kallend 1,635 #26 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote brought to you by: Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Ha ha. ??? so, if it doesn't come out of Berkeley=not good/true.... I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Berkeley is not the only other place in the world besides OISM. Have you actually investigated OISM? www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine Maybe you can explain why you trust these folks and not NOAA. Former and present faculty include: - discoverer of Carbon 14 and recipient of 1996 the Enrico Fermi award. - Nobel Prize winner - former director of laboratory work for the Salk Institute. - former President and Research Director of the Linus Pauling Institute Definitely a bunch of hack nut jobs. What does their expertise have to do with climate change? Nothing. Even Linus Pauling himself was wrong about (1) DNA, and (2) vitamin C. The lack of ethics of OISM have been exposed already in this thread.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,412 #27 February 16, 2007 > I really don't have time for all this... did you bother to read the >whole paragraph, or just take one excerpt out and hang onto it? Yes I did. Did you read/understand my reply? I read the article a few years back. He's been saying the same thing for a while. Like I said, that's the type III denial - "the planet's warming up and maybe we have something to do with it - but the changes will be good." (He actually claims "benefits in the future will likely be spectacular.") The danger of that sort of denial is that when the changes turn out NOT to be good, it's too late to change to the more-standard type II - "CO2 may be increasing, and the climate may be warming up, but they're not related; it's probably just natural." >Everything you state in your post has no meaning without back-up data... Then ignore it! Or better yet, do your own research. Try googling these terms: Corn fertilization high temperature Climate effects agriculture CO2 concentration photosynthesis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #28 February 16, 2007 Quote> I really don't have time for all this... did you bother to read the >whole paragraph, or just take one excerpt out and hang onto it? Yes I did. Did you read/understand my reply? I read the article a few years back. He's been saying the same thing for a while. Like I said, that's the type III denial - "the planet's warming up and maybe we have something to do with it - but the changes will be good." (He actually claims "benefits in the future will likely be spectacular.") The danger of that sort of denial is that when the changes turn out NOT to be good, it's too late to change to the more-standard type II - "CO2 may be increasing, and the climate may be warming up, but they're not related; it's probably just natural." >Everything you state in your post has no meaning without back-up data... Then ignore it! Or better yet, do your own research. Try googling these terms: Corn fertilization high temperature Climate effects agriculture CO2 concentration photosynthesis You asked me this question before. Now I will ask you. What would it take for you to change your mind?? The more research and info finding I do the more convined I am that what you keep saying is man made is natural. I am more convince everyday that GW alarmists have one (maybe two) goals. And neither of them is to "protect" the planet."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #29 February 16, 2007 QuoteThe lack of ethics of OISM have been exposed already in this thread. If you say so. I'm still trying to find a credible source claiming Colin Powell tried to cover up the My Lai massacre. So far, you're a voice in the wilderness on that one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #30 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe lack of ethics of OISM have been exposed already in this thread. If you say so. I think I just did. Quote I'm still trying to find a credible source claiming Colin Powell tried to cover up the My Lai massacre. So far, you're a voice in the wilderness on that one. Lot's of people in that wilderness with me. I think you are engaging in wishful thinking.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #31 February 16, 2007 Quote http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/...ment/waterworld.html Very interesting read. Thanks for posting it.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #32 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote I'm still trying to find a credible source claiming Colin Powell tried to cover up the My Lai massacre. So far, you're a voice in the wilderness on that one. Lot's of people in that wilderness with me. I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. If you say so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #33 February 16, 2007 QuoteLot's of people in that wilderness with me. I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. Hey, Kallend! Did you know Jesus Christ was behind the Enron debacle? Google it! 544,000 hits can't all be wrong First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,635 #34 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteLot's of people in that wilderness with me. I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. Hey, Kallend! Did you know Jesus Christ was behind the Enron debacle? "Relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese are excellent.", Major Colin Powell, memo to the Adjutant General, December 1968 I don't know what it has to do with global warming, though... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lploscar 0 #35 February 16, 2007 Quote> "the planet's warming up and maybe we have something to do with it - but the changes will be good." Quote Twisty! R we? He does not state that the planet is warming up - en contraire! he's point is that it is actually cooler (if you go further back than the 1800's)... and changes in the level of CO2 would be good (not rise in temperature to a gazillion degrees Fahrenheit, or what ever the heck you believe)."Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chrismgtis 0 #36 February 16, 2007 One point that really needs to be made is this. We can not predict weather 5 days into the future very accurately, yet so many people choose to believe in a climate forecast 50 or more years into the future. And to beat all things, that data comes from a tube of ice of all things. It's amazing what some people will trust.Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chrismgtis 0 #37 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuote http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/...ment/waterworld.html Very interesting read. Thanks for posting it. No problem. As with anything, don't believe it just because someone said so, though I personally find the information in that article is better and more trustworthy than what thousands of scientists claim is fact or reliable data.Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lploscar 0 #38 February 16, 2007 Quote> He actually claims "benefits in the future will likely be spectacular." Try googling these terms: Corn fertilization high temperature Climate effects agriculture CO2 concentration photosynthesis Does Long-Term Elevation of CO2 Concentration Increase Photosynthesis in Forest Floor Vegetation? (Indiana Strawberry in a Maryland Forest) C. P. Osborne, B. G. Drake, J. LaRoche and S. P. Long John Tabor Laboratories, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom (C.P.O., S.P.L.) As the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) in the atmosphere rises, photorespiratory loss of carbon in C3 photosynthesis will diminish and the net efficiency of light-limited photosynthetic carbon uptake should rise. We tested this expectation for Indiana strawberry (Duchesnea indica) growing on a Maryland forest floor. Open-top chambers were used to elevate the pCO2 of a forest floor habitat to 67 Pa and were paired with control chambers providing an ambient pCO2 of 38 Pa. After 3.5 years, D. indica leaves grown and measured in the elevated pCO2 showed a significantly greater maximum quantum efficiency of net photosynthesis (by 22%) and a lower light compensation point (by 42%) than leaves grown and measured in the control chambers. The quantum efficiency to minimize photorespiration, measured in 1% O2, was the same for controls and plants grown at elevated pCO2. This showed that the maximum efficiency of light-energy transduction into assimilated carbon was not altered by acclimation and that the increase in light-limited photosynthesis at elevated pCO2 was simply a function of the decrease in photorespiration. Acclimation did decrease the ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase and light-harvesting chlorophyll protein content of the leaf by more than 30%. These changes were associated with a decreased capacity for light-saturated, but not light-limited, photosynthesis. Even so, leaves of D. indica grown and measured at elevated pCO2 showed greater light-saturated photosynthetic rates than leaves grown and measured at the current atmospheric pCO2. In situ measurements under natural forest floor lighting showed large increases in leaf photosynthesis at elevated pCO2, relative to controls, in both summer and fall. The increase in efficiency of light-limited photosynthesis with elevated pCO2 allowed positive net photosynthetic carbon uptake on days and at locations on the forest floor that light fluxes were insufficient for positive net photosynthesis in the current atmospheric pCO2. Wow! Imagine that!"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,412 #39 February 16, 2007 >He does not state that the planet is warming up - en contraire! >he's point is that it is actually cooler . . . Right. In that he's more of a Type I denier. Again, problem there is that people can look out the window. >(not rise in temperature to a gazillion degrees Fahrenheit, or what >ever the heck you believe). I don't think that. Nor does any serious climactic researcher. Google "straw man" for more information on who believes in temperatures rising "a gazillion degrees." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,635 #40 February 16, 2007 QuoteOne point that really needs to be made is this. We can not predict weather 5 days into the future very accurately, yet so many people choose to believe in a climate forecast 50 or more years into the future. And to beat all things, that data comes from a tube of ice of all things. It's amazing what some people will trust. Climate is easier to predict than weather. I can predict very accurately that next winter will be cold in Chicago, and it will snow. Next summer will be hot and humid. But, as you say, predicting weather in 5 days time is very difficult.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,412 #41 February 16, 2007 Some good news on this front: Politicians sign new climate pact The climate debate is over, said US presidential candidate John McCain Leading international politicians have reached a new agreement on tackling climate change, at a Washington summit. Delegates agreed that developing countries would also have to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as well as rich countries. The informal meeting also agreed that a global market should be formed to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions. The non-binding declaration is seen as vital in influencing a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, correspondents say. The forum's closing statement said man-made climate change was now "beyond doubt". . . . The two-day meeting brought together legislators from countries including the Group of Eight rich nations, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. . . . US senator Joe Lieberman forecast that the US Congress would enact a law on cutting emissions by the end of next year, possibly this year. And presidential candidate John McCain, who is co-sponsoring climate legislation with Mr Lieberman, was emphatic on the need for new initiatives. "I am convinced that we have reached the tipping point and that the Congress of the United States will act, with the agreement of the administration," he told the forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #42 February 16, 2007 QuoteAnd to beat all things, that data comes from a tube of ice of all things. That "tube of ice" has shown the correlation between CO2 gas levels and temperature for the last 650,000 years. You're saying with 650,000 year of consistent data, you couldn't reasonably predict something? Quote"I am convinced that we have reached the tipping point and that the Congress of the United States will act, with the agreement of the administration," he told the forum. Wow.... we might actually ratify this one? Maybe we'll stop leading the world in CO2 emissions it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #43 February 16, 2007 Here's a new report: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php QuoteAntarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #44 February 16, 2007 QuoteHere's a new report: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php QuoteAntarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models. "It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #45 February 16, 2007 That is good news, Bill. Having ALL countries share the burden in reducing emissions is the way to go. What's William Ury up to these days? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lploscar 0 #46 February 16, 2007 QuoteSome good news on this front: Politicians sign new climate pact... Ha Ha... Good News...we all know what happens when "the politicians" get movin'... Nuclear power plants convert mass into electrical energy. This converted "nuclear energy" is, by far, the safest, cleanest and least expensive energy source available with current technology. Its use improves the standard of living, increases the quality and length of human life, and maximizes technological progress. The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. Had that American leadership continued, our country and our world would be very different. During the past several decades, mankind should have been making a transition from hydrocarbon power to breeder-reactor-fueled nuclear power. Hydrocarbon power would still be extensively utilized in many applications, but nuclear power would be developing into our primary energy source. Hydroelectric power would continue but would reach a maximum as suitable hydroelectric sites were completely utilized. This transition, however, has been blocked. Progress stalled because of another force at work in our body politic. Through the major media and the environmental lobby, the latter heavily funded by huge tax-exempt foundations, they have beguiled millions into believing that too many people and too much technology will cause environmental devastation. Thirty years ago, they demonized nuclear power with false claims about its safety. As a result, nuclear power development in the United States stopped. At that time, America was the world technological leader and therefore the largest user of energy. At present, American leadership is being challenged by Asian nations, which are building nuclear power plants at a rapidly increasing rate. Although technological progress continued to some extent without progress in energy production, the crippling of nuclear power meant continued heavy dependence on hydrocarbon fuels — including a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, exacerbated by "environmental" regulations impeding drilling in our own country. This ongoing tragedy is also reflected in the decline of American technological superiority and the decline of American living standards. The enemies of technological advance are, however, not content. They want to move technology another step downward and energy production another step backward by diminishing even the use of hydrocarbon energy. To accomplish this, they have contrived three lies. These are the lies of hydrocarbon shortages, human-caused global cooling, and human-caused global warming. Their allies in the press, government, foundations and business have heavily promoted these lies over the past several decades. The first argument was that the supply of hydrocarbons would soon be exhausted. The vast deposits of coal, natural gas, and oil and oil-bearing minerals on the Earth soon overcame this lie. Expanding regulation of the hydrocarbon industry, however, can still bring about politically contrived shortages and market distortions. These regulations contribute to the artificially high cost of fuel, as do federal and state excise taxes, and (in general) the erosion of the purchasing power of the dollar through inflation. The second claim, popular during the 70s, was that a new ice age would be caused by human use of coal, oil and natural gas. This argument was "proved" by the then-decreasing global temperatures that began in about 1940. As temperatures stabilized, however, and resumed their 300-year warming cycle, the lie of "global cooling" faded from the scene. The latest scare asserts that the Earth is warming as a result of human use of coal, oil, and natural gas. This myth of "human-caused global warming" is promoted by billions of dollars worth of propaganda in the American media today. Its creators are the very same people who demonized nuclear power and once warned about global cooling."Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #47 February 16, 2007 So "environmental extremists" are the ones behind the whole global warming 'myth' eh? I'm sorry, I have a hard time putting any value into something written by a founder of a cooky Institute of Science and Medicine and a doctor of internal medicine.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lploscar 0 #48 February 16, 2007 QuoteSo "environmental extremists" are the ones behind the whole global warming 'myth' eh? I'm sorry, I have a hard time putting any value into something written by a founder of a cooky Institute of Science and Medicine and a doctor of internal medicine. If that's what you get out of my posts... then, in did, I just wasted my time today... Time for Friday Happy Hour, drink, party, etc. Later!"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #49 February 16, 2007 Quote If that's what you get out of my posts... then, in did, I just wasted my time today... Time for Friday Happy Hour, drink, party, etc. Later! Yes... yes you did... and I wasted my time reading that crap. The subtitle to the article you posted was "Environmental extremism kills. Millions die annually because of restrictions on DDT, and imposing the "Kyoto" regulations would kill many more." Parts of the article that you left out include things such as QuoteThis same cast of characters, in fact, will be found promoting virtually any scheme that would reduce technological progress, thereby increasing human misery and death. One can reliably predict that most hard-core activists in the anti-technology, anti-people environmental lobby will be: � For "population control" measures such as abortion, which kills millions of pre-born babies per year; � Against chemical technology and for the ban on DDT that is responsible for millions of malaria deaths every year; � In favor of high taxation and oppressive regulations that harm or kill untold numbers through the waste of human resources; and � For world government, which offers the ultimate in tyrannical control over human life and death. If I'm missing some point, please enlighten me. And again, posting some TFB rantings created by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (which is actually, like, one guy? and all they've really done before is spread BS around - ex: Oregon Petition) isn't going to enlighten me at all. "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - We reject your reality, and substitute our own!" it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,412 #50 February 16, 2007 While plagarism is not against the rules here, it is considered good form to identify when you are quoting from another source. The piece you quoted was from the John Birch society, a conservative organization that is dedicated to promulgation of conservative ideas, opposition to environmentalism and the repeal of civil rights legislation. (It views such legislation as "communist.") In terms of the article itself, it identifies people like me as "enemies of technological advance" - which is somewhat ironic. Here's one line: "This myth of "human-caused global warming" is promoted by billions of dollars worth of propaganda in the American media today. Its creators are the very same people who demonized nuclear power and once warned about global cooling." I'm one of the people "promulgating" the issues behind climate change. I did not think 'global cooling' was an issue, and I am not against nuclear power (provided it's generated safely.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
narcimund 0 #33 February 16, 2007 QuoteLot's of people in that wilderness with me. I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. Hey, Kallend! Did you know Jesus Christ was behind the Enron debacle? Google it! 544,000 hits can't all be wrong First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #34 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteLot's of people in that wilderness with me. I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. Hey, Kallend! Did you know Jesus Christ was behind the Enron debacle? "Relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese are excellent.", Major Colin Powell, memo to the Adjutant General, December 1968 I don't know what it has to do with global warming, though... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lploscar 0 #35 February 16, 2007 Quote> "the planet's warming up and maybe we have something to do with it - but the changes will be good." Quote Twisty! R we? He does not state that the planet is warming up - en contraire! he's point is that it is actually cooler (if you go further back than the 1800's)... and changes in the level of CO2 would be good (not rise in temperature to a gazillion degrees Fahrenheit, or what ever the heck you believe)."Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chrismgtis 0 #36 February 16, 2007 One point that really needs to be made is this. We can not predict weather 5 days into the future very accurately, yet so many people choose to believe in a climate forecast 50 or more years into the future. And to beat all things, that data comes from a tube of ice of all things. It's amazing what some people will trust.Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chrismgtis 0 #37 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuote http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/...ment/waterworld.html Very interesting read. Thanks for posting it. No problem. As with anything, don't believe it just because someone said so, though I personally find the information in that article is better and more trustworthy than what thousands of scientists claim is fact or reliable data.Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lploscar 0 #38 February 16, 2007 Quote> He actually claims "benefits in the future will likely be spectacular." Try googling these terms: Corn fertilization high temperature Climate effects agriculture CO2 concentration photosynthesis Does Long-Term Elevation of CO2 Concentration Increase Photosynthesis in Forest Floor Vegetation? (Indiana Strawberry in a Maryland Forest) C. P. Osborne, B. G. Drake, J. LaRoche and S. P. Long John Tabor Laboratories, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom (C.P.O., S.P.L.) As the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) in the atmosphere rises, photorespiratory loss of carbon in C3 photosynthesis will diminish and the net efficiency of light-limited photosynthetic carbon uptake should rise. We tested this expectation for Indiana strawberry (Duchesnea indica) growing on a Maryland forest floor. Open-top chambers were used to elevate the pCO2 of a forest floor habitat to 67 Pa and were paired with control chambers providing an ambient pCO2 of 38 Pa. After 3.5 years, D. indica leaves grown and measured in the elevated pCO2 showed a significantly greater maximum quantum efficiency of net photosynthesis (by 22%) and a lower light compensation point (by 42%) than leaves grown and measured in the control chambers. The quantum efficiency to minimize photorespiration, measured in 1% O2, was the same for controls and plants grown at elevated pCO2. This showed that the maximum efficiency of light-energy transduction into assimilated carbon was not altered by acclimation and that the increase in light-limited photosynthesis at elevated pCO2 was simply a function of the decrease in photorespiration. Acclimation did decrease the ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase and light-harvesting chlorophyll protein content of the leaf by more than 30%. These changes were associated with a decreased capacity for light-saturated, but not light-limited, photosynthesis. Even so, leaves of D. indica grown and measured at elevated pCO2 showed greater light-saturated photosynthetic rates than leaves grown and measured at the current atmospheric pCO2. In situ measurements under natural forest floor lighting showed large increases in leaf photosynthesis at elevated pCO2, relative to controls, in both summer and fall. The increase in efficiency of light-limited photosynthesis with elevated pCO2 allowed positive net photosynthetic carbon uptake on days and at locations on the forest floor that light fluxes were insufficient for positive net photosynthesis in the current atmospheric pCO2. Wow! Imagine that!"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,412 #39 February 16, 2007 >He does not state that the planet is warming up - en contraire! >he's point is that it is actually cooler . . . Right. In that he's more of a Type I denier. Again, problem there is that people can look out the window. >(not rise in temperature to a gazillion degrees Fahrenheit, or what >ever the heck you believe). I don't think that. Nor does any serious climactic researcher. Google "straw man" for more information on who believes in temperatures rising "a gazillion degrees." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,635 #40 February 16, 2007 QuoteOne point that really needs to be made is this. We can not predict weather 5 days into the future very accurately, yet so many people choose to believe in a climate forecast 50 or more years into the future. And to beat all things, that data comes from a tube of ice of all things. It's amazing what some people will trust. Climate is easier to predict than weather. I can predict very accurately that next winter will be cold in Chicago, and it will snow. Next summer will be hot and humid. But, as you say, predicting weather in 5 days time is very difficult.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,412 #41 February 16, 2007 Some good news on this front: Politicians sign new climate pact The climate debate is over, said US presidential candidate John McCain Leading international politicians have reached a new agreement on tackling climate change, at a Washington summit. Delegates agreed that developing countries would also have to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as well as rich countries. The informal meeting also agreed that a global market should be formed to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions. The non-binding declaration is seen as vital in influencing a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, correspondents say. The forum's closing statement said man-made climate change was now "beyond doubt". . . . The two-day meeting brought together legislators from countries including the Group of Eight rich nations, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. . . . US senator Joe Lieberman forecast that the US Congress would enact a law on cutting emissions by the end of next year, possibly this year. And presidential candidate John McCain, who is co-sponsoring climate legislation with Mr Lieberman, was emphatic on the need for new initiatives. "I am convinced that we have reached the tipping point and that the Congress of the United States will act, with the agreement of the administration," he told the forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #42 February 16, 2007 QuoteAnd to beat all things, that data comes from a tube of ice of all things. That "tube of ice" has shown the correlation between CO2 gas levels and temperature for the last 650,000 years. You're saying with 650,000 year of consistent data, you couldn't reasonably predict something? Quote"I am convinced that we have reached the tipping point and that the Congress of the United States will act, with the agreement of the administration," he told the forum. Wow.... we might actually ratify this one? Maybe we'll stop leading the world in CO2 emissions it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #43 February 16, 2007 Here's a new report: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php QuoteAntarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #44 February 16, 2007 QuoteHere's a new report: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php QuoteAntarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models. "It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #45 February 16, 2007 That is good news, Bill. Having ALL countries share the burden in reducing emissions is the way to go. What's William Ury up to these days? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lploscar 0 #46 February 16, 2007 QuoteSome good news on this front: Politicians sign new climate pact... Ha Ha... Good News...we all know what happens when "the politicians" get movin'... Nuclear power plants convert mass into electrical energy. This converted "nuclear energy" is, by far, the safest, cleanest and least expensive energy source available with current technology. Its use improves the standard of living, increases the quality and length of human life, and maximizes technological progress. The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. Had that American leadership continued, our country and our world would be very different. During the past several decades, mankind should have been making a transition from hydrocarbon power to breeder-reactor-fueled nuclear power. Hydrocarbon power would still be extensively utilized in many applications, but nuclear power would be developing into our primary energy source. Hydroelectric power would continue but would reach a maximum as suitable hydroelectric sites were completely utilized. This transition, however, has been blocked. Progress stalled because of another force at work in our body politic. Through the major media and the environmental lobby, the latter heavily funded by huge tax-exempt foundations, they have beguiled millions into believing that too many people and too much technology will cause environmental devastation. Thirty years ago, they demonized nuclear power with false claims about its safety. As a result, nuclear power development in the United States stopped. At that time, America was the world technological leader and therefore the largest user of energy. At present, American leadership is being challenged by Asian nations, which are building nuclear power plants at a rapidly increasing rate. Although technological progress continued to some extent without progress in energy production, the crippling of nuclear power meant continued heavy dependence on hydrocarbon fuels — including a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, exacerbated by "environmental" regulations impeding drilling in our own country. This ongoing tragedy is also reflected in the decline of American technological superiority and the decline of American living standards. The enemies of technological advance are, however, not content. They want to move technology another step downward and energy production another step backward by diminishing even the use of hydrocarbon energy. To accomplish this, they have contrived three lies. These are the lies of hydrocarbon shortages, human-caused global cooling, and human-caused global warming. Their allies in the press, government, foundations and business have heavily promoted these lies over the past several decades. The first argument was that the supply of hydrocarbons would soon be exhausted. The vast deposits of coal, natural gas, and oil and oil-bearing minerals on the Earth soon overcame this lie. Expanding regulation of the hydrocarbon industry, however, can still bring about politically contrived shortages and market distortions. These regulations contribute to the artificially high cost of fuel, as do federal and state excise taxes, and (in general) the erosion of the purchasing power of the dollar through inflation. The second claim, popular during the 70s, was that a new ice age would be caused by human use of coal, oil and natural gas. This argument was "proved" by the then-decreasing global temperatures that began in about 1940. As temperatures stabilized, however, and resumed their 300-year warming cycle, the lie of "global cooling" faded from the scene. The latest scare asserts that the Earth is warming as a result of human use of coal, oil, and natural gas. This myth of "human-caused global warming" is promoted by billions of dollars worth of propaganda in the American media today. Its creators are the very same people who demonized nuclear power and once warned about global cooling."Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #47 February 16, 2007 So "environmental extremists" are the ones behind the whole global warming 'myth' eh? I'm sorry, I have a hard time putting any value into something written by a founder of a cooky Institute of Science and Medicine and a doctor of internal medicine.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lploscar 0 #48 February 16, 2007 QuoteSo "environmental extremists" are the ones behind the whole global warming 'myth' eh? I'm sorry, I have a hard time putting any value into something written by a founder of a cooky Institute of Science and Medicine and a doctor of internal medicine. If that's what you get out of my posts... then, in did, I just wasted my time today... Time for Friday Happy Hour, drink, party, etc. Later!"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #49 February 16, 2007 Quote If that's what you get out of my posts... then, in did, I just wasted my time today... Time for Friday Happy Hour, drink, party, etc. Later! Yes... yes you did... and I wasted my time reading that crap. The subtitle to the article you posted was "Environmental extremism kills. Millions die annually because of restrictions on DDT, and imposing the "Kyoto" regulations would kill many more." Parts of the article that you left out include things such as QuoteThis same cast of characters, in fact, will be found promoting virtually any scheme that would reduce technological progress, thereby increasing human misery and death. One can reliably predict that most hard-core activists in the anti-technology, anti-people environmental lobby will be: � For "population control" measures such as abortion, which kills millions of pre-born babies per year; � Against chemical technology and for the ban on DDT that is responsible for millions of malaria deaths every year; � In favor of high taxation and oppressive regulations that harm or kill untold numbers through the waste of human resources; and � For world government, which offers the ultimate in tyrannical control over human life and death. If I'm missing some point, please enlighten me. And again, posting some TFB rantings created by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (which is actually, like, one guy? and all they've really done before is spread BS around - ex: Oregon Petition) isn't going to enlighten me at all. "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - We reject your reality, and substitute our own!" it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,412 #50 February 16, 2007 While plagarism is not against the rules here, it is considered good form to identify when you are quoting from another source. The piece you quoted was from the John Birch society, a conservative organization that is dedicated to promulgation of conservative ideas, opposition to environmentalism and the repeal of civil rights legislation. (It views such legislation as "communist.") In terms of the article itself, it identifies people like me as "enemies of technological advance" - which is somewhat ironic. Here's one line: "This myth of "human-caused global warming" is promoted by billions of dollars worth of propaganda in the American media today. Its creators are the very same people who demonized nuclear power and once warned about global cooling." I'm one of the people "promulgating" the issues behind climate change. I did not think 'global cooling' was an issue, and I am not against nuclear power (provided it's generated safely.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
lploscar 0 #35 February 16, 2007 Quote> "the planet's warming up and maybe we have something to do with it - but the changes will be good." Quote Twisty! R we? He does not state that the planet is warming up - en contraire! he's point is that it is actually cooler (if you go further back than the 1800's)... and changes in the level of CO2 would be good (not rise in temperature to a gazillion degrees Fahrenheit, or what ever the heck you believe)."Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chrismgtis 0 #36 February 16, 2007 One point that really needs to be made is this. We can not predict weather 5 days into the future very accurately, yet so many people choose to believe in a climate forecast 50 or more years into the future. And to beat all things, that data comes from a tube of ice of all things. It's amazing what some people will trust.Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chrismgtis 0 #37 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuote http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/...ment/waterworld.html Very interesting read. Thanks for posting it. No problem. As with anything, don't believe it just because someone said so, though I personally find the information in that article is better and more trustworthy than what thousands of scientists claim is fact or reliable data.Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lploscar 0 #38 February 16, 2007 Quote> He actually claims "benefits in the future will likely be spectacular." Try googling these terms: Corn fertilization high temperature Climate effects agriculture CO2 concentration photosynthesis Does Long-Term Elevation of CO2 Concentration Increase Photosynthesis in Forest Floor Vegetation? (Indiana Strawberry in a Maryland Forest) C. P. Osborne, B. G. Drake, J. LaRoche and S. P. Long John Tabor Laboratories, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom (C.P.O., S.P.L.) As the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) in the atmosphere rises, photorespiratory loss of carbon in C3 photosynthesis will diminish and the net efficiency of light-limited photosynthetic carbon uptake should rise. We tested this expectation for Indiana strawberry (Duchesnea indica) growing on a Maryland forest floor. Open-top chambers were used to elevate the pCO2 of a forest floor habitat to 67 Pa and were paired with control chambers providing an ambient pCO2 of 38 Pa. After 3.5 years, D. indica leaves grown and measured in the elevated pCO2 showed a significantly greater maximum quantum efficiency of net photosynthesis (by 22%) and a lower light compensation point (by 42%) than leaves grown and measured in the control chambers. The quantum efficiency to minimize photorespiration, measured in 1% O2, was the same for controls and plants grown at elevated pCO2. This showed that the maximum efficiency of light-energy transduction into assimilated carbon was not altered by acclimation and that the increase in light-limited photosynthesis at elevated pCO2 was simply a function of the decrease in photorespiration. Acclimation did decrease the ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase and light-harvesting chlorophyll protein content of the leaf by more than 30%. These changes were associated with a decreased capacity for light-saturated, but not light-limited, photosynthesis. Even so, leaves of D. indica grown and measured at elevated pCO2 showed greater light-saturated photosynthetic rates than leaves grown and measured at the current atmospheric pCO2. In situ measurements under natural forest floor lighting showed large increases in leaf photosynthesis at elevated pCO2, relative to controls, in both summer and fall. The increase in efficiency of light-limited photosynthesis with elevated pCO2 allowed positive net photosynthetic carbon uptake on days and at locations on the forest floor that light fluxes were insufficient for positive net photosynthesis in the current atmospheric pCO2. Wow! Imagine that!"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,412 #39 February 16, 2007 >He does not state that the planet is warming up - en contraire! >he's point is that it is actually cooler . . . Right. In that he's more of a Type I denier. Again, problem there is that people can look out the window. >(not rise in temperature to a gazillion degrees Fahrenheit, or what >ever the heck you believe). I don't think that. Nor does any serious climactic researcher. Google "straw man" for more information on who believes in temperatures rising "a gazillion degrees." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,635 #40 February 16, 2007 QuoteOne point that really needs to be made is this. We can not predict weather 5 days into the future very accurately, yet so many people choose to believe in a climate forecast 50 or more years into the future. And to beat all things, that data comes from a tube of ice of all things. It's amazing what some people will trust. Climate is easier to predict than weather. I can predict very accurately that next winter will be cold in Chicago, and it will snow. Next summer will be hot and humid. But, as you say, predicting weather in 5 days time is very difficult.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,412 #41 February 16, 2007 Some good news on this front: Politicians sign new climate pact The climate debate is over, said US presidential candidate John McCain Leading international politicians have reached a new agreement on tackling climate change, at a Washington summit. Delegates agreed that developing countries would also have to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as well as rich countries. The informal meeting also agreed that a global market should be formed to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions. The non-binding declaration is seen as vital in influencing a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, correspondents say. The forum's closing statement said man-made climate change was now "beyond doubt". . . . The two-day meeting brought together legislators from countries including the Group of Eight rich nations, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. . . . US senator Joe Lieberman forecast that the US Congress would enact a law on cutting emissions by the end of next year, possibly this year. And presidential candidate John McCain, who is co-sponsoring climate legislation with Mr Lieberman, was emphatic on the need for new initiatives. "I am convinced that we have reached the tipping point and that the Congress of the United States will act, with the agreement of the administration," he told the forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #42 February 16, 2007 QuoteAnd to beat all things, that data comes from a tube of ice of all things. That "tube of ice" has shown the correlation between CO2 gas levels and temperature for the last 650,000 years. You're saying with 650,000 year of consistent data, you couldn't reasonably predict something? Quote"I am convinced that we have reached the tipping point and that the Congress of the United States will act, with the agreement of the administration," he told the forum. Wow.... we might actually ratify this one? Maybe we'll stop leading the world in CO2 emissions it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #43 February 16, 2007 Here's a new report: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php QuoteAntarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #44 February 16, 2007 QuoteHere's a new report: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php QuoteAntarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models. "It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #45 February 16, 2007 That is good news, Bill. Having ALL countries share the burden in reducing emissions is the way to go. What's William Ury up to these days? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lploscar 0 #46 February 16, 2007 QuoteSome good news on this front: Politicians sign new climate pact... Ha Ha... Good News...we all know what happens when "the politicians" get movin'... Nuclear power plants convert mass into electrical energy. This converted "nuclear energy" is, by far, the safest, cleanest and least expensive energy source available with current technology. Its use improves the standard of living, increases the quality and length of human life, and maximizes technological progress. The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. Had that American leadership continued, our country and our world would be very different. During the past several decades, mankind should have been making a transition from hydrocarbon power to breeder-reactor-fueled nuclear power. Hydrocarbon power would still be extensively utilized in many applications, but nuclear power would be developing into our primary energy source. Hydroelectric power would continue but would reach a maximum as suitable hydroelectric sites were completely utilized. This transition, however, has been blocked. Progress stalled because of another force at work in our body politic. Through the major media and the environmental lobby, the latter heavily funded by huge tax-exempt foundations, they have beguiled millions into believing that too many people and too much technology will cause environmental devastation. Thirty years ago, they demonized nuclear power with false claims about its safety. As a result, nuclear power development in the United States stopped. At that time, America was the world technological leader and therefore the largest user of energy. At present, American leadership is being challenged by Asian nations, which are building nuclear power plants at a rapidly increasing rate. Although technological progress continued to some extent without progress in energy production, the crippling of nuclear power meant continued heavy dependence on hydrocarbon fuels — including a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, exacerbated by "environmental" regulations impeding drilling in our own country. This ongoing tragedy is also reflected in the decline of American technological superiority and the decline of American living standards. The enemies of technological advance are, however, not content. They want to move technology another step downward and energy production another step backward by diminishing even the use of hydrocarbon energy. To accomplish this, they have contrived three lies. These are the lies of hydrocarbon shortages, human-caused global cooling, and human-caused global warming. Their allies in the press, government, foundations and business have heavily promoted these lies over the past several decades. The first argument was that the supply of hydrocarbons would soon be exhausted. The vast deposits of coal, natural gas, and oil and oil-bearing minerals on the Earth soon overcame this lie. Expanding regulation of the hydrocarbon industry, however, can still bring about politically contrived shortages and market distortions. These regulations contribute to the artificially high cost of fuel, as do federal and state excise taxes, and (in general) the erosion of the purchasing power of the dollar through inflation. The second claim, popular during the 70s, was that a new ice age would be caused by human use of coal, oil and natural gas. This argument was "proved" by the then-decreasing global temperatures that began in about 1940. As temperatures stabilized, however, and resumed their 300-year warming cycle, the lie of "global cooling" faded from the scene. The latest scare asserts that the Earth is warming as a result of human use of coal, oil, and natural gas. This myth of "human-caused global warming" is promoted by billions of dollars worth of propaganda in the American media today. Its creators are the very same people who demonized nuclear power and once warned about global cooling."Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #47 February 16, 2007 So "environmental extremists" are the ones behind the whole global warming 'myth' eh? I'm sorry, I have a hard time putting any value into something written by a founder of a cooky Institute of Science and Medicine and a doctor of internal medicine.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lploscar 0 #48 February 16, 2007 QuoteSo "environmental extremists" are the ones behind the whole global warming 'myth' eh? I'm sorry, I have a hard time putting any value into something written by a founder of a cooky Institute of Science and Medicine and a doctor of internal medicine. If that's what you get out of my posts... then, in did, I just wasted my time today... Time for Friday Happy Hour, drink, party, etc. Later!"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #49 February 16, 2007 Quote If that's what you get out of my posts... then, in did, I just wasted my time today... Time for Friday Happy Hour, drink, party, etc. Later! Yes... yes you did... and I wasted my time reading that crap. The subtitle to the article you posted was "Environmental extremism kills. Millions die annually because of restrictions on DDT, and imposing the "Kyoto" regulations would kill many more." Parts of the article that you left out include things such as QuoteThis same cast of characters, in fact, will be found promoting virtually any scheme that would reduce technological progress, thereby increasing human misery and death. One can reliably predict that most hard-core activists in the anti-technology, anti-people environmental lobby will be: � For "population control" measures such as abortion, which kills millions of pre-born babies per year; � Against chemical technology and for the ban on DDT that is responsible for millions of malaria deaths every year; � In favor of high taxation and oppressive regulations that harm or kill untold numbers through the waste of human resources; and � For world government, which offers the ultimate in tyrannical control over human life and death. If I'm missing some point, please enlighten me. And again, posting some TFB rantings created by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (which is actually, like, one guy? and all they've really done before is spread BS around - ex: Oregon Petition) isn't going to enlighten me at all. "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - We reject your reality, and substitute our own!" it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,412 #50 February 16, 2007 While plagarism is not against the rules here, it is considered good form to identify when you are quoting from another source. The piece you quoted was from the John Birch society, a conservative organization that is dedicated to promulgation of conservative ideas, opposition to environmentalism and the repeal of civil rights legislation. (It views such legislation as "communist.") In terms of the article itself, it identifies people like me as "enemies of technological advance" - which is somewhat ironic. Here's one line: "This myth of "human-caused global warming" is promoted by billions of dollars worth of propaganda in the American media today. Its creators are the very same people who demonized nuclear power and once warned about global cooling." I'm one of the people "promulgating" the issues behind climate change. I did not think 'global cooling' was an issue, and I am not against nuclear power (provided it's generated safely.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
chrismgtis 0 #36 February 16, 2007 One point that really needs to be made is this. We can not predict weather 5 days into the future very accurately, yet so many people choose to believe in a climate forecast 50 or more years into the future. And to beat all things, that data comes from a tube of ice of all things. It's amazing what some people will trust.Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrismgtis 0 #37 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuote http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/...ment/waterworld.html Very interesting read. Thanks for posting it. No problem. As with anything, don't believe it just because someone said so, though I personally find the information in that article is better and more trustworthy than what thousands of scientists claim is fact or reliable data.Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lploscar 0 #38 February 16, 2007 Quote> He actually claims "benefits in the future will likely be spectacular." Try googling these terms: Corn fertilization high temperature Climate effects agriculture CO2 concentration photosynthesis Does Long-Term Elevation of CO2 Concentration Increase Photosynthesis in Forest Floor Vegetation? (Indiana Strawberry in a Maryland Forest) C. P. Osborne, B. G. Drake, J. LaRoche and S. P. Long John Tabor Laboratories, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom (C.P.O., S.P.L.) As the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) in the atmosphere rises, photorespiratory loss of carbon in C3 photosynthesis will diminish and the net efficiency of light-limited photosynthetic carbon uptake should rise. We tested this expectation for Indiana strawberry (Duchesnea indica) growing on a Maryland forest floor. Open-top chambers were used to elevate the pCO2 of a forest floor habitat to 67 Pa and were paired with control chambers providing an ambient pCO2 of 38 Pa. After 3.5 years, D. indica leaves grown and measured in the elevated pCO2 showed a significantly greater maximum quantum efficiency of net photosynthesis (by 22%) and a lower light compensation point (by 42%) than leaves grown and measured in the control chambers. The quantum efficiency to minimize photorespiration, measured in 1% O2, was the same for controls and plants grown at elevated pCO2. This showed that the maximum efficiency of light-energy transduction into assimilated carbon was not altered by acclimation and that the increase in light-limited photosynthesis at elevated pCO2 was simply a function of the decrease in photorespiration. Acclimation did decrease the ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase and light-harvesting chlorophyll protein content of the leaf by more than 30%. These changes were associated with a decreased capacity for light-saturated, but not light-limited, photosynthesis. Even so, leaves of D. indica grown and measured at elevated pCO2 showed greater light-saturated photosynthetic rates than leaves grown and measured at the current atmospheric pCO2. In situ measurements under natural forest floor lighting showed large increases in leaf photosynthesis at elevated pCO2, relative to controls, in both summer and fall. The increase in efficiency of light-limited photosynthesis with elevated pCO2 allowed positive net photosynthetic carbon uptake on days and at locations on the forest floor that light fluxes were insufficient for positive net photosynthesis in the current atmospheric pCO2. Wow! Imagine that!"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,412 #39 February 16, 2007 >He does not state that the planet is warming up - en contraire! >he's point is that it is actually cooler . . . Right. In that he's more of a Type I denier. Again, problem there is that people can look out the window. >(not rise in temperature to a gazillion degrees Fahrenheit, or what >ever the heck you believe). I don't think that. Nor does any serious climactic researcher. Google "straw man" for more information on who believes in temperatures rising "a gazillion degrees." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #40 February 16, 2007 QuoteOne point that really needs to be made is this. We can not predict weather 5 days into the future very accurately, yet so many people choose to believe in a climate forecast 50 or more years into the future. And to beat all things, that data comes from a tube of ice of all things. It's amazing what some people will trust. Climate is easier to predict than weather. I can predict very accurately that next winter will be cold in Chicago, and it will snow. Next summer will be hot and humid. But, as you say, predicting weather in 5 days time is very difficult.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,412 #41 February 16, 2007 Some good news on this front: Politicians sign new climate pact The climate debate is over, said US presidential candidate John McCain Leading international politicians have reached a new agreement on tackling climate change, at a Washington summit. Delegates agreed that developing countries would also have to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as well as rich countries. The informal meeting also agreed that a global market should be formed to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions. The non-binding declaration is seen as vital in influencing a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, correspondents say. The forum's closing statement said man-made climate change was now "beyond doubt". . . . The two-day meeting brought together legislators from countries including the Group of Eight rich nations, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. . . . US senator Joe Lieberman forecast that the US Congress would enact a law on cutting emissions by the end of next year, possibly this year. And presidential candidate John McCain, who is co-sponsoring climate legislation with Mr Lieberman, was emphatic on the need for new initiatives. "I am convinced that we have reached the tipping point and that the Congress of the United States will act, with the agreement of the administration," he told the forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 4 #42 February 16, 2007 QuoteAnd to beat all things, that data comes from a tube of ice of all things. That "tube of ice" has shown the correlation between CO2 gas levels and temperature for the last 650,000 years. You're saying with 650,000 year of consistent data, you couldn't reasonably predict something? Quote"I am convinced that we have reached the tipping point and that the Congress of the United States will act, with the agreement of the administration," he told the forum. Wow.... we might actually ratify this one? Maybe we'll stop leading the world in CO2 emissions it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #43 February 16, 2007 Here's a new report: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php QuoteAntarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 4 #44 February 16, 2007 QuoteHere's a new report: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php QuoteAntarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models. "It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #45 February 16, 2007 That is good news, Bill. Having ALL countries share the burden in reducing emissions is the way to go. What's William Ury up to these days? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lploscar 0 #46 February 16, 2007 QuoteSome good news on this front: Politicians sign new climate pact... Ha Ha... Good News...we all know what happens when "the politicians" get movin'... Nuclear power plants convert mass into electrical energy. This converted "nuclear energy" is, by far, the safest, cleanest and least expensive energy source available with current technology. Its use improves the standard of living, increases the quality and length of human life, and maximizes technological progress. The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. Had that American leadership continued, our country and our world would be very different. During the past several decades, mankind should have been making a transition from hydrocarbon power to breeder-reactor-fueled nuclear power. Hydrocarbon power would still be extensively utilized in many applications, but nuclear power would be developing into our primary energy source. Hydroelectric power would continue but would reach a maximum as suitable hydroelectric sites were completely utilized. This transition, however, has been blocked. Progress stalled because of another force at work in our body politic. Through the major media and the environmental lobby, the latter heavily funded by huge tax-exempt foundations, they have beguiled millions into believing that too many people and too much technology will cause environmental devastation. Thirty years ago, they demonized nuclear power with false claims about its safety. As a result, nuclear power development in the United States stopped. At that time, America was the world technological leader and therefore the largest user of energy. At present, American leadership is being challenged by Asian nations, which are building nuclear power plants at a rapidly increasing rate. Although technological progress continued to some extent without progress in energy production, the crippling of nuclear power meant continued heavy dependence on hydrocarbon fuels — including a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, exacerbated by "environmental" regulations impeding drilling in our own country. This ongoing tragedy is also reflected in the decline of American technological superiority and the decline of American living standards. The enemies of technological advance are, however, not content. They want to move technology another step downward and energy production another step backward by diminishing even the use of hydrocarbon energy. To accomplish this, they have contrived three lies. These are the lies of hydrocarbon shortages, human-caused global cooling, and human-caused global warming. Their allies in the press, government, foundations and business have heavily promoted these lies over the past several decades. The first argument was that the supply of hydrocarbons would soon be exhausted. The vast deposits of coal, natural gas, and oil and oil-bearing minerals on the Earth soon overcame this lie. Expanding regulation of the hydrocarbon industry, however, can still bring about politically contrived shortages and market distortions. These regulations contribute to the artificially high cost of fuel, as do federal and state excise taxes, and (in general) the erosion of the purchasing power of the dollar through inflation. The second claim, popular during the 70s, was that a new ice age would be caused by human use of coal, oil and natural gas. This argument was "proved" by the then-decreasing global temperatures that began in about 1940. As temperatures stabilized, however, and resumed their 300-year warming cycle, the lie of "global cooling" faded from the scene. The latest scare asserts that the Earth is warming as a result of human use of coal, oil, and natural gas. This myth of "human-caused global warming" is promoted by billions of dollars worth of propaganda in the American media today. Its creators are the very same people who demonized nuclear power and once warned about global cooling."Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 4 #47 February 16, 2007 So "environmental extremists" are the ones behind the whole global warming 'myth' eh? I'm sorry, I have a hard time putting any value into something written by a founder of a cooky Institute of Science and Medicine and a doctor of internal medicine.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lploscar 0 #48 February 16, 2007 QuoteSo "environmental extremists" are the ones behind the whole global warming 'myth' eh? I'm sorry, I have a hard time putting any value into something written by a founder of a cooky Institute of Science and Medicine and a doctor of internal medicine. If that's what you get out of my posts... then, in did, I just wasted my time today... Time for Friday Happy Hour, drink, party, etc. Later!"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -T.S. Eliot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 4 #49 February 16, 2007 Quote If that's what you get out of my posts... then, in did, I just wasted my time today... Time for Friday Happy Hour, drink, party, etc. Later! Yes... yes you did... and I wasted my time reading that crap. The subtitle to the article you posted was "Environmental extremism kills. Millions die annually because of restrictions on DDT, and imposing the "Kyoto" regulations would kill many more." Parts of the article that you left out include things such as QuoteThis same cast of characters, in fact, will be found promoting virtually any scheme that would reduce technological progress, thereby increasing human misery and death. One can reliably predict that most hard-core activists in the anti-technology, anti-people environmental lobby will be: � For "population control" measures such as abortion, which kills millions of pre-born babies per year; � Against chemical technology and for the ban on DDT that is responsible for millions of malaria deaths every year; � In favor of high taxation and oppressive regulations that harm or kill untold numbers through the waste of human resources; and � For world government, which offers the ultimate in tyrannical control over human life and death. If I'm missing some point, please enlighten me. And again, posting some TFB rantings created by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (which is actually, like, one guy? and all they've really done before is spread BS around - ex: Oregon Petition) isn't going to enlighten me at all. "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - We reject your reality, and substitute our own!" it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,412 #50 February 16, 2007 While plagarism is not against the rules here, it is considered good form to identify when you are quoting from another source. The piece you quoted was from the John Birch society, a conservative organization that is dedicated to promulgation of conservative ideas, opposition to environmentalism and the repeal of civil rights legislation. (It views such legislation as "communist.") In terms of the article itself, it identifies people like me as "enemies of technological advance" - which is somewhat ironic. Here's one line: "This myth of "human-caused global warming" is promoted by billions of dollars worth of propaganda in the American media today. Its creators are the very same people who demonized nuclear power and once warned about global cooling." I'm one of the people "promulgating" the issues behind climate change. I did not think 'global cooling' was an issue, and I am not against nuclear power (provided it's generated safely.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
