CO2 healthy

[armedandsafe]

At last! a bit of reason and logic.

CNSNews.com
Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change
Monday, October 12, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

As the world focused on President Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a small group of determined scientists gathered in a Senate office building to present evidence backing their claim that climate change is caused not by man but by nature, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but the hope for a greener planet.

John Kwapisz, organizer and moderator at the panel discussion, recalled Obama’s speech at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, Pa., last month as a way of illustrating the dramatic tone used by those who embrace global warming as a dire and eminent threat.

“That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing,” Obama said on Sept. 22 at the summit. “Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together – we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”

“No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline,” Obama said. “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.”

“On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees,” he said. “The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, and our safety – are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”

The scientists said they were on Capitol Hill to challenge the president’s claims and show that Mother Nature controls climate around the world and that CO2 in the atmosphere benefits people, plants and animals.

“Nature, not human activity rules the planet,” said Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist and research professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. “And once you’ve decided that on the basis of evidence, then everything else falls into place.”

“A lot of the problems that President Obama seems to be concerned about are no longer a concern,” Singer said.

“When there’s more carbon dioxide put into the air, the plants respond in an astonishing fashion,” said H. Leighton Steward, geologist, environmentalist, author and founder of the Web site plantsneedco2.org.

Steward said that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1860, the amount of CO2 put into the air has increased average plant growth by 12 percent and average tree growth by 18 percent around the world.

“So if we want to green the earth,” Steward said, “we need to put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s the earth’s greatest airborne fertilizer.”

“If we want the ecosystems and the habitats to be more robust and hold more animal life, more plant life, we need to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” Steward said, adding that proponents of man-made global warming have given CO2 a bad name.

“It’s now being looked at and called a pollutant. I can tell you, I’ve asked every scientist that I’ve ever run into, chemical expert,” Steward said. “There is not one, I repeat, not one instance in which carbon dioxide is a pollutant.”

Roy W. Spencer, researcher at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, author, and a former senior scientist at NASA, presented his research on natural global warming and cooling, including the role that cloud cover and the sun play in the changes of the earth’s climate.

In keeping with scientific protocol, much of the presentation consisted of graphs, charts, and other data to make the case that much of climate change is the result of natural phenomenon rather than human activities and that any contribution by humans is miniscule.

The event on Capitol Hill was not without a political twist, with some global warming advocates speaking out during the question-and-answer period. One scientist from NASA claimed he was available after the discussion if anyone was interested in hearing the other side of the issue.

Many in the room laughed at his comment, but the crowd that gathered in the Rose Garden just moments earlier heard Obama use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech as an opportunity to again issue a warning about the threat of global warming.

“We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children – sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities,” Obama said.

Marc Morano, former congressional staffer and founder of the Web site climatedepot.com, told the crowd that he thinks the tide is turning against what he called global warming alarmists. He cited a call by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to hold a global warming trial.

“The Chamber seeks to have a complete trial ‘complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect,’” Morano wrote in an editorial he distributed at the event.

Pops

[tntrucker]

I hope the tide is turning. Radical environmentalism is a religion to some. They worship the earth not God. To the politicians it's a way to increase control and power.

[Hardballer]

Don't trees really, really like CO2? Convert that stuff to O2? Necessary for all life on Earth? Hmmmmm?

6CO2 + 6H2O + energy from light ----> 6O2 + C6H12O6

OR

carbon dioxide + water + energy from light --> oxygen gas + glucose

Where do you think Maple syrup comes from? I'd really miss Maple Syrup. Mmmmmmmmmm Mmmmmm!

[Bobitis]

Didn't we all learn this in grade school?
Decades of science known to all mankind is reversed because Manbearpig says so?
And what does this say for all the so called scientists that back him up?

[Mosin_Nagant_Fan]

I know O2 can cause fires.

[Bobitis]

Originally Posted by Mosin_Nagant_Fan

I know O2 can cause fires.

And CO2 puts them out.

So....
Ya want O2 or CO2?

[armedandsafe]

Actually, O2 can't cause a fire. It can feed a fire and make a small blaze larger, but, by definition of oxidation, does not cause fire. We had a very heated discussion once with a safety inspector who insisted we put "flammable" labels on all our oxy containers. Once we did that, they could no longer be delivered by the mail plane. That meant a 200 mile trip by boat and dog sled to get refills.

Pops

[bcj1755]

But but but, Al "I invinted the internet and the environment and I'm the smartest man in human history" Gore can't be wrong!! Oh, say it isn't so!!

Yeah, his slideshow about a fake BS psuedoscientific "theory" was really deserving of a Nobel Prize, especially since his competition included an old woman that save something like 2500 children from the Nazis. Oh my oh my, she didn't deserve a Nobel Prize for that

Al Gore needs to shut his festering cakehole!!

[OklahomaBrian]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

Didn't we all learn this in grade school?
Decades of science known to all mankind is reversed because Manbearpig says so?
And what does this say for all the so called scientists that back him up?

Manbearpig. Watch it guys he is serial....

[ponycar17]

I like it... Thanks for posting that Pops! I heard a bit of it on Rush last week and thought it hilarious that some folks have finally figured this CO2 thing out.

[Bobitis]

Originally Posted by ponycar17

I like it... Thanks for posting that Pops! I heard a bit of it on Rush last week and thought it hilarious that some folks have finally figured this CO2 thing out.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, I don't think anyone has figured it out.
Common sense and logic defy the majority any more.

What needs to be done is call all the fortune tellers on the carpet.

It won't happen so nothing will change.

You can't undo brainwashing.
Once it's taken hold, there's no stopping it. No return.

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

As much as I'd like to agree with you, I don't think anyone has figured it out.
Common sense and logic defy the majority any more...

Notice that I just said 'some'...

I'm probably an environmentalist to some folks. I live in the sticks and truly hate when yuppies bulldoze the forest so they can sod a $10K lawn and I also despise subdivision developers.

Does that make me a 'climate change' supporter?... HECK NO!

[JohnBrainard]

Originally Posted by ponycar17

Notice that I just said 'some'...

I'm probably an environmentalist to some folks. I live in the sticks and truly hate when yuppies bulldoze the forest so they can sod a $10K lawn and I also despise subdivision developers.

Does that make me a 'climate change' supporter?... HECK NO!

I'd hate it too if somebody came and turned my nice, rural home into a McMansion park too.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not opposed to McMansion parks. It's still a free country, but I don't want to live in or near one.

[SpazFreak1911]

This might be true but we still as a human race should find a way to have cleaner ways of doing things have you seen the smog? we still need clean air

[SpazFreak1911]

after reading this THIS guy is wrong, Co2 is heavier the air so all the CO2 that we put out its not going far its going stick low to the ground because i remember where whole lakes of fish died because the co2 sank in to the water thx god for the wind dispersing all the Co2 or else we'd be dead too and plants dont take in more Co2 then they need they have a set amount even if it did help plants eventually they would limited by the need of water and nutrition im not saying that this whole global warming thing is true but w/e this guy is saying is definatly wrong and it doesn't help that he was an ex chairman of US oil and gas association

[308 at my gate]

Originally Posted by SpazFreak1911

This might be true but we still as a human race should find a way to have cleaner ways of doing things have you seen the smog? we still need clean air

You are right about the smog. I am always amazed during the summer on how much there is in places like Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, and even Denver.
I have driven through those 3 cities and have seen it first hand.

[Trouble 45-70]

Originally Posted by Hardballer

Don't trees really, really like CO2? Convert that stuff to O2? Necessary for all life on Earth? Hmmmmm?

6CO2 + 6H2O + energy from light ----> 6O2 + C6H12O6

OR

carbon dioxide + water + energy from light --> oxygen gas + glucose

Where do you think Maple syrup comes from? I'd really miss Maple Syrup. Mmmmmmmmmm Mmmmmm!

The point exactly. Don't confuse the scientists on the left with chemistry. The Political Scientists, Sociologists and and other non science scientists on the left must not be confused with facts that they are incapable of understanding.

[SpazFreak1911]

Originally Posted by Trouble 45-70

The point exactly. Don't confuse the scientists on the left with chemistry. The Political Scientists, Sociologists and and other non science scientists on the left must not be confused with facts that they are incapable of understanding.

The fact of the matter is non of us are climatologists there for we are not experts on this but when 97% of Climatologist tell us remember these are the experts that we are supposed to trust with all the education and knowledge on the climate, tell us that humans are causing a global climate change we should believe them, its basic logic, your telling me 97% of them are all on the left? Global warming is very real its not the liberals telling us this its Trained climatologist's , you see we purposely look for evidence that supports what we beleive in we never look for evidence that can harm our beliefs...

[JohnBrainard]

Originally Posted by SpazFreak1911

The fact of the matter is non of us are climatologists there for we are not experts on this but when 97% of Climatologist tell us remember these are the experts that we are supposed to trust with all the education and knowledge on the climate, tell us that humans are causing a global climate change we should believe them, its basic logic, your telling me 97% of them are all on the left? Global warming is very real its not the liberals telling us this its Trained climatologist's , you see we purposely look for evidence that supports what we beleive in we never look for evidence that can harm our beliefs...

Where are you getting the 97% number?

[SpazFreak1911]

Originally Posted by JohnBrainard

Where are you getting the 97% number?

This is from a study conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments, they took a survey of 3,700 climatologists and other scientists and 97% agreed that human activity and Co2 causes global warming so who are u going to believe 97% of climatologist or 3% of petroleum geologist cause im sureee there not bias in anyway

[308 at my gate]

Originally Posted by SpazFreak1911

The fact of the matter is non of us are climatologists there for we are not experts on this but when 97% of Climatologist tell us remember these are the experts that we are supposed to trust with all the education and knowledge on the climate, tell us that humans are causing a global climate change we should believe them, its basic logic, your telling me 97% of them are all on the left? Global warming is very real its not the liberals telling us this its Trained climatologist's , you see we purposely look for evidence that supports what we beleive in we never look for evidence that can harm our beliefs...

I do not buy this for one second. Most of the scientist today are so afraid of being politicaly incorrect, so they just jump on the band wagon so that their grants just keep coming in. For every credible scientist that insist on global warming there is one who can refute what they say. I think we need to keep our enviroment clean but global warming is hogwash.

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by SpazFreak1911

This is from a study conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments, they took a survey of 3,700 climatologists and other scientists and 97% agreed that human activity and Co2 causes global warming so who are u going to believe 97% of climatologist or 3% of petroleum geologist cause im sureee there not bias in anyway

Yeah, like there are no left-leaning liberal "scientists" infesting the University of Illinois

I remember when I was a kid in the 80s and this crap was first "theorized." Almost ALL scientists said it was total crap. Fast forward about 20 years, and you have new younger scientists who have been through an even more liberal "education" system now saying that it's real. Coincidence? I think not.

Another point. Why is it now called "Climate change" instead of "global warming"? I'll tell you why. Al "I invented everything" Gore made his slideshow movie about global warming, and then temperatures start to drop and many people, myself included, were FREEZING OUR ASSES OFF LAST WINTER!!!!!! And, at least in this area, we had a very mild summer and it's already shaping up to be another cold winter this year. Ooops! We can't have Good 'Ole Al looking like a retard, so they call it climate change to distract people from Al's brainfart. And what about Al's dire doom prediction of record numbers of massive hurricanes due to rising temperatures? How many named storms were there this year? A lot less than the past couple years. In fact, there haven't been any really bad hurricanes since Katrina. The "fair and impartial" media and the left-wing EnviroNazis were PRAYING for a bad hurricane this year so they could praise their leader and master Al "I know all knowledge from all human history" Gore and prove he was right.

Please, they can't even make up their minds about what to call this "forthcoming catatrophe." Is it "global warming" or "climate change"? Will I burst into flame from massive heating or freeze to death from a new ice age?

[Bobitis]

Originally Posted by SpazFreak1911

after reading this THIS guy is wrong, Co2 is heavier the air so all the CO2 that we put out its not going far its going stick low to the ground because i remember where whole lakes of fish died because the co2 sank in to the water thx god for the wind dispersing all the Co2 or else we'd be dead too and plants dont take in more Co2 then they need they have a set amount even if it did help plants eventually they would limited by the need of water and nutrition im not saying that this whole global warming thing is true but w/e this guy is saying is definatly wrong and it doesn't help that he was an ex chairman of US oil and gas association

CO2 sinking in the water is impossible. Water is heavier so the gas would float on top. What you saw was the aftermath of an algae bloom. Most likely runoff from a neighboring farm got into the pond causing a nutrient rich environment. The algae explodes to uncontainable levels and dies. When any plant dies, it gasses off CO2. The algaes death killed the fish. Yes it's CO2 related, but not from the atmosphere.

'Global Warming' was changed to 'climate change' because that's what climate does. It changes. As bcj stated, just look at this years hurricane season.

I don't care what your credentials are. We humans can't predict anything. I you happen to be right, you just got lucky.

There's so much flawed data dumped into this topic that it's become laughable. Ergo the change for the change.

If you want to address global climate change, you have two and only two areas of concern.

Solar radiation, and the massive amount of water on our plant (and the life therein (namely, algae)).

To think that us mere specs of life have any effect on the sun, or ways of the tides, is simply ludicrous.

Sure, we can help clean things up. Destroying our country and our way of life in the process is not an option.

You can't fool mother nature.

[ponycar17]

The climatologists also told us of impending 'global cooling' in 1975, as a result of what other than CO2... In a 1975 Newsweek article, scientists predicted a steady trend of cooling brought upon by the steady increase in global CO2 levels. I use logic, not the advice of so-called scientists chasing research grant money in whatever crises du jour.

See http://sweetness-light.com/archive/n...coming-ice-age for reference.

[SpazFreak1911]

Haha so i guess we'll find out in 50 years who is right, i just hope those scientists are wrong about all this