Australian Politics Forum - Im calling it. Fess up already . No more pseudo sc

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Im calling it. Fess up already . No more pseudo sc
Reply #30 - Mar 24^th, 2015 at 11:46pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:15am:

ministerforbananas wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:11am:

I believe in Climate change but i dont believe in the Alarmism the greenies and IPCC indulge in. Yes Climate change is a problem, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming but its clear that its not as significant of a factor as they said it was. And the Human factor is also highly debatable, the percentage of CO2 is so small that its insignificant compared to other green house gases.

For example, when it was getting hot they all said its Global warming! Then it started getting cold they said "Well part of Global Warming is that Winters get colder and SUmmers get hotter" but then we started having Summers that are Colder and Winters that are Warmer, then they said "Its Extreme Climate change" with no clear definition of "extreme"

And now we have record winters and freezing in the Northern hemisphere but they can't explain it, they just go back to their open ended two words "Climate Change"

on top of that, now every hurricane, cyclone, earthquake, etc is being blamed on Climate Change / Global warming even though the top IPCC scientist said that its "impossible" to prove if a certain extreme weather even is related to Warming.

Latest predictions span 100-500 years, that way we can never criticize them as you can never prove if they are wrong unless you wait 100 years.

The Media loves doom and gloom so they will pump this forever.

What if you're wrong?

Shocked

Going by the models and going by the poor science of AGW climate change..... We will not be wrong. Only the models to which this whole pseudo science relies on are wrong.

Which is why no one places a bet on the horse your backing

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Im calling it. Fess up already . No more pseudo sc
Reply #31 - Mar 24^th, 2015 at 11:48pm

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 24^th, 2015 at 11:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:10am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 10:11am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 9:37am:

have you found any articles or identified a scientific theory which shows that the average Global temperature will decrease as CO2 levels increase in the earths atmosphere?

What about global surface temperature being independent of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Any luck on that front,.

There seems to be a lot of scientific evidence and theoretical support that the earth will warm as CO2 concentration increases in the earths atmosphere.

And if the earth warms up, there will be changes to the earths climate and every other ecological and biological system.

The crap that you spew out seems to be aired on the internet only. Funny that isnt it. Why not put together a article and submit through the scientific peer reviiew process?

Oh whats wrong, cant you handle genuine scrutiny?

You need to hide in the dungeons of the internet to vomit out the BS

At least one part of your post is true...
The Earth warming will indeed be changes to the climate and ecological and biological systems. And if Co2 increases as a result of that warming, then plant life will increase in abundance and health (since Co2 is, after all, plant food).

But I notice you still haven't managed to provide any empirical or real world evidence that Co2 is a cause of warming..

The article in the wattsup link, IS from a peer reviewed journal, and was written by scientists..

Oh, and pot-kettle Grin

indulis at 12:00 PM on 16 July, 2010
Agriculture negatives- More CO2 produces lower protein levels in the plants, so a larger quantity is needed to provide the same amount of protein.
"Despite the large body of research on the effect of elevated CO2 on primary productivity, few studies consider the overall nutritional value of plants."

More CO2 also produces more cyanide in the plant, while at the same time lowering protein in the plant. Animal and human tolerance to cyanide is reduced by lower levels of protein. Coupled with reduced protein levels per plant, this makes plants more toxic.

Paper "Changes in Nutritional Value of Cyanogenic Trifolium repens
Grown at Elevated Atmospheric CO2"
Overview of this research from Monash University
Audio and transcript from ABC Science Show interview with Roslyn M. Gleadow

source: comment 30, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=364&&a=50

NB: there is plenty of other commentary regarding the fact CO2 is not the only limiting factor in plant growth... how does extra CO2 supply more nutrients and water for one? For two, why should all plants react in a positive manner to extra CO2 which of course some do...!??!

Gizmo needs a reality check Cheesy

As nights warm—minimum temperatures rise–plants can’t take up as much CO2. The “plant food” non–argument is total crap.

They say some trees respond positively and some don't: regardless CO2 is not the only limiting factor !!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Im calling it. Fess up already . No more pseudo sc
Reply #32 - Mar 25^th, 2015 at 6:32am

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 24^th, 2015 at 11:48pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 24^th, 2015 at 11:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 11:10am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 10:11am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 9:37am:

have you found any articles or identified a scientific theory which shows that the average Global temperature will decrease as CO2 levels increase in the earths atmosphere?

What about global surface temperature being independent of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Any luck on that front,.

There seems to be a lot of scientific evidence and theoretical support that the earth will warm as CO2 concentration increases in the earths atmosphere.

And if the earth warms up, there will be changes to the earths climate and every other ecological and biological system.

The crap that you spew out seems to be aired on the internet only. Funny that isnt it. Why not put together a article and submit through the scientific peer reviiew process?

Oh whats wrong, cant you handle genuine scrutiny?

You need to hide in the dungeons of the internet to vomit out the BS

At least one part of your post is true...
The Earth warming will indeed be changes to the climate and ecological and biological systems. And if Co2 increases as a result of that warming, then plant life will increase in abundance and health (since Co2 is, after all, plant food).

But I notice you still haven't managed to provide any empirical or real world evidence that Co2 is a cause of warming..

The article in the wattsup link, IS from a peer reviewed journal, and was written by scientists..

Oh, and pot-kettle Grin

indulis at 12:00 PM on 16 July, 2010
Agriculture negatives- More CO2 produces lower protein levels in the plants, so a larger quantity is needed to provide the same amount of protein.
"Despite the large body of research on the effect of elevated CO2 on primary productivity, few studies consider the overall nutritional value of plants."

More CO2 also produces more cyanide in the plant, while at the same time lowering protein in the plant. Animal and human tolerance to cyanide is reduced by lower levels of protein. Coupled with reduced protein levels per plant, this makes plants more toxic.

Paper "Changes in Nutritional Value of Cyanogenic Trifolium repens
Grown at Elevated Atmospheric CO2"
Overview of this research from Monash University
Audio and transcript from ABC Science Show interview with Roslyn M. Gleadow

source: comment 30, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=364&&a=50

NB: there is plenty of other commentary regarding the fact CO2 is not the only limiting factor in plant growth... how does extra CO2 supply more nutrients and water for one? For two, why should all plants react in a positive manner to extra CO2 which of course some do...!??!

Gizmo needs a reality check Cheesy

As nights warm—minimum temperatures rise–plants can’t take up as much CO2. The “plant food” non–argument is total crap.

They say some trees respond positively and some don't: regardless CO2 is not the only limiting factor !!

did someone cooke the books again

Back to top

IP Logged

innocentbystander.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4723
Gender: male

Re: Im calling it. Fess up already . No more pseudo sc
Reply #33 - Mar 25^th, 2015 at 1:19pm

This is how insane the global warming cult is, there absolutely positively can not ever be any positive thing to come from a bit more warmth or a bit more co2 never ever ever.

If they didn't want to be viewed as anything other than Scientology type cult crackpots with a screw loose they would be a little more objective.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Im calling it. Fess up already . No more pseudo sc
Reply #34 - Mar 25^th, 2015 at 2:08pm

innocentbystander. wrote on Mar 25^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

This is how insane the global warming cult is, there absolutely positively can not ever be any positive thing to come from a bit more warmth or a bit more co2 never ever ever.

If they didn't want to be viewed as anything other than Scientology type cult crackpots with a screw loose they would be a little more objective.

You're wrong: science agrees that some plants and animals will benefit, but not all!

Further, they will have you note that warmth and CO2 are not the only limiting factors.

This is why the problem is called 'complex' Shocked

i.e. it has too many variables without the needed equations to solve for a point solution

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged