interesting read on climate change...

[-SD-]

I predict the end of the Earth some day... And I further predict that many people will profiteer from it for about 1 trillion years in advance.

Charles

Doomsday predictions with no specific date are a very profitable industry I heard.

 

[Headholio]

Droughts are a normal part of our weather pattern.

Plant's need CO2 to grow. The CO2 content of a greenhouse is well over 1,000 ppm. Significantly higher than the current alarming rate of 400 ppm.

The world produces more food supplies than it ever has.

Earth has had CO2 concentrations up to 4,000 ppm before. Know what it was like then? A big steamy rain Forrest. Saudi Arabia was a jungle.

The earth hade higher C02 concentrations before man arrived and will after man is gone.

But hey it is ok - be part of the uneducated that believe hurricane Sandy is part of climate change when hurricane concentration is at an all time low. Or that the drought is as well when we have had two other drought equally as bad in this century.

I know it is an important part of your Eco system yo buy into all of this. Carry on.

Kudos for at least trying to bring in some facts to have an intelligent discussion. But, these are typical arguments of the head-in-the-sand-ers, and are unconvincing, false, or debunked, as you might easily guess since these arguments do nothing to change the fact that there is no credible debate about the reality of AGW, as I have already documented earlier in this thread.

Droughts are a normal part of our weather pattern.

So is hot weather, cold weather, every kind of weather. Not a very valuable statement.

Plant's need CO2 to grow. The CO2 content of a greenhouse is well over 1,000 ppm. Significantly higher than the current alarming rate of 400 ppm.

That might make me happy, if I was a plant, but plants are pretty dumb and would probably forget to look at all the negative ramifications of high CO2.

Earth has had CO2 concentrations up to 4,000 ppm before. Know what it was like then? A big steamy rain Forrest. Saudi Arabia was a jungle.

LOL that was a half a BILLION years ago. Not only were there no humans, there were no dinosaurs.
Again, thats pretty meaningless information.
And I find it hilarious when deniers use climate models to make an argument. So you know the CO2 levels 450 million years ago? How? Climate models. Oh, so scientists are believable?...etc.

The earth hade higher C02 concentrations before man arrived and will after man is gone.

But hey it is ok - be part of the uneducated that believe hurricane Sandy is part of climate change when hurricane concentration is at an all time low. Or that the drought is as well when we have had two other drought equally as bad in this century.

Funny you accuse others of being "uneducated" while taking a stance that ignores facts and denies science. But I agree Hurricane Sandy is proof of nothing. Taking one data point to make a case is stupid, but a common tactic of the anti-science group. Scientists don't do that. Scientists look at all the data to find the truth.

But I have not been able to find any credible source that says hurricanes are at an all time low. How about a link?

What I have found is that hurricane frequency is complicated and some models predict increases in storms and some models predict decreases, but the science also predicts storm intensity will increase, and the data shows that storm intensity has increased.

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - 21st Century Projections of Intense Hurricanes

As for drought, you are making the same mistake I mentioned above about drawing conclusions from single data points. The sad truth is that drought severity and frequency is increasing.

Study: U.S. drought risk to increase with climate change - MIT News Office

Bottom line: Man generated greenhouse gases are changing the climate, and these changes are occurring faster than any of the natural climate variations of the past. The ecosystem is very sensitive to small changes. Climate changes of the past have led to mass extinctions and dramatic changes in the environment. But those changes have occurred over 10's or hundreds of thousands of years or more. Plants might not care if CO2 goes up. The earth does not have a preference of current tide levels on the coasts or a level 10 feet higher. The earth will go on if areas that get 40" of rain suddenly get 10". It's not about the "end of the world", its about changes that have catastrophic consequences for us.

 

[Headholio]

I predict the end of the Earth some day... And I further predict that many people will profiteer from it for about 1 trillion years in advance.

Charles

So much for intelligent discussion.

I predict I will die one day. And I don't believe in calories or fat. So I am going to eat bacon wrapped donuts everyday for the rest of my life. In fact, you'd have to be an idiot to not eat bacon wrapped donuts every day and miss out on all that deliciousness just because some "so called scientists" say its bad.

 

[Headholio]

Anyone who is afraid that hucksters are cashing in on climate change should simply educate themselves. Hucksters pray on the ignorant. The facts are available to anyone who looks for them.

 

[mrplunkey]

So much for intelligent discussion.

I predict I will die one day. And I don't believe in calories or fat. So I am going to eat bacon wrapped donuts everyday for the rest of my life. In fact, you'd have to be an idiot to not eat bacon wrapped donuts every day and miss out on all that deliciousness just because some "so called scientists" say its bad.

People used to equate sodium with bacon wrapped-donuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/h...y-restricting-sodium.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Headholio]

People used to equate sodium with bacon wrapped-donuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/h...y-restricting-sodium.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Good article Plunkey.
Optimum sodium intake might be slightly in question right now, but the AHA hasn't changed their recommendations and there is no one saying that high sodium diets are good.

But more importantly, this information is coming from "scientific data", so why would we believe it? Plus, its a New York Times article, and you have taught me that they are just a bunch of lying liberals anyway.

 

[mrplunkey]

But more importantly, this information is coming from "scientific data", so why would we believe it? Plus, its a New York Times article, and you have taught me that they are just a bunch of lying liberals anyway.

Because liberal retards' eyes gloss over if they see anything that isn't from the NYT, village voice or huffington post.

 

[Headholio]

Because liberal retards' eyes gloss over if they see anything that isn't from the NYT, village voice or huffington post.

In poker player parlance you have a tell, which means it is obvious when you are floundering. You resort to insults when you have nothing else. Yeah, I'm the retard.

 

[mrplunkey]

In poker player parlance you have a tell, which means it is obvious when you are floundering. You resort to insults when you have nothing else. Yeah, I'm the retard.

At least we can both agree you're a retard. See? We've found some common ground.

 

[billfred]

But that's not saying much when our C02 levels get so high our vegetation begins to release C02 rather than absorbing it; which is what scientists predict will happen.

Yeah - I don't get that. One of the biggest increases from CO2 is from deforestation . Plants release oxygen.