Christine Cannot Answer my Comment
Below is a conversation I had by way of comment on her blog with Christine from http://350orbust.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-competitive-enterprise-institute-extolls-virtues-of-carbon-dioxide/
She is happy to criticise people who do not agree with her (and that is her right) but when she receives uncomfortable comments that challenge HER beliefs she resorts to name calling and quickly refuses to answer/discuss the point – by not replying and sending the offending comment to spam.
Roger – see the early posting on “Global Warming Denier Nonsense Amusing If It Weren’t Deadly” for more about the denier industry’s take on the “virtues” of carbon dioxide. The “point” is – as the video on water demonstrates – that carbon dioxide, like water, like iron, etc, is essential to life in the right quantities. We all know that too much water can kill – the same is true of CO2.
What if the unproven Anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming hypothesis is not true?
Then we will have ruined our economies for nothing!
Do you know optimum CO2 concentration for life including ours is between 600 and 800 ppmv.
At these concentrations crops grow incredibly well, have more resistance to drought and disease with higher yields. Ask any glass house operator.
Humans according to most accounts are comfortable at 1000ppmv concentration of CO2.
I suggest you read my blog and the associated comments(I never disallow a comment unless it is abusive)
(blog address deleted)
After the well deserved lampooning of some politicians, some simple well referenced facts, that any lay person can appreciate, are described which seriously disprove the AGW theory
Well, Roger, it seems that you have forgotten my comment policy (click here for a refresher) , but your comment is just too perfect an example of the anti-science denier nonsense that I’ve been discussing recently that I can’t not post it (omitting your shamelessly self-promoting blog link, of course). Really, Roger, you packed more “whoppers”(that’s what we call “porkies” in this part of the world) into those few sentences that I’ve seen in a while! You have no scientific credentials and no articles in peer-reviewed journals to your credit, therefore you are very low on the “credibility spectrum” and yet you would like us to believe you when you assure us regarding levels of C02 that are optimum for life, just because you say so! Let me quote from my comment policy: Physics has set an immutable bottom line on life as we know it on this planet. For two years now, we’ve been aware of just what that bottom line is: the NASA team headed by James Hansen gave it to us first. Any value for carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible “with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” That bottom line won’t change: above 350 and, sooner or later, the ice caps melt, sea levels rise, hydrological cycles are thrown off kilter, and so on. In keeping with the critical urgency of this situation, comments that argue that climate change is not happening, that CO2 is good for us, that Al Gore isn’t a scientist (we all know this!!), that as a meteorologist/geologist/etc. you know better than the IPCC and every National Academy of Science, humans are too insignificant to cause climate change, and so on, will be deleted without comment. If you are high on the credibility spectrum – that is, you are a publishing scientist – and you are quoting from a legitimate peer-reviewed source, and you have something to say about the science of climate change, then your comments will be posted. Referencing other blogs DOES NOT count!
This is in reply to your comment, a reply which I suspect you will not be brave enough to publish.
However I have published our conversation on my own blog so you can go and look it up there if you forget what I say.
With reference to my comments about levels of CO2 that are compatible with the planet. I didn’t give you any references because you can look up these facts simply by googling – for example,
“optimal commercial greenhouse carbon dioxide enrichment” e.g. http://www.hydrofarm.com/articles/co2_enrichment.php and “safe levels of carbon dioxide”. eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide. In other words these numbers are fairly common knowledge amongst reasonably clued up people. (1% = 10,000ppmv). Now for my other assertions you complain there are no references. Well actually thats why I refered you to my blog. It is well referenced and as I said, after the well deserved lampooning of some relevant politicians, it shows simply in laymans terms some serious disapproval of the AGW hypothesis.
Now all scientists will confirm that the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” is only a hypothesis and an unprovable one at that. Even the IPCC in their reports do not claim this is fact, actually they use the words “suggest”.
Check out http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf and search for the word “suggest” and then for the word “fact” as they relate to the certainty of CO2 induced climate change.
My blog of which I unashamedly include the address here http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com shows well referenced historical and archaelogical facts which disprove the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. A hypothesis upon which the whole global warming thing is based!
The blog is well referenced so please refrain from accusing me of porkies. If your comment is without refering to the blog and its references, how can you possibly accuse me of anything?
Does one have to be a scientist to understand this?
But one does need to use ones own brain take a close look at the facts.
To say that because the IPCC says this and therefore it must be correct is simply a cop out.
In spite of our current day educations, it is remarkably similar to the medieval blind faith in the church and the pope by the common masses.(which was not shared by the ruling classes)
So my suggestion my dear Christine is to somehow unfetter your mind of this blind faith in the IPCC and the scientists it funds, and put your own mind at work to see if everything adds up.
If you are operating with a clear mind and not blind faith, you will have no problem with this comment, but if you are relying on a faith of some sort, I can understand it may be rather upsetting.
Look out for my next blog which analyses the economic effect of the proposed IPCC emission and wealth transfer proposals. (Yes I am qualified to do an analysis of my own)