- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 19,529
- Reaction score
- 5,476
- Location
- Wokingham, England
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Oh no ! Not the devastating 'denier denier pants on fire' response ..... again ! :lamo
Thanks for presenting the science denier perspective for us!
Oh no ! Not the devastating 'denier denier pants on fire' response ..... again ! :lamo
Oh well I guess those greenhouse growers must have been getting it wrong for decades now. Ideal levels for growth are three times those of today and this has been known for decades. This agenda has managed to corrupt the simplest of truisms in the minds of the wilfully gullible it seems.
Plants Need CO2 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions - Global Warming Climate Change Facts
Domain NameLANTSNEEDCO2.ORG
Created On:26-May-2009 20:14:18 UTC
Last Updated On:19-May-2011 14:38:46 UTC
Expiration Date:26-May-2016 20:14:18 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions, LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:44057767-NSI
Registrant Name:Leighton Steward
Registrant Street1:234 W BANDERA RD # 121
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:BOERNE
Registrant State/Province:TX
Registrant Postal Code:78006
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.7137517511
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:it@quintanaminerals.com
Quintana Minerals Corporation explores and develops oil and gas. The company also distributes natural gas in the United States. Quintana Minerals Corporation was founded in 1978 and is based in Houston, Texas
If you guys are going to continue your efforts to deny the reality of climate change, you really need to find some funding from groups that won't benefit financially when efforts to mitigate the effects of mankind's work on destroying our planet are shut down.
So who do you think benefits financially from carbon credit markets?
Hmmm, interesting . . . who should we believe, scientists who are looking at more than growth rates of plants exposed to elevated CO2 levels, specifically how higher levels are affecting the nutritional value of food plants by changing chemical processes during the growing period or a man (H. Leighton Steward) who "a director at oil and gas company EOG Resources, formerly known as Enron Oil and Gas Company, where he earned $617,151 in 2008. Steward also serves as an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute." A man who posts on a website registered by a minerals company
From GoDaddy WhoIS lookup page
from Bloomberg
If you guys are going to continue your efforts to deny the reality of climate change, you really need to find some funding from groups that won't benefit financially when efforts to mitigate the effects of mankind's work on destroying our planet are shut down.
Those investors who have put their money into that market.
Are you really making an attempt to equate them with those individuals in the fossil fuel industries who are funding the denialists?
Who benefits financially when public waterways are polluted? Who benefits when pollution laws keep our waterways clean?
Who benefits financially when there are no regulations regarding air pollution? Who benefits when more people can breathe clean air?
So the oil companies are responsible for the fact that extra CO 2 benefits plants now thus denying climate change and stating this is just some sinister global plot they've hatched to disguise thier evil deeds ? If an oil company said 1 + 1 = 2 it doesnt mean that it automatically doesnt ! Just how far gone are 'you guys' ? :lamo
You really don't bother to read any item that contradicts your deeply held beliefs, do you?
Research has shown increased CO2 levels while increasing the size of food plants, at the same time decreases the uptake of nitrogen into the plants, thereby reducing the nutritional value. For the cattle industry, it would mean each cow would have to increase consumption to achieve the same protein level -- more land devoted to feed for cows and less for people. And what was grown for humans would also have less nutritional value. .
Why, is everything in your world such an absolute?
It truly seems to be one of the major requirements for the 'conservative', black/white, "My way or the highway", binary thought patterns
Argue black is white all you want . The facts are the facts
How do plants respond to increased frequency of drought and heatwave?
CO2 isn't the only variable at play.
You really don't bother to read any item that contradicts your deeply held beliefs, do you?
Research has shown increased CO2 levels while increasing the size of food plants, at the same time decreases the uptake of nitrogen into the plants, thereby reducing the nutritional value. For the cattle industry, it would mean each cow would have to increase consumption to achieve the same protein level -- more land devoted to feed for cows and less for people. And what was grown for humans would also have less nutritional value.
Why, is everything in your world such an absolute? It truly seems to be one of the major requirements for the 'conservative', black/white, "My way or the highway", binary thought patterns.
This also explains why the great majority of science deniers are conservative. It is why Jon Huntsman was worried his party was going to considered the anti-science party.
And thankfully I am niether. I'm just someone who doesnt like to be blatantly lied to in order that others might get to help themselves to the contents of my wallet
This also explains why the great majority of science deniers are conservative. It is why Jon Huntsman was worried his party was going to considered the anti-science party.
How do you KNOW that your being "blatantly lied to"?
Thats simple I've checked the facts
Where are you getting the 'scientific' data that shows the majority of climatologists are lying to the public, are manipulating the data to 'prove' their statements on AGW?
How do you know its a majority have you actually checked or are you someone who takes the 97% Doran Zimmermann poll at face value ? Its not so much what climatologists are saying but alarmist misrepresentations of what they are saying thats at issue.
What is your educational background that allows you to interpret the data?
I can do math and I can read
If you don't like "others" helping themselves to the contents of your wallet, you might want to think about what is happening around the world these days. The ones helping themselves to the greatest extent sure as hell ain't Romney's "moochers and takers
I'm not jealous about the contents of thier wallets I care about the diminishing contents of mine :roll:
I'd like to put it more accurately. Rational people question the motives science put out by the AGW crowd. And they do that because a lot of it has been crap. Like the study
in the OP. Where’s the hockey stick? The ‘Marcott 9′ show no warming past 1950 | Watts Up With That?
Liberals tend to belive anything that says what they want hear without much questiioning. ( SEE OP)
Conservatives put greater stock in political blogs, like the one you referenced, then they do the majority of climate experts from all over the world.
We're Screwed: 11,000 Years' Worth of Climate Data Prove It - Climate Desk - The Atlantic
I think maybe it's time to kiss our asses goodbye.
.
They do when said blogs eviscerate a study with fatcs, like this one did.
The notion of 'climate experts all over the world' being a bunch of objective observers with no poltical agenda who -gee- just happened to come to some the same conclusion , is pure fantasy. That silly notion was emphatically laid to rest by Climategate. But then, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
"Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."
"Mark Hoofnagle defines denialism as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists."
Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193; Welcome to AGU Online Services).
“Grant, I find it just plain bizarre that you wrote all this and never even mentioned Steve McIntyre, who first figured out what Marcott had done wrong, and whose excellent work is the whole reason you wrote this.”
For your information, Davy boy, McIntyre’s contribution to this was limited to his every effort to discredit the entire reconstruction, to discredit Marcott and his collaborators, and of course his usual knee-jerk spasms at the sight of anything remotely resembling a hockey stick, sprinkled literally with thinly veiled sneering.
Also for your information, the original version of this post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively. But prior to posting I decided to remove that, since McIntyre had already fully explored the “low road.”
So, quietly this weekend Marcott, the originator of the study referenced in the original post, released an FAQ for the study. Among the Q&A was this gem:
So, quietly this weekend Marcott, the originator of the study referenced in the original post, released an FAQ for the study. Among the Q&A was this gem:
I guess ole Pete must have missed these Nobel Laureate kinda guys then.
Popular Technology.net: Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW Alarm
He also missed these leading climatologist kinda guys too it seems
Popular Technology.net: Prominent Climatologists Skeptical of AGW Alarm
And all of whom are rather better qualified and a whole lot more 'credible' than political climate activist Peter Christoff to determine whether the 'debate is over' or not
A/PROF PETER CHRISTOFF - The University of Melbourne
And this guy isnt even involved in climate science at all ! He's an activist medical doctor running a political blogsite ! :lamo
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?