thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Funny thing is that I often hear the same thing when describing the opposite view. But I am curious just for the argument, what in what he linked was false? Is it not true that plants need CO2? When there is more CO2 are plants not bigger and do they not produce more? Yes plants need CO2. That is the simple science. It is equally factual that animals including humans need oxygen. Also plants don't do well in pure CO2 and we don't do well in pure oxygen either. So we are really talking about what is optimal for both. The rhythmatic oscillation of earths CO2 levels and corresponding temperature changes for the last 400,000 years operated at about 280 ppm max. We're well past that now and gaining more CO2. That part is factually incorrect plants don't grow bigger, and they don't produce more when subjected to higher concentrations of CO2.http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Funny thing is that I often hear the same thing when describing the opposite view. But I am curious just for the argument, what in what he linked was false? Is it not true that plants need CO2? When there is more CO2 are plants not bigger and do they not produce more?Plants do need CO2 but this is child science. The same kind that says if the doctor tells you that taking one pill a day will heal you in a month that if you take four a day you will be healed in a week or that since water is necessary for life you should drink endlessly all day long to live a better life.In controlled greenhouse conditions you get increased growth but that is because other factors can be controlled. Most free-air style studies show dramatic drops in plant growth. Part of this is that plants also need a comparable increase in moisture to grow and with the imbalance most plants seem to weaken. Some show increased vulnerability to insects and parasites due to the imbalance.There is no one answer for this. There are a LOT of plant species. Some may flourish and others diminish. Sadly most of our food crops appear to be in the latter category from what I have read.As to the argument above that there is more ice then there was in the past that is technically true but it ignores the difference between sea and land ice and that distinction is too complex for me to summarize here and I am an amateur at best.Scientific Consensus has been reached on climate change existing and being caused by humans. It is assumed correct in multiple connecting fields. The evidence is overwhelming. Amongst virtually all climate scientists discounting it is like as astronomer advancing Ptolemy's model of the Universe. Climate change deniers distributing propaganda are universally either ignorant or are quacks and usually paid off quacks. Most have not truly studied climate. You see a lot of philosophy professors and the like acting as shills in this area. They are as bad as the "experts" the tobacco industry used to hire to say tobacco smoke did not have negative health risks. May they be remembered the same way and soon.
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Right, from a historic European out look that is exactly what I was describing. When conservatives speak of being a conservative or libertarian it is under the lens of less government, less spending etc. More Government would be on the opposite side of the spectrum or liberal more taxes more regulation more government. Under the classic European outlook you essential end up at the same spot. You might just get there differently. Like I said what really is the difference from a private citizens perspective from being under rule by Nazi Germany or by Communist Stain? They look very similar in many respects. IOW it is not much a difference in the spectrum, right vs left. I need a scale were there is a clear difference in choice. That is why I view it the way I do. And you can say I am wrong all you want. It won't change a thing.This is a simplification and not true. Republicans like saying they like less government but they want to keep drug use criminalized, are the "tough on crime" crowd who favor harsher sentencing, are pro-military muscle for the government, and the like. It is more accurate to say that each side wants different things from government.There was a huge difference between Stalinist Soviet government and Nazi Germany. Stalin actually tried to change things. The economic order was upended and rebuilt from the ground up. Stalin's purges were more ideological. He was progressive (not in the positive sense). The Nazis got into power under the banner of socialism but quickly liquidated the socialists. Hitler had two major goals once he was in power so he could implement his foreign policy (his real desire; he cared almost nothing for economics). Win over the military and win over the businesses so he could rearm. He did both. His purges were racially motivated to defend the state and not so much over ideology. Both are authoritarian but of very different flavors. To use a Jacob 5 comparison they were different kinds of fruit but both are bad.Given the choice I would have preferred to live in Germany though of course I would rather live in neither.You are free of course to use your own made up definitions but you will find you cannot talk to others coherently while using them.
emarkp Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Extreme weather events have been flat to declining for some time. Although I keep looking around here in CA to see if Elijah is lurking about.
altersteve Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Extreme weather has been happening throughout the world for millions of years. It's nothing new. It just seems to us that a lot is happening lately because we can learn about something occurring on the other side of the planet literally minutes, or even seconds, after it happens. But this has been going on for a long time.
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Extreme weather events have been flat to declining for some time. Although I keep looking around here in CA to see if Elijah is lurking about. Incorrect. Extreme events are increasing and more likely to occur with more heat in the air/water.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explaining-extreme-events-2012-climate-perspective I don't know about Elijah and the climate. But this winter has been the warmest on record in Alaska. The phenomenon of Global Warming is causing the Arctic Oscillation that is freezing much of the north eastern US.
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Extreme weather has been happening throughout the world for millions of years. It's nothing new. It just seems to us that a lot is happening lately because we can learn about something occurring on the other side of the planet literally minutes, or even seconds, after it happens. But this has been going on for a long time. No question about that. The real question is what effects that warming will have on us.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) Republicans like saying they like less governmentNo they don't. That is simply a lie that some republicans say. Esp the establishment. They are not for less government which is the whole point I have been trying to make. The way I see it, is that our 2 choices in this country are big government or bigger government. Was Mitt Romney really a conservative? Was he really going to do things differently than Obama? Romney still wanted a national health care bill and system. Obama clearly did as he passed one. I don't want a national health care bill. Do you see were I am coming from here? I don't want bigger government. I am on the right as the lens I am using is for smaller government. The left wants more government. The spectrum I am using is not made up by me. . I didn't come up with what I believe in a vacuum. For some reason you are having a really hard time seeing what I am saying. What ever. I don't think there is a point anymore. Edited January 31, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 No question about that. The real question is what effects that warming will have on us.Apparently none.
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) No they don't. That is simply a lie that some republicans say. Esp the establishment. They are not for less government which is the whole point I have been trying to make. The way I see it, is that our 2 choices in this country are big government or bigger government. Was Mitt Romney really a conservative? Was he really going to do things differently than Obama? Romney still wanted a national health care bill and system. Obama clearly did as he passed one. I don't want a national health care bill. Do you see were I am coming from here? I don't want bigger government. I am on the right as the lens I am using is for smaller government. The left wants more government. The spectrum I am using is not made up by me. . I didn't come up with what I believe in a vacuum. For some reason you are having a really hard time seeing what I am saying. What ever. I don't think there is a point anymore. Both sides want more government. It is just a question of who gets the more government and who pays for it. I want a national health care program. I want medicare for all. You get to pick your own doctor, and the government picks up the cost. We pay for it through taxes, and everyone benefits. Well maybe not overcompensated insurance executives. Right now we have the highest medical costs in the world and mediocre results at best. It is time we start getting what we already pay for. IMNTBHO Edited January 31, 2014 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Apparently none. I hope you are not serious.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 I hope you are not serious.Rofl. I am about as serious as a guy that is now going to sell my car because I think me driving it is going to destroy the planet.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Both sides want more government. It is just a question of who gets the more government and who pays for it. I want a national health care program. I want medicare for all. You get to pick your own doctor, and the government picks up the cost. We pay for it through taxes, and everyone benefits. Well maybe not overcompensated insurance executives. Right now we have the highest medical costs in the world and mediocre results at best. It is time we start getting what we already pay for. IMNTBHOGetting rid of a 3rd party payer would be the best way to reduce costs, period. Any other method is not going to do much to alleviate the higher costs. And Obama care is a prime example of this. You may now have the last say on this particular issue.
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Rofl. I am about as serious as a guy that is now going to sell my car because I think me driving it is going to destroy the planet. You of course are free to believe and do just that. But I have some better solutions that reduce our dependence on oil(gasoline), reduce Greenhouse Gases, and at the same time allow you to drive your car.
Recommended Posts