Their science is not holding up so as all true greenies do, they hold to their lies and ignore the truth
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
So they get their tinker toy computers out and substitute that for the real earth and make believe they are sane. Here are the facts. The earth has been cooling for over a decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
All the while CO2 has been climbing. It is scientifically proven that CO2 does not control the arth's temperature. But they have so much invested in CO2 being the culprit that they can't back now irregardless of any data.
Quote by Martin Keeley, geology scientist: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”
The point of carbon taxes is to change behavior. It makes behavior we don't want (using more fossil fuels) more expensive, which makes it more worth the effort to stop that behavior, in whatever way.
If gas costs 10% more, suddenly it would be more cost effective for me to pay more for a car with better fuel efficiency.
If the cost of electricity goes up, I may get around to insulating my attic like I've been meaning to, to cut my winter electric bill.
If I own a power company that needs a new plant, and I know the cost of coal will be rising because of a carbon tax, I may decide to put in a solar plant instead, or maybe even converting an existing coal plant to burn biomass (basically, wood pellets or the like).
As far as plants... while we may expect somewhat more plant growth, because of both higher CO2 and more warm weather (at least, where plants are inhibited by cold--in areas where heat or water are more of a factor, warming will *inhibit* plant growth)... well, let's pretend, for a moment, that both of these things will increase plant growth.
There are a few reasons why this will not completely stop global warming.
1. Limits on land area. Most places that can grow plants already do, and most of the plants are more or less as large as they can get. There's some room for growth, but not unlimited room.
2. Other limits on plant growth. Even assuming adequate water--not a given, if warming disrupts rainfall patterns--plants need a lot of other things. If soil nitrogen or soil phosphorus is too low, plants won't grow. If there's not enough sunlight, likewise. If there's something toxic to plants in the soil, likewise. And so on.
3. No negative feedback can exceed the forcing. A negative feedback is... basically, if X pushes to the left, negative feedback Y pushes to the right. In this case, if there is warming, a negative feedback causes cooling (though most work in the other direction, too; if there is cooling, a negative feedback causes warming). But, inherently, no negative feedback that I'm aware of can push a system back *further than it would have been without the forcing*. For plant growth, for example, if more plant growth decreases CO2 levels, it will, at most, reach a point where there's no "extra" CO2 around to cause more plant growth, so the "extra" growth will stop. And, in practice, most such feedbacks can't reach as far as the zero point.
edit:
evapotranspiration has very little to do with sea level. The changes in sea level are due to glacial melt and thermal expansion, not changes in rainfall.
>>If CO2 warms the planet, the dandelions will have more time to grow, and if they have more time to grow, will they convert more CO2 to O2?<<
That is offset by the negative impact on evapotranspiration and numerous other things you are unaware of.
>>If so, does that mean the planet is sustainable? If the planet is sustainable, for what reason will we have to give money to the boys who cry wolf? <<
But it is not – and in addition to knowing nothing about plant physiology, you apparently do not know the definition of “sustainable.”
>>What if we hold a bake sale for those politicians and research scientists whose very livelihood depends on our mass hysteria? Could we then worry about something more practical?<<
The money would be better spent on your getting an education.
>>Does CO2 have to be a greenhouse gas in order for plant system to control earth's growing season and keep the earth at a stable temperature?<<
Does this sentence have an English translation?
>>The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind. <<
Listening to the wind whistle through your empty head is not the answer. The answer is in education and science. Try looking there.
=====
edit ---
>>Update 1: Gary F, thanks for introducing me to the new word, evapotranspiration, a word that deals with the water cycle, not CO2.<<
Elevated CO2 in plants reduces plant stomatal conductance - which reduces evapotranspiration in plants - which reduces moisture released by plants - which reduces the moisture in the atmosphere - which reduces the "white" clouds, etc.
It's not a "big" word - it is a scientific term. But, then, I guess that makes it some kind of bog word, after all.
Is it legal to question global warming?
The last time I checked, a constitutional amendment repealing free speech has not been passed.
Yes , Question Authority . Dont believe the new scare or fad
of the hour .
Nature is full of negative feedback mechanisms that the religious AGW cultists will never believe in. Funny how nature itself is making complete fools out of cultists. I love watching them get stuck in ice that was not supposed to be there according to their religion.
yes, it should be if we aren't living in a marxist country and yes I agree with you. Thank you for your question.
What high school science homework assignment are you failing to complete due to cruising anti-science blogs?
Can you convert more CO2 to O2 by giving money to the government and scientists, or by giving that same money to a dandelion?
The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.
If CO2 warms the planet, the dandelions will have more time to grow, and if they have more time to grow, will they convert more CO2 to O2?
If so, does that mean the planet is sustainable? If the planet is sustainable, for what reason will we have to give money to the boys who cry wolf?
What if we hold a bake sale for those politicians and research scientists whose very livelihood depends on our mass hysteria? Could we then worry about something more practical?
Does CO2 have to be a greenhouse gas in order for plant system to control earth's growing season and keep the earth at a stable temperature?
