A
anon98328916
Guest
I think it is a hoax, sorry for my opinion.
- Status
M
Metis1
Guest
I am more willing to accept the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists, thus sorry for my opinion. 
E
Ender
Guest
Debunked? Surely it ought to be apparent that higher CO2 levels are in general beneficial to plant growth. You may argue that the (presumed) other effects (drought, higher temp) offset that benefit, but the presence of additional CO2 does benefit plants.
… for most of the other plants humans eat—including wheat, rice and soybeans—“having higher CO2 will help them directly,” Moore says. Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels, she adds, does boost the productivity of crops like wheat by some 11.5 percent and of those such as corn by around 8.4 percent. (Scientific American, 2018)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Moore also says later on on in article:
And while rising carbon dioxide might seem like a boon for agriculture, Moore also emphasizes any potential positive effects cannot be considered in isolation, and will likely be outweighed by many drawbacks. “Even with the benefit of CO2 fertilization, when you start getting up to 1 to 2 degrees of warming, you see negative effects,” she says. “There are a lot of different pathways by which temperature can negatively affect crop yield: soil moisture deficit [or] heat directly damaging the plants and interfering with their reproductive process.” On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants.
And while rising carbon dioxide might seem like a boon for agriculture, Moore also emphasizes any potential positive effects cannot be considered in isolation, and will likely be outweighed by many drawbacks. “Even with the benefit of CO2 fertilization, when you start getting up to 1 to 2 degrees of warming, you see negative effects,” she says. “There are a lot of different pathways by which temperature can negatively affect crop yield: soil moisture deficit [or] heat directly damaging the plants and interfering with their reproductive process.” On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants.
E
Ender
Guest
Ah. So CO2 shouldn’t be considered beneficial to crops because it helps the weeds grow too?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Is that all you got from reading what Moore wrote?
Last edited:
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
I think the same as many credible people, like the MP Nigel Lawson, that we are not the cause of it and that a lot of rubbish is twisted and imposed to lead us into all this Mother Earth worship. The world will not end by ice melting, it will end by judgement day, and a persons carbon footprint is the last thing that they will need to worry about on that day.
Because the world has no religion and therefore no morals, it has to look to something else for morals and rituals, and “caring for our common home” has become that thing to make up for that lack in people’s lives nowadays.
People will no longer do penance or pray outside abortion clinics and brothels etc, so they have to find something else to make them feel moral and like they’re contributing.
Michael Voris gives a great video about this full of evidence, in his FBI (Faith Based investigation) videos. It’s good to listen to the evidence rather than just listen to people because they have three letters at the end of their name or because they’re in a position of power
Because the world has no religion and therefore no morals, it has to look to something else for morals and rituals, and “caring for our common home” has become that thing to make up for that lack in people’s lives nowadays.
People will no longer do penance or pray outside abortion clinics and brothels etc, so they have to find something else to make them feel moral and like they’re contributing.
Michael Voris gives a great video about this full of evidence, in his FBI (Faith Based investigation) videos. It’s good to listen to the evidence rather than just listen to people because they have three letters at the end of their name or because they’re in a position of power
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
First of all, anything by Michael Voris is automatically suspect in my book. He is no authority on anything. Same goes for Nigel Lawson.
Secondly, the term “caring for our common home” is not some new age mumbo jumbo. It is pure Catholic.
E
Ender
Guest
No, I got the part about “having higher CO2 will help them directly”, which would seem fairly obvious.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Nice cherry picking there.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
I think Nigel certainly did have authority, he was a Member of Parliament, one of those that govern the country (in England).
When it comes to science in any case, what’s important is not authority, but evidence rather
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
When it comes to science, being a member of parliament means nothing.LeafByNiggle:
I think Nigel certainly did have authority, he was a Member of Parliament, one of those that govern the country (in England).
That’s true for scientists. But for non-scientists who do not have the expertise to evaluate evidence, authority is all we have.
T
Theo520
Guest
So increased levels of CO2 doesn’t increase the growth rate of plants and trees?
@LeafByNiggle
There is gross bias in your news source. The language is not misleading, it just doesn’t support the CAGW agenda.
@LeafByNiggle
There is gross bias in your news source. The language is not misleading, it just doesn’t support the CAGW agenda.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Your premise is that what scientists do is completely their prerogative and non-scientists have no business meddling in what is beyond their capacity.Paul_Edwards:
When it comes to science, being a member of parliament means nothing.LeafByNiggle:
I think Nigel certainly did have authority, he was a Member of Parliament, one of those that govern the country (in England).
That’s true for scientists. But for non-scientists who do not have the expertise to evaluate evidence, authority is all we have.
That would be untrue (besides the fact that it is a dangerous idea). Scientists might have some specific expertise, but that does not mean such expertise is completely unavailable to any reasonable human being with the God-given capacity to think.
If scientists have special claims to make that will seriously impact everyone else on Earth, they had better make those claims in ways that are available and convincing to every thinking person.
Otherwise, hiding behind some supposed “special” expertise while pontificating on matters that no one else has any right to question becomes dogmatic and self-righteous very quickly.
I suggest you rethink your “faith” in scientific experts. If they have any claim to be listened to they need to make a case with unassailable logic and evidence, not from behind a darkened curtain of supposed unquestionable “expertise.” The Wizard of Oz, they ain’t, no matter what they (or you) insist.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Ad hominem.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Defining you adversary’s position is the hallmark of a straw man argument.LeafByNiggle:
Your premise is that what scientists do is completely their prerogative and non-scientists have no business meddling in what is beyond their capacity.Paul_Edwards:
When it comes to science, being a member of parliament means nothing.LeafByNiggle:
I think Nigel certainly did have authority, he was a Member of Parliament, one of those that govern the country (in England).
That’s true for scientists. But for non-scientists who do not have the expertise to evaluate evidence, authority is all we have.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Your so-called “argument” was that …
Evaluation of evidence, according to your “argument,” is only possible for scientists. No one else can possibly have the expertise to evaluate evidence, so we must defer to the “authority” of scientists.
Go ahead and try to defend your own argument.
No need to “straw-man” it since the premise that only scientists have the capacity to evaluate evidence is absurd on its face.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
This statement is also absurd. Defining your adversary’s position is necessary to understand your adversary’s position in the first place.
Ergo, merely defining your adversary’s position isn’t the “hallmark” of a straw man argument. The hallmark of a straw man is to falsely portray or inaccurately define (i.e., misrepresent) their position. That is hardly the same thing as defining it.
W
webmasterpdx
Guest
I’ve looked extensively at this. I have a science background and I have a friend in Greece who is a PhD and works on environmental science so you could say he’s an expert on the subject. While there is a little misdirection on the pro side (showing pics today of Antartica in the summer against old photos of Antartica in the winter past), there is a LOT of misdirection on the anti-side, to be just science denial, which seems to be a trend these days. There is no doubt and hasn’t been since the 70’s that climate change is a real phenomenon and the evidence is overwhelming that it is caused mostly by man. BTW everyone reducing their carbon footprint won’t help that much…it will a little, but we need to change fundamental things like switching from oil to electricity, elimination of coal and fossil fuels in general. Stop clearing forests for palm oil production, and many more things that could make huge differences…mostly it’s the 3rd world right now where politicians can be bribed to allow protected forests to be wiped out…that sort of thing…will never happen with the current administration.
- Status