World's vegetation is cleaning more carbon from skies

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | June 06, 2003 | Peter N. Spotts

[skeeter]

I only enter the fray briefly for the conservative cause, so that in the annals of global warming history, they can't paint us all as idiots.

Then educate us 'idiots'.

You claim 'global warming from manmade causes' is a widely established fact.

It shouldn't be too difficult for an expert such as yourself to name the scholarly sources establishing this fact?

[Carry_Okie]

I have read elsewhere that anthropomorphic causes for increased carbon emissions comprises about 3% of the entire amount of the total increase that "causes" global warming.

That would be "anthropogenic."

[brewcrew]

I only enter the fray briefly for the conservative cause, so that in the annals of global warming history, they can't paint us all as idiots.

You are buying more than you're selling, sir or madam. And when you buy more than you sell, you lose.

It is, indeed, scientifically provable that the mean temperature of the earth has risen slightly over the last century. To claim absolute knowledge of the cause of this phenomenon is arrogant and self-centered. 100 years in geologic time is less than the blink of an eye.

[sauropod]

Anthromorphic. The CO2 cloud took on the shape of Kofi Annan ;-).

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Um, hello. The entire scientific community has reached consensus on this point. I don't think I'd even bother debating with a patzer that doesn't get that point.

Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Warning! Disruptor alert...Here's how your "consensus" is manufactured. BTW I generally discount anyone who starts a sentence with "I don't even bother to debate........" as someone who is in possession of no facts.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

should have included the following link in my last post:

Rand Institute Exposes Global Warming Fraud

[js1138]

All I know is I have to mow more often.

[FreeTheHostages]

Nonsense, my whole point is that the facts don't support the position of the poster. And that the question of whether there's significant manmade contribution to global warming is a scientific, not a political, question. The whole reason it's not worth feeding the trolls and getting in a debate here is because we don't have consensus on even that yet here at FR! So why bother with facts since people scream politics back?

I'm very upfront about registering that point of view but *not* getting in debate about it. Declare whatever adverse presumption you care to. Fact is, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with unarmed people.

[FreeTheHostages]

lol

now you're scaring me, 'Pod

[Iconoclast2]

Science is not a consensus process. People who accept global warming because of a claimed "consensus" are just ignorant, and have a mindset more akin to liberals. When global government comes, and freedom dies, it will happen by "consensus".

[FreeTheHostages]

It is, indeed, scientifically provable that the mean temperature of the earth has risen slightly over the last century. To claim absolute knowledge of the cause of this phenomenon is arrogant and self-centered. 100 years in geologic time is less than the blink of an eye.

I stand on 450,000 on Vostok -- and probably back 1.5 million based on post-Vostok ice cores.

This is a scientific question, not a political one.

There should be more threads about conservative solutions to global warming -- or honest scientific debate about the extent to which vibrant sinks can continue to absorb the CO2 or other changes (increased vegegation, e.g.) can give us a relative steady state. But to just sit here and say it's not the case -- that seems rather wrong. Generally, I like to think that conservatives stick closer to the truth. So I call y'all on departing on it. It's a mistake and you risk making us all look silly if you buy some BS on a website saying there's no manmade global warming. C'mon, good people, we're supposed to be the educated ones.

[FreeTheHostages]

Ah, fascinating. Scientific consensus is just that. And saying science is not a consensus process -- well, I suppose one can quote iconoclastic sources that depart from mainstream science. But to say there's not a stream, and a mainstream -- well, that would be wrong too.

[presidio9]

Nonsense, my whole point is that the facts don't support the position of the poster. And that the question of whether there's significant manmade contribution to global warming is a scientific, not a political, question.

See that's where you are wrong. There is no scientific basis to the global warming theory. Liberals have filled your head so full of mush that you think there is. But until we are give even the slightest bit of concrete evidence of Global Warming, it would be a serious mistake to ally ourselves with Al Gore and his storytellers.

[Coleus]

bttt

[FreeTheHostages]

a scientific, not a political issue: Is there a significant manmade contribution to global warming?

a political, not a scientific issue: Whether there will come a time when "global government comes, and freedom dies."

You say that the latter will come, if it does, on "consensus." Hmm, I think the latter will come, if it does, because people twist the truth and the facts to their own political ends. If there's one think the Gulag Archipelogo taught me long ago, in 8th grade, it was the importance to Stalin -- and to all totalitarian regimes by extension -- to twist facts and kill the truth and history for political expediency.

I'm a conservative because, frankly, most of the time conservatives are right. And as a general rule, they're much less likely to twist the truth. But it's the truth that will set you free, and if you ever depart from the facts, in my opinion that's the beginning of going in the wrong direction politically.

Saying something doesn't make it so. It's not that I like the greenies any more than you guys do. I eat lots of meat. But it's time to start talking about what the conservative position *on* global warming is, not *whether* there's global warming.

It's fascinating, for as often as I've said it, that so few will reach consensus here in this thread on at least this fact: that the question of whether there is or isn't significant global warming caused by human industry is a scientific, not a political, question.

Let me really annoy you all and say this: I really really hope solar or something becomes financially viable some day. And gets us out of the dependence on Arab oil. And somehow -- in some sci fi future -- is manufactured and consumed in a way that doesn't create even more CO2 and methane. That's not today. But if that day comes, it will come as a result of people who followed *facts* and were *scientists,* God Bless 'em all, and these scientists could well be the free market solution to a real problem.

I'm not for Gore's treaty -- I'm not for China and India continuing their emissions while we just stop industrializing here in the West. I'm not for any of the liberal solutions to the problem. So this "you're just a disruptor" stuff, along with all the other name calling -- it's all just highly, well, counterfactuals.

It's the truth that will keep us free. Always be on the right side of reality, y'know?

[gatex]

"...And that the question of whether there's significant manmade contribution to global warming is a scientific, not a political, question...."[bold added]

Define significant ---what percent ?

[Hanging Chad]

"...global warming from manmade causes is a *fact* -- a matter of general scientific agreement -- and we shouldn't be debating whether it exists ..."
- - -
I am a member of the "scientific community" and I do not buy-in to this theory.

The actual "facts" as you call them are few and far between. Is there any warming? How much? Based on what "norm"? Over what period of time? And then once such that 'fact' is established lets make a causal link to some 'human activity'. Which activity in particular? and over what time period?

Hey Chicken Little !
THE SKY IS NOT FALLING !

[Carry_Okie]

C'mon, good people, we're supposed to be the educated ones.

So why not try getting educated? There's no argument contrary to the claim that the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ has increased; there is however, no proof, or even strong indication that the anthropogenic contribution to that change has even a marginal effect on global tropospheric temperatures. Worse, there is every indication that any Kyoto-style effort to reverse that change will have NO MEASURABLE EFFECT on global temperatures 100 years from now. Even the IPCC's bogus models indicate that, particularly when the published error factors in the models are taken into account.

[gatex]

What can you tell us about (1) limestome deposits and (2) the equilibrium CO2 content in sea water ?

[balrog666]

global warming from manmade causes is a *fact* -- a matter of general scientific agreement

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you just a random troll or a deluded greenie?

If you're referring to the IPCC reports, the scientists who compliled the data refused to sign on to the political conclusions that were tacked on in the executive summary.

If not, what kind of drugs are you on?