EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_Gunnar]

Eric the Viking

[_The CCC]

Tobin:

Because the conditions are not similar. Vanilla Orchids don't normally grow at the South Pole. Increases in CO2 aren't necessarily good for plants.
SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.ph ... 182&&n=697

[_Tobin]

Tobin:

Because the conditions are not similar. Vanilla Orchids don't normally grow at the South Pole. Increases in CO2 aren't necessarily good for plants.
SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.ph ... 182&&n=697

That is so much crap and was written by someone with an agenda, not to explain good science. I'll explain why I claim that. We are talking about what would happen if we took the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and triple it over 3 centuries. However, even when it is tripled the CO2 concentrations will be less than 1/50th of 1% of the atmosphere. The article you linked doesn't specify what too high a concentration of CO2 was (A HUGE WARNING FLAG that it is propaganda) or link to any facts that can be checked, so I seriously doubt it has anything to do with such minute concentrations.

Oh, and shame on you for trying to pull a fast one. You don't look credible when you pull crap like that. You appear deceitful.

[_Res Ipsa]

Tobin:

Because the conditions are not similar. Vanilla Orchids don't normally grow at the South Pole. Increases in CO2 aren't necessarily good for plants.
SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.ph ... 182&&n=697

That is so much crap and was written by someone with an agenda, not to explain good science. I'll explain why I claim that. We are talking about what would happen if we took the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and triple it over 3 centuries. However, even when it is tripled the CO2 concentrations will be less than 1/50th of 1% of the atmosphere. The article you linked doesn't specify what too high a concentration of CO2 was (A HUGE WARNING FLAG that it is propaganda), so I seriously doubt it has anything to do with such minute concentrations.

There is that argument from personal incredulity again: "I seriously doubt..." Instead of looking at what science tells us about the effect of tripling CO2 concentrations or the rate at which CO2 is being added to the atmosphere, you simply draw sweeping conclusions based on your uninformed doubts.

[Guest]

Increasing the CO2 level can be good for plants if they are CO2 limited. Our food crops aren't. Just because plants need water, for example, doesn't mean that continually increasing water will result in ever increasing crop yields. Also, for our food crops, any marginal benefits from increased CO2 are rapidly overcome by the other effects of global warming: increased heat and changes in precipitation patterns. Even now we are starting to see detrimental effects on crop yields.

That is irrelevant. Optimal areas for growing crops will likely change as I've already stated.

The United States is Already balking at taking in a handful of refugees. What makes you think we'll be willing to take on hundreds of thousands to millions of climate refugees. And, as our food production dwindles, what makes you think Cansda is going to take on millions of Americans who were too stupid too recognize and act on the warnings for decades. And we tend to play nice.

People play nice till it is something they really need. Then they take, usually by force. So I really don't see Canada doing much to stop the US if they decide they need Canada's land.

How about Russia? Who is going to take on all those bangladeshis who will be displaced by sea level rise? India? Pakistan? Facile hand waving doesn't cut it.

Russia has already suffered large out migrations of people and depopulation. And of course, it would be up the Russians to decide the best policy for how people enter their country. But I highly doubt they'd completely turn their noses up to the thought of bringing in capable immigrants to work considering the current state of their country.

You keep clinging to the CO2 levels in the Jurassic and ignoring the fact that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. You can look this stuff up, but it takes a little effort.

I'm highlighting it because it one of the figures the religious nuts concerned about global warming constantly go into alarm mode about. I think I've made it pretty clear that I really don't see any problem with tripling that number. The world won't end if we do.

[_Tobin]

There is that argument from personal incredulity again: "I seriously doubt..." Instead of looking at what science tells us about the effect of tripling CO2 concentrations or the rate at which CO2 is being added to the atmosphere, you simply draw sweeping conclusions based on your uninformed doubts.

Oh, I don't deny I'm a skeptic. However, if you think you are going to be able to convince a reasonable skeptic with unsubstantiated garbage like that, I think you are delusional. And as always, we can talk about facts if you want anytime you want. Just no more cheezy links.

[_Tobin]

Do you think the sunspot cycle affects global temperatures?

I don't know though I highly doubt it. If they do, I don't understand the physics of how they would.

[_Res Ipsa]

There is that argument from personal incredulity again: "I seriously doubt..." Instead of looking at what science tells us about the effect of tripling CO2 concentrations or the rate at which CO2 is being added to the atmosphere, you simply draw sweeping conclusions based on your uninformed doubts.

Oh, I don't deny I'm a skeptic. However, if you think you are going to be able to convince a reasonable skeptic with unsubstantiated garbage like that, I think you are delusional. And as always, we can talk about facts if you want anytime you want. Just no more cheezy links.

Basing statements on personal incredulity doesn't make you a skeptic. It makes a person who uses fallacious reasoning. A real skeptic follows the evidence; when evidence contradicts his personal incredulity, he goes with the evidence. Did you look at any of the studies discussed in the article?

[_Res Ipsa]

Do you think the sunspot cycle affects global temperatures?

I don't know though I highly doubt it. If they do, I don't understand the physics of how they would.

Does the sunspot cycle affect the radiation output from the sun?

[_Tobin]

Basing statements on personal incredulity doesn't make you a skeptic. It makes a person who uses fallacious reasoning. A real skeptic follows the evidence; when evidence contradicts his personal incredulity, he goes with the evidence. Did you look at any of the studies discussed in the article?

What real evidence am I supposedly ignoring? All I've said is that I don't see a big deal about continuing to live as we are and increasing the CO2 concentration of the planet and its temperature.

I think the problem you have with someone like me that realistically understands the situation and what is likely to happen is that you desperately believe we need to do something about this. It is your religious belief that you are right. And like all religious zealots, you feel your beliefs are superior to what is most likely the reality here.