement of that organization. Like the policy statements by the Geological Society of America and American Geophysical Society. Or that of the American Meteological Society.

Says the silly person who quotes Think Progress on a regular basis. You guys are so funny! You think the rules you want to apply to others don't apply to you!

Typical brain dead propagandist you are ...yes....

 

[Old Rocks]

Did the AAPG change it's policy statement at the insistance of it's members? Many so insistant that they stated that if the AAPG did not change it's statement to reflect reality that they would quit the organization. Has the GSA or AGU had any kind of movement like that?

Walleyes, you have continually flapped yap about how it is not the members of the scientfic organizations that are writing policy. Yet the only one that changes it's policy does so because the members threatoned to leave the organization. And the policy was changed to acknowledge AGW.

The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

 

[westwall]

Did the AAPG change it's policy statement at the insistance of it's members? Many so insistant that they stated that if the AAPG did not change it's statement to reflect reality that they would quit the organization. Has the GSA or AGU had any kind of movement like that?

Walleyes, you have continually flapped yap about how it is not the members of the scientfic organizations that are writing policy. Yet the only one that changes it's policy does so because the members threatoned to leave the organization. And the policy was changed to acknowledge AGW.

The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

I can't comment on the AAPG,s actions as I am not a member, nor do I have access to the minutes of their meetings. That being said it is proper for ANY organization to LISTEN to its members and encourage THEIR input into the policies and positions taken by the organization.

That IS the Democratic way...is it not? Or do you only favor dictatorial leadership?

 

[gnarlylove]

do you only favor dictatorial leadership?

Does objective reality conform to human Democracy? So if people took a big vote and decided the sky was purple it would become purple? Or better yet, if everyone elected cars to become people, would cars suddenly become people?

Yep, reality is a dictator alright. It doesn't conform to our wishes. It just exists and if we don't like it tough shit.

 

[mamooth]

Yeah, sure. The only "study" that presented that crapola I could find is this one...

So you're helpless at web searches. Let me help you get started.

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/avec/peyresq2003/talks/0918/koerner/background_literature/GCB2002.pdf
---
(Cut and paste not working. Basically, CO2 increases tropical vine growth a whole lot.)
---

The Heat Is Online
---
Over the last two decades of the twentieth century the dominance of large lianas relative to trees has increased by 1.7–4.6% a year. Lianas enhance tree mortality and suppress tree growth
---

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9086.full.pdf
---
In this 6-year study at the Duke University Free-Air CO2 Enrichment experiment, we show that elevated atmospheric CO2 in an intact forest ecosystem increases photosynthesis, water use efficiency, growth, and population biomass of poison ivy. The CO2 growth stimulation exceeds that of most other woody species.
---

In Ranchers Vs. Weeds, Climate Change Gives Weeds An Edge : The Salt : NPR
---
The warming and CO2 weren't set at doomsday levels, but rather conservative levels Blumenthal says the Plains could see within a century. Under those conditions, Dalmatian toadflax flourished, growing in size 13-fold and producing more seeds.

Similar field studies across the country have shown other nasty weeds do well in warmer, more CO2-heavy conditions
---

 

[flacaltenn]

do you only favor dictatorial leadership?

Does objective reality conform to human Democracy? So if people took a big vote and decided the sky was purple it would become purple? Or better yet, if everyone elected cars to become people, would cars suddenly become people?

Yep, reality is a dictator alright. It doesn't conform to our wishes. It just exists and if we don't like it tough shit.

It is DICTATORIAL for a board of 10 or 12 scientists to issue SWEEPING public policy statements on behalf of several THOUSAND accomplished scientists.. Those organizations collect dues BECAUSE the members want DISCOUNTS on conference fees, journal access, and Car Rentals. THAT'S why they HAVE a membership.. NOT BECAUSE the membership DESIRES or ADVOCATES taking positions on public policy.

So ---- YES --- the membership SHOULD be polled, the process SHOULD be opened up if they want to make those statements in the name of the membership. Anything else -- would be dictatorial and deceptive to the public dupes like GoldiRocks and Abraham and perhaps yourself who simply "count the votes" and can't weigh in on the details of the propositions..

 

[westwall]

Yeah, sure. The only "study" that presented that crapola I could find is this one...

So you're helpless at web searches. Let me help you get started.

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/avec/peyresq2003/talks/0918/koerner/background_literature/GCB2002.pdf
---
(Cut and paste not working. Basically, CO2 increases tropical vine growth a whole lot.)
---

The Heat Is Online
---
Over the last two decades of the twentieth century the dominance of large lianas relative to trees has increased by 1.7–4.6% a year. Lianas enhance tree mortality and suppress tree growth
---

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9086.full.pdf
---
In this 6-year study at the Duke University Free-Air CO2 Enrichment experiment, we show that elevated atmospheric CO2 in an intact forest ecosystem increases photosynthesis, water use efficiency, growth, and population biomass of poison ivy. The CO2 growth stimulation exceeds that of most other woody species.
---

In Ranchers Vs. Weeds, Climate Change Gives Weeds An Edge : The Salt : NPR
---
The warming and CO2 weren't set at doomsday levels, but rather conservative levels Blumenthal says the Plains could see within a century. Under those conditions, Dalmatian toadflax flourished, growing in size 13-fold and producing more seeds.

Similar field studies across the country have shown other nasty weeds do well in warmer, more CO2-heavy conditions
---

Clearly you're like every other nimrod who posts here and your little sycophant thanks your post so that means he didn't bother to read the links EITHER.

What idiots you are. The first link measured the effect CO2 has on THREE climbing plants and surprise surprise (well, not really if you aren't a AGW cultist and have a brain) CO2 helped them grow. No mention of weeds at all. FAIL.

Second link followed the same plan and dealt only with Lianas and once again showed beyond doubt that CO2 helps plants grow and once again had no control thus once again there is no way to check their results. These guys really are shitty scientists. They haven't a fucking clue how to set up a proper experiment. FAIL.

Third link, once again NO FUCKING CONTROL.. What the fuck is wrong with these imbeciles? FAIL.

And finally the Dalmatian toadflax episode. Once again NO FUCKING CONTROL, so yet again there is no way to tell if weeds actually grow any faster than the "good plants" because these fucking morons didn't get the tiny little thought through their tiny little fucking brains that they should do that really basic comparison.


EPIC FAIL on all counts.

You see gnarley, you applaud shit. Congrats. I'm glad you like shit science.

 

[westwall]

do you only favor dictatorial leadership?

Does objective reality conform to human Democracy? So if people took a big vote and decided the sky was purple it would become purple? Or better yet, if everyone elected cars to become people, would cars suddenly become people?

Yep, reality is a dictator alright. It doesn't conform to our wishes. It just exists and if we don't like it tough shit.

So you do prefer dictatorship over democratic rule. Good to know but I can't say I'm surprised. All you progressives are pretty much alike. Control the people, and kill those you can't control.

 

[mamooth]

Clearly you're like every other nimrod who posts here and your little sycophant thanks your post so that means he didn't bother to read the links EITHER.

Stop pouting. You were too lazy and stupid to even start looking up even the basics, and you got humiliated again, like you always do.

Instead of raging at me, you could take a lesson from it, as to what happens whenever you blindly parrot nonsense talking points. However, your political cult has commanded you to keep babbling that idiot "But CO2 is wonderful plant food!" mantra. You don't have the guts or brains to go against your cult, so you'll keep working hard to ignore all the contrary data.

Oh, those experiments had controls. You're either a complete imbecile or a deliberate liar. And they were just the tip of the iceberg. You can deny all the research exists ... and you will, of course.

Everyone, take a lesson from the tragedy of Westwall. He was once intelligent, but he then allowed a cult to brainwash him. Now he devotes all of his energy and intellect into parroting cult nonsense and rejecting rationality. At least all his hard work there has paid off.

 

[westwall]

Clearly you're like every other nimrod who posts here and your little sycophant thanks your post so that means he didn't bother to read the links EITHER.

Stop pouting. You were too lazy and stupid to even start looking up even the basics, and you got humiliated again, like you always do.

Instead of raging at me, you could take a lesson from it, as to what happens whenever you blindly parrot nonsense talking points. However, your political cult has commanded you to keep babbling that idiot "But CO2 is wonderful plant food!" mantra. You don't have the guts or brains to go against your cult, so you'll keep working hard to ignore all the contrary data.

Oh, those experiments had controls. You're either a complete imbecile or a deliberate liar. And they were just the tip of the iceberg. You can deny all the research exists ... and you will, of course.

Everyone, take a lesson from the tragedy of Westwall. He was once intelligent, but he then allowed a cult to brainwash him. Now he devotes all of his energy and intellect into parroting cult nonsense and rejecting rationality. At least all his hard work there has paid off.

The basics don't report what you claim they did silly person. I can read a study. Clearly you are incapable or you would have presented links that supported what you claimed. But, like all braindead propagandists you didn't and instead hoped and prayed that we wouldn't look at what you posted.

Idiot.

 

[Old Rocks]

do you only favor dictatorial leadership?

Does objective reality conform to human Democracy? So if people took a big vote and decided the sky was purple it would become purple? Or better yet, if everyone elected cars to become people, would cars suddenly become people?

Yep, reality is a dictator alright. It doesn't conform to our wishes. It just exists and if we don't like it tough shit.

So you do prefer dictatorship over democratic rule. Good to know but I can't say I'm surprised. All you progressives are pretty much alike. Control the people, and kill those you can't control.

So here we have it. Dumb fuck Walleyes believes that reality is subject to political desires. So now we know why he can post all the blad faced lies that he does.

 

[Kosh]

To bad the AGW cult has not provided a link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.