• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Carbon drought ..

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    And why don't you refute the science and evidence presented in the video, instead of attacking the Scientist personally as is the Modus operandi's of anyone who does not comprehend the science behind a complicated subject. He is eminently more qualified than you are, yet you come here attacking his character, Because you obviously have no qualifications to refute the science he presents.

    Just like with your fellow posters you never respond to anything that require an answer which would question your belief system , Only way to get you to respond is To lower ourselves to your level with Comments such as the troll comment. Works every time.
    Here is the rebuttal to Happers primary argument.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

    Is CO2 a pollutant?
    What the science says...

    While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.

    Climate Myth...
    CO2 is not a pollutant
    'To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.' (Robert Balling, as quoted by Popular Technology)

    We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure. A vivid example is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect keeps our climate from freezing over. How can CO2 be considered a pollutant?

    A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	co2_10000_years.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	12.0 KB
ID:	767234
    Figure 1: CO2 levels (parts per million) over the past 10,000 years. Blue line from Taylor Dome ice cores (NOAA). Green line from Law Dome ice core (CDIAC). Red line from direct measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA).

    Rising CO2 levels causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. This leads to warmer temperatures which has many consequences. Some effects are beneficial such as improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions. Species are becoming extinct at the fastest rate in history.

    How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics. To focus on a few positive effects of carbon dioxide is to ignore the broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2 are severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future humanity.

    Intermediate rebuttal written by John Cook

    Comment


      #32
      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

      Comment


        #33
        http://behindthenumbers.ca/2016/03/03/dont-believe-the-hype-on-bcs-carbon-tax/

        Comment


          #34
          OCT 9, 2016 12:27
          Time to cry WOLF WOLF WOLF!!!

          There is most certainly a pattern to climate change... …but it’s not what you may think:

          For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.

          1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895

          1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times

          1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912

          1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune

          1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post

          1924 – MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924

          1929 – “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?

          1932 – “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

          1933 – America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933

          1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”

          1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

          1938 – “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune

          1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post

          1952 – “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962

          1954 – “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report

          1954 – Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine

          1959 – “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times

          1969 – “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969

          1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)

          1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post

          1974 – Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine

          1974 – “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post

          1974 – “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger

          1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
          Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive,
          for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the
          harbinger of another ice age

          1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975

          1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine

          1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report

          1981 – Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times

          1988 – I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context

          1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989

          1990 – “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth

          1993 – “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report

          1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998

          2001 – “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001

          2003 – Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003

          2006 – “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006

          ** and so on, and so on...

          Etc...Analysis of the sun has revealed that there has been a sharp decrease in the amount of sunspots this year.

          Sunspots release solar flares and vast amounts of magnetic energy.

          For the fourth time this year, the sun has gone blank, which has led some experts to believe that a new Ice Age is on the horizon and could hit us by 2019.

          According to Space Weather.com, the occurrence of a spotless sun is going to become more regular.
          Meteorologist Paul Dorian believes that this is indicative behaviour of an approaching Ice Age.

          He told the Daily Star: “If history is any guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom most layer of Earth’s atmosphere — and where we all live.”

          http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/634631/Global-warming-and-rising-CO2-levels-may-be-SAVING-humanity-from-a-devastating-ICE-AGE?_ga=1.39365028.666602943.1475773513

          Comment


            #35
            Scientists Aren’t Dumb; They’re Just Liars, Say Totally Reputable Scientists
            by Rollin Bishop | 7:10 pm, October 1st, 2012 0
            submit to reddit


            Scientific papers being retracted after publication isn’t some kind of new phenomenon. The age of press releases might have made such snafus a more widely-known event, but it’s one of those things that happens from time to time. Common wisdom was that the majority of retractions were due to errors present in the work, but a new study has concluded that it’s actually misconduct like fraud or plagiarism that causes most retractions. In other words, scientists aren’t dumb; they’re just liars.

            Comment


              #36
              https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/opinion/texas-towns-environmental-narcissism-makes-al-gore-happy-while-sticking-its-citizens-with-the-bill.amp

              Comment


                #37
                Thanks for addressing my concerns Chuck. It is certainly handy that the science denier websites are thoughtful enough to spoon feed ready made generic rebuttals for fellow cult members to regurgitate word for word.

                But in order for us to have an intellectual discussion on the topic, could you perhaps actually watch the video, and address the specific points that you disagree with, in your own words, using your own powers of critical independent thinking. After all, in your attempts to discredit Happer, you gave the impression that you must be much smarter and more informed on the subject than he is, so it shouldn't be hard for you to do, but will require more effort.

                Comment


                  #38
                  I highly doubt he even watched it . His response was up almost as fast is the video was uploaded lol .
                  Chucky you should watch the other one as well .
                  Neither one is a climate change denier , just a different view of climate change .

                  Kinda like the cult .. Scientology, no one dare have their own opinions of it .. lol

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Yeah im a climate change sceptic not denier not believer possibly a studier... just have to see how 19 pans out i guess.

                    But if we have another crap year here might well have to change my thought process a little.

                    Since 2000 weve had 5 years of average or above and im meant to be in a "low but reliable area"

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by recapped View Post
                      Chuck, name one alarmist event that has actually come true.
                      Exactly right! These educated brainiacs need some way to justify the money governments pay them to do all the scientific studies. Do this don’t do that. Then ten years later it’s the opposite. Waste of money. We can’t change the weather. Only the sun can. Without it we are nothing.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Global warming cooling what ever is next is the new religion, the world is going to end unless you give to the collection plate the more you give the more you will be saved.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by Radical View Post
                          OCT 9, 2016 12:27
                          Time to cry WOLF WOLF WOLF!!!
                          Nice list Radical, however proves nothing. There as always been disagreement an contrary opinion in science and always will be, even when there is claims that the science is settled. It is human nature to discount anything against our personal belief. Or to seek to profit, regardless if it is moral or fact based.

                          The other thing to consider is how many of the "proof" of your point on your list are actual peer reviewed science and how many are simply opinion pieces by someone seeking the limelight or profit.

                          Here is my list:
                          Scientists long believed the earth was flat. Today science says the world is round but there are still flat earthers who stick to old science. So does this contrary belief mean earth can't be round?

                          Evolution is considered science, and has been debated in science for generations. Yet there are still creationists. Since there are creationists, does this mean evolution can't be believed?

                          Science says GMOs, Glyphosate, and Vaccicines are safe. Yet there are other scientists who dispute the safety of each of these. So who should the public believe. The science that produced these products or the claims they are dangerous and should be banned?

                          Science put man on the moon, yet there are still claims the lunar landing was fake. Since some people do not believe the lunar landings happened should we refrain from teaching moon landings in schools?

                          In the 1940's and 50's doctors were appearing in ads promoting cigarettes. So should we ignore all science that claims today that smoking is bad for your health?

                          I could go on and on. But the question I want you to answer is to name one recognized SCIENTIFIC BODY THAT DISPUTES MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE today. I am not talking about an individual scientist, or some lobby group, or a collection of opinions, I want you to name a real scientific organization national or international.

                          And as you are thinking about this you may want to consider the following Wikipedia statement: Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[24] no national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

                          Comment


                            #43
                            https://mashable.com/article/earth-day-2019-climate-change-carbon-dioxide.amp

                            Comment


                              #44
                              How many times do you climate change zealots got to be told everyone knows there is always change.How the governments go about is the problem.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by blackjack View Post
                                How many times do you climate change zealots got to be told everyone knows there is always change.How the governments go about is the problem.
                                So it sounds like you do not dispute man is having an impact on climate then. So what do you think governments should do to MINIMIZE that impact.

                                Comment

                                • Reply to this Thread
                                • Return to Topic List
                                Working...
                                X

                                This website uses tracking tools, including cookies. We use these technologies for a variety of reasons, including to recognize new and past website users, to customize your experience, perform analytics and deliver personalized advertising on our sites, apps and newsletters and across the Internet based on your interests.
                                You agree to our and by clicking I agree.