View Single Post
Originally Posted by Tex Arcana View Post
My issue with co2 is that it's an important part of the balance because of plants and their ability to create oxygen with it. More co2 will actually encourage more plant growth (I *think* that was proven a long time ago), and the extra plant growth will help clear the excess out--note I said "help", it's not 100% and I recognize there's no way it can be otherwise.
That's like one tiny little piece of the puzzle. It's been considered, especially expanded borreal forest growth in the north, but it's fairly small. I believe it's almost entirely offset by loses in biomass as the oceans become more acidic (which is already starting to happen).

But, until we find better ways to power our stuff that doesn't involve fossil fuels, it's gonna be awhile yet. We might be okay, if we can stomp the corprats into playing ball, but that'll take some serious regulation and enforcement.
That's part of the whole "take action because of global warming" thing that you seem opposed to. Also part of the "conspiracy" Sam keeps going to the well on, since we need more R&D funding to really develop out the alternative energies that we need to replace fossil fuels.
Corrupted science: you already provided proof, of a study that was supposed to be biased the other way, but backfired, thankfully because someone there had some integrity.
That's an example of how the science isn't corrupted. It's not a coincidence that their results came right in line with the commonly held positions: most work was done honestly and without bias.
The Forbes article posted earlier was another example against the Eco-people; so (based on the "smoke/fire principle), we have clear indications that shit is being manipulated to fit what the groups want them to be---and it's on both sides of the issue.
Read the link I posted about that one, it's not evidence against global warming. It's just an example of Forbes practicing bad journalism to push an agenda.
I really don't have anything at all against cleaning up after ourselves, it's just good sense, both for us now and our descendants later. I just don't like alarmists using scare tactics on the issues (you know, like the republicans after 911) to ramrod something through they don't entirely understand, ESPECIALLY if their conclusions are based upon flawed or biased research.
I think the problem with this is that you're just defaulting to inaction, which gives the denial groups the victory. We saw the same thing play out with CFCs, the industry groups said the science was bad, they were are "environuts" etc etc. The science was right, the industry people were wrong, and we were right to ban CFCs.

Now, we again have a scientific consensus and the denial groups are shouting loudly to muddy the waters. And yes, some enviro groups are going too far. That's not (to me) a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Oh, one other point: waaaaaaayyyy back when, after a trip in Sherman and Peabody's Way-Back-Machine, when I was reading Scientific American for fun, there was a very important article about a climate researcher who was setting off shitbombs in the climate pond, with hard data and an interesting set of conclusions: that not only are the temps not rising, both on the ground and in the troposphere; they are FALLING, and a heckuva lot faster that anyone realized. He did his measurements AWAY from populations, away from airports (where NWS takes theirs), away from any form of man-made structures. And his average temps were a couple-three deg F lower than the average. And his tropospheric measurements were bearing that out.

And, of course, the Eco-nazis of the time were decrying and shunning him, to the point where they made him a pariah. (gee, where have we heard THAT before??) even the corpowhores weren't liking him, because he was saying that some of the cooling was being accelerated by industry (smoke=haze=heat reflected back out, iirc), which pissed them off as well. And don't ask me to find it, it was nearly 20 years ago.
Don't really have any way to respond to this, other than by saying that we've been measuring temperature away from urban areas for a long time. Certainly possible that one guy got anomalous readings, but no particular reason to believe his over others without seeing the details.
Old 02-20-2013, 06:55 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote