continuing >You're claiming the climate is a left or right issue, why is that?
because of the hysteria and impending doom narrative that never seems to materialize from both sides arising from different claims, either terrorist are going get you or the corporations are taking over or environmental conditions are deteriorating. i said that there was only an element of this left/right thing not that it was specifically a left/right issue entirely. of course you know of this, playing coy :)
>Al Gore's movie was 11 years ago, why are you still making excuses for why the world's warmer? You're clinging to a belief system here, not introducing doubt.
i'm only trying to explain my skepticism and why you should have some.
>So provide evidence for it being wrong, I can say that the consensus for water being two parts hydrogen one part oxygen could be wrong. That wouldn't do anything helpful at all though so why do you feel the need to do it for climate change?
i would say that the climate data is open to more interpretation than this chemistry observation you present
Isaac Smith
>i just quickly found this No source? >Earth normal I think I can see why no source, what the fuck is Earth normal? Must be a blog.
Stop watching crap in the media, start reading science journals, Science and Nature are excellent sources of material. CO2 causes heating according to basic chemistry, study more chemistry.
i agree c02 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat, warming the earth yeahyeahyeah. i'd love to learn more chemistry, wish i had more time in my life and that the days were longer
Nolan Wright
>my objective here is to introduce doubt Amazing, following the tobacco industry's playbook to the letter I see? At least you're dishonest in the fact that you're purposefully spreading misinformation for the benefit of your oil masters and their profits.
Kayden Lewis
asi.org/index2.html Does this look like a credible source of information for the subject matter you're talking about? They really need more emphasis on critical thinking in schools. Especially on how to verify your sources.
Brody Edwards
there is nothing nefarious about profits unless it is stolen :) i'm not spreading misinformation. the reason i take the time to speak with you all is to teach you skepticism of issues so that you can spend your time worrying about something real or more important.
no but this seems to be more credible: "Reference:
Fakhri A. Bazzaz and Eric D. Fajer, "Plant Life in a CO2-Rich World," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, January, 1992, pp 68-74."
seems to be an academic article by scientific american. i don't know.. is this source credible to you? what scientific journals would you prefer this information from instead?
Daniel Hernandez
continuing this was the source given in that text, it was provided at the bottom of the page :)
>maybe i disagree with mr Hadley >i'm obviously not an expert so you admit that you don't know anything about the topic but you think we should overturn literally THREE HUNDRED YEARS WORTH OF EVIDENCE AND ADVANCEMENT simply because you don't like how it sounds. why are we supposed to take you seriously again?
>Plants in a high CO2 environment increase their plant mass by 20 to 25%. Yields of some crops can be increased by up to 33%. This is the effect of doubling CO2 concentrations over Earth normal. Okay you retard, you didn't read what I wrote. Plants require more than just CO2 for growth; generally, growth is limited NOT by CO2 availability but by nitrate or phosphate (on land) or iron (in the oceans). This is well-established. Greenhouse experiments show increased growth under high CO2 conditions BECAUSE IN THOSE GREENHOUSES THE OTHER NUTRIENTS ARE PROVIDED IN EXCESS. Saying that more CO2 means more crop production is like thinking that twice as much flour means twice as many cakes...when you've only got a quarter cup of sugar in the house.
>its not the state's job to prevent grievances and why not? surely everyone's better off if we solve problems proactively rather than reactively. >as to the efficiency of it, i'd argue that relying on the justice system is a better way of dealing with this issue that's provably false. in India, where they DO rely on the courts instead of actually enforcing regulations (consumer protection, etc.) properly, there's a backlog of over 30 million cases, which will take literally DECADES to clear. maybe once you graduate high school you'll reconsider your happy-smiley-pie-in-the-sky image of the most imbecilic form of libertarianism.
>hey be nice no
Carter Parker
>Even without considerations of global warming, increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may greatly alter the structure and function of ecosystems. These changes will not necessarily benefit plants Always check the source instead of reading the blog.
