Talk:Global warming denialism/Archive6

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <7>, <8>, <10>, <9>, <11>

, (new)(back)

Should we include something on...

The denialist "leave the politics out of science" argument? Since environmentalists are (usually) in the centre/left-wing of the political spectrum, the evidence must be wrong! Osaka Sun (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have the impression that European environmentalists are definitely on the left. It is very tragic that although they have the science-based position on climate change, they have the crank position on nuclear power and GMOs. --Tweenk (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Tumbleweed

Unfortunately the tumbleweed is not exactly true. I know that the Committee of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences rejects it, which is not exactly surprising given that the coal industry is the main employer of geologists in this country, and coal is the source of roughly 95% of electricity. This is their statement in English: [1]

More specifically, they agree that the climate is changing, but reject the idea that climate change is anthropogenic, and say "more research is needed". --Tweenk (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

But given those caveats it's not exactly an organisation who's opinion seems unbiased. ^sshole 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

global warming articles

Questions:

• So, global warming denialism redirects to global warming conspiracy theory. Should it not at least redirect here where there is far more general information about denialism? (That is, global warming conspiracies are a subset of global warming denialism.)
• We have a separate article on evolution and then on creationism. Should we have a separate article on global warming vs. global warming denialism?

sterile^talk 15:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for both. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 16:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also put the Effects of global warming article in the one about global warming. sterile^talk 17:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Any comments about this? If not, I'm probably just going to do it in a day or two. sterile^talk 17:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with that. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Anti-science AGW

Funny how this wiki claims to be fighting the anti-science movement when Anthropogenic Global Warming is the shining example of an anti-science movement. You guys aren't fighting anti-science, you're perpetuating it. You're perpetuating it on two fronts:

1. Scientific consensus is a completely made up term and decidedly anti-science. Science is not about what you think or what everybody thinks, it's about what you can prove. "Scientific consensus" was against Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and countless other scientists who've revolutionized our lives. You anti-intellectual conformists would've run them out of town because popular opinion wasn't on their side.
2. Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a valid scientific theory or law, it's a belief system no different than a belief in God. If it were an actual scientific theory or law it could be falsified. Anyone challenged to explain how AGW could be falsified usually makes either one of two claims:

• It can't because it's a fact! The science is settled, guys. (My favorite cousin of the anti-science "scientific consensus".) Now where's my government grant money?
• Sure it can be falsified, under terms that are convenient to me. If surface temperature cool for ten years, then that'd be proof against it. Oh it has cooled for ten years? Then make it 100 years. Now where's my government grant money?

And what's absolutely hilarious and the most anti-scientific about all this is that none of this actually proves in any way that humans have had any measurable influence. Idling my Hummer and the temperature being 1 degree higher today than it was last year doesn't mean the Hummer did it. This is the same argument that Pat Robertson uses whenever a disaster happens: Well clearly a tornado ripped through your town because you're not praying to God anymore!

If you guys are going to claim to be rational, how about actually understanding the scientific method first, okay?^{— Unsigned, by: 192.234.246.206 / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

With a good dose of the Galileo_gambit thrown in for good measure. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Neither of you explain how AGW can be falsified. You want to believe in the Church of AGW, fine. Don't go passing it off as science unless you're prepared to enable skepticism. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, BoN, pssst, come this way...--ZooGuard (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I love it when denialists call their unwavering beliefs against evidence and scientific concensus "skepticism". Wait, is "love" the right word? I think I mean "facepalm". -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Scientific consensus is fake. It's used by people like you because you can't actually prove your belief scientifically. You want people aside from lab coat consultants to take AGW seriously, then present it as an actual falsifiable theory. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So, when did you say you got your PhD in climatology? ^postate 16:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Well I'm convinced. Write it up and gt it accepted in a scientific journal BON. Your Nobel Prize awaits!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a journal that would take it. Their editors don't seem to be familiar with the instrumental temperature record or surface temperature reconstructions either. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So when did you say you needed to have a PhD in climatology to know basic scientific methodology, Armondikov? You know, that thing they teach 8th graders in elementary school? Again, demonstrate how AGW is falisifable. BTW, I love how you guys are thoroughly proving my point. I don't even care about the fake scientific consensus, which is only really a pathetic attempt to gain credibility since you don't actually have a valid hypothesis. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can prove either (a) that there are no significant climate changes that have occurred in the last 150 years and (b) that the increase in carbon dioxide output during that time has had no effect then you have disproved AGW. Now, apart from the desire to drive a hummer to make up for your other inadequacies - what was your point? Jack Hughes (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming. You're making the claim that humans are the cause. Besides that, your "theory" is flawed since it's actually up to you to prove those things. How has the past 150 years been special compared to any other time in earth's history? How significant is CO2 in the greenhouse effect and how does the system respond? Hell you actually have to prove it's a cause of warming in the first place; the assumption is that because it hold heat that it's driving effect in the greenhouse. Studies like this have shown CO2 is a lagging indicator of global temperatures rather than a driver: [2] --192.234.246.206 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are excellent questions. and when asked, over and over again, in different studies, labs, and by a variety of different techniques and focuses of teh studies there is one thing that keeps coming up. "Baring huge volcanic explosions (which we haven't had), or meteor collisions (again, which we haven't had), the rate of the earth's temperature increase is unprecedented. the ONLY difference we can find, since the moon has not shifted directions, or we aren't closer to the sun, is human technology". That is a pretty damned compelling argument. Also, we know a little bit about how CO2 in the atmosphere works, and well, gosh, we can test that there is more co2 now than 200 years ago. golly.--Godot What do cats dream about? 17:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about that we haven't had huge volcanic explosions? They year without a summer was a direct result of a volcanic explosion. We've had tons of huge volcanic explosions in modern history. See, this is what I was talking about when people present falsifiability under their own term -- it's fake. "Well, we when you eliminate everything and just leave humans, clearly it's humans that are driving change in our climate." Why don't you eliminate the sun while you're at it? You haven't even proven that the rise in temperature is unique. It happens after every ice age, there are tons of record confirming that. This is why many people have concluded that we're simply just at the end of an ice age. You're also making assumptions about CO2, since many findings have shown that higher concentrations correlate to decreases and vice versa. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Cause I know of no eruption that has blocked out the sun for a few days -- something that might be big enough to account for a drastic change in weather patterns. You get how DRASTIC this change is, right? how fast it is? this is not "the end of an ice age" type warming, this is fully unprecidented in the planet's history -again, baring massive volcanic activity, meteor strikes on earth, etc. as for "we don't know what CO2 does - what the hell???--Godot What do cats dream about? 18:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Then you don't read the news, apparently. Iceland would have a bone to pick with you if you said there weren't any major volcanic eruptions. Actually, make that ALL European air travel at the time. Sorry that that story doesn't fit into your narrative, but reality is still reality. And yes, this warming corresponds nicely to several end of ice age warming periods -- that's why there are so many people who believe that. And yes, if you look at the source I cite, CO2 may not drive warming even though it has heat trapping capabilities. That's why open-system observations are just as important as isolated laboratory observations. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of non-sequiturs. Volcanoes cause warming, therefore humans don't. Ice age cycles cause warming, therefore humans don't. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the logical fallacies is assuming that human contributions are significant and not equalized by other environmental factors. There are mountains of evidence proving otherwise. WaitingforGodot is the one trying to eliminate volcanoes from the equation for whatever reason, they're not even relevant. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The logical fallacy could also be underestimating the amplification of the effect of one warming source by another. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing I love about denialist arguments is that they just keep throwing shit at the wall and hope some of it sticks without having to work out the logical implications of any of it. (Call it the "denialist method.") Volcanoes can cause warming by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, but they can also cause cooling through release of aerosols into the atmosphere. This was the case with Mt. Pinatubo, one of the largest eruptions of the 20th century, which caused a significant cooling over a two-year period. When it comes to CO2, though, humans release far more than volcanic eruptions. When denialists cite periods like the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, this is actually an argument for increased climate sensitivity, and thus supports AGW by demonstrating that human-generated forcings can have a significant impact due to this sensitivity. The more the denialists try to just pull random mechanisms out of their asses, the more logically incoherent their arguments become, but it is highly amusing to watch them tilt at the windmills of the eco-fascist cabal that allegedly rules the global scientific community. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing I love how "warmist" arguments is that you're chasing windmills. Yes, humans emit more CO2 than volcanoes. No duh. Termites emit ten times more CO2 than humans. The various data about carbon dioxide isn't the issue. (The temperature data is, depending on the source, they lie about proxy data source.) The issue is your religious belief system that climate change (which used to be Global Cooling... then Global Warming... what'll it be next!?) is human driven as if humans magically dropped from the sky in SUVs at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and ignoring inconvenient facts such as the rise in carbon dioxide concentration doesn't correlate with the rising in human populations nor the increase in per capita carbon emissions. Your thought process is completely regressive. You can't divorce the belief of humans causing climate change from climate change happening for natural causes... like it's done since throughout its entire fucking existence. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the general concensus is that we've been fucking up the earth's temperatures since we started growing things, about 10,000 years ago? Godot What do cats dream about? 17:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You can also try to disprove atmospheric chemistry and physics. That's always fun. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean that phenomenon that is largely driven by water vapor? Yeah, that's anthropogenic, sure. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, water vapor? I'd suggest taking a look at that site for concise explanations, BON. If that's too "warmist" for you, try reading some of the reports by the National Academies, rather than citing this guy as an "expert." Your grasp on the basics of the science behind AGW are so overwhelmingly flawed that I would have to give an introductory course, and I don't have the patience for that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So you can't actually refute the study that Tim Ball cites. Bias is irrelevant, which is clearly what you're appealing to here. Refute his findings -- they're not even his! Refute the findings of Yasuhiro Sasano. Oh wait... there's is a "Rational"Wiki article to tell you what you're supposed to think of him. And once again, explain how AGW can be falsified. You still haven't done that, apparently falling under Column A an continuously claiming "It's just a fact! These people say so!" --192.234.246.206 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Tim Ball didn't "cite" a study by Sasano, he cited a cherry-picked screencap from a brief news clip that shows other maps directly contradicting his argument. (Denialist quote mines press release, dog bites man.) 2. "Lags not leads" is one of the classic chestnuts. In reference to paleoclimate, anyone who says that hasn't heard of Milankovitch cycles. It's also totally flawed with regard to the last 100 years because, no surprise, the atmosphere is made up of more than just CO2 and it fails to take into account all other forcings: [3] [4] 3. As far as falsifiability goes, you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. If AGW is unfalsifiable as you repeatedly claim, you cannot also claim to have refuted it. In addition, we have provided multiple ways it could be falsified, such as disproving the greenhouse effect. Conclusion: You read some talking points off a denialist website and decided to parrot them here. Nearly every sentence you've written contains a monumental misunderstanding of the science behind AGW but you ironically deride it as "anti-science." You have no interest in science, so please tell us why we should take this nonsense seriously. If you do, open a damned book, or at least the website of a reputable scientific organization. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"If AGW is unfalsifiable as you repeatedly claim, you cannot also claim to have refuted it." When have I claimed I refuted it? I've repeatedly called it a belief system since that's what it is. "In addition, we have provided multiple ways it could be falsified, such as disproving the greenhouse effect." That doesn't disprove ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming, that disproves global warming. Absolutely nobody has provided a single instance on how to disprove human involvement. THAT'S the belief system, you consider it just a known that humans are causing global warming. "Conclusion: You read some talking points off a denialist website and decided to parrot them here." Conclusion: you're a clergy member. You sound like a fucking priest. Hell, the main article reads like an Evangelical Christian pamphlet. "Nearly every sentence you've written contains a monumental misunderstanding of the science behind AGW but you ironically deride it as "anti-science."" Every sentence you write isn't merely a misunderstand of science, it's directly anti-science. Which isn't surprising, you're clergy -- you can't tolerate heretics! You've in no way supported that AGW is in any way a scientific theory or law. "You have no interest in science, so please tell us why we should take this nonsense seriously. If you do, open a damned book, or at least the website of a reputable scientific organization." You have no interest in the scientific method. Sorry if you having issues with me calling that out. That's just the way it is, you're the only one who can do something about that. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you could also show that temperatures are steadily in decline, that anthropogenic GHG emissions are negligible, etc. You have made bald assertions that this is the case, but as we know about those things you're liable to read from those in denial, it ain't necessarily so: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] (Warning: Links may contain science and facts.) Since you seem to have no interest in reading or understanding basic science, I doubt those will get read, but you're welcome to prove me wrong. Otherwise, kindly fuck off and go troll the comments section at WUWT or something, I'm sure they'll be happy to have you there. As for the whole AGW = religion, wow never heard that one before! I give this post a big hearty Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Because most scientists aren't *in* 8th grade anymore. Of course there is such a thing as a scientific consensus. If you bothered to read, it is the general notion that "here is teh theory most of us accept as currently true, though being the scientists that we are, it might not be and we all accept that. Many of us even delight in disproving the so-called "consensus theory" cause it gives us a bigger name. But it exists, and we all use it to teach our classes". or some such. The point is, if you are coming at a room full of experts who all say "here is the evidence, the theories, then challenges to the theories, the counter challenges, the data itself... and here's pretty much teh only way at the time to see all that", with "but my 8th grade teacher said you all don't work that way", you've pretty much lost teh game from the gate. --Godot What do cats dream about? 16:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)(edict con)

See, Godot does absolutely no fucking science in a professional context and knows more about scientific methodology than the average climate-change denialist. ^bomination 17:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing as scientific consensus because science isn't driven by consensus. The laws of our universe aren't all based on what we agree that they are; the properties exist innately and it's up to us to figure how to describe them in a skeptical manner divorced from opinion. "Scientific consensus" is nothing but a transparent attempt to inject public policy into science, which is purely opinion driven. What you're describing is "consensus among scientist" when there are competing theories. That's not what we have here, there is no competing theory, only defense of their dogma. And that's my point so your argument is specious. There aren't any experts presenting a theory because AGW isn't a valid theory. Not a single person here, or in this "scientific consensus" has yet to explain how the belief that humans are causing the Earth to warm can be falsified. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As that would probably require us to explain what "falsifiable" actually means. In fact, we can falsify it. We simply need to demonstrate that rise in carbon dioxide doesn't correspond nicely to rise in temperatures given that we can demonstrate that increased CO2 concentrations will do that. So far, baring a lot of climate complexities that are more to do with the ocean than the atmosphere - it plays a much bigger part in climate than most people think - it all fits nicely. So, are you going to shut up with this "I've spent 5 seconds reading up on science to find all these pretty big words to throw around" act or not? ^sshole 17:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Clearly you don't know what falsifiability means. First of all you're hilariously presenting correlation as causation, that's always a nice gem. And you're right, oceans do play a huge role in our climate since they've been shown to affect CO2 concentrations -- making them a lagging indicator of temperature change rather than a driver of temperature change. So it's hilarious that you think you have this all figured out. But more importantly, it's up to you to prove that carbon dioxide corresponds nicely with temperature changes and WHY it does... you know: cause. And all those "climate complexities"? It's up to you prove it's affects when you factor in all of them. And then you actually have to prove how humans affect -- or even contribute to -- it in any significant way whatsoever which you don't even attempt to prove. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you get a stiffy when you punch them hippies?--ZooGuard (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course AGW is falisifable. If it wasn't it wouldn't be science. Are you suggesting that your ideas are not falisifable? I suspect they are not.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine, then for the millionth time: give a single scenario where AGW would be falsified. No one's done it yet, you'd be the first. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, BoN is a better scientist than all the so called experts because they're in the pay of big pharma, oops, big weather, or big green, or big something and anyway they're threatening to take his beloved penis substitute hummer away. Jack Hughes (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me think - falsify AGW. Show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't disprove ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming. Humans only contribute an incredibly small fraction of global CO2 emission. We also spew a lot of methane and water vapor, what about them? So again: falsify AGW. Or... you could just admit it's a belief system. That'd probably be quicker. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would. If co2 is not a greenhouse gas then AGW would not be possible.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact, we can falsify it. We simply need to demonstrate that rise in carbon dioxide doesn't correspond nicely to rise in temperatures given that we can demonstrate that increased CO2 concentrations will do that. [[10]- Did I fucking stutter? ^pathetic 18:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That not a falsification, that's not even proof in the first place. That's a correlation. And is doesn't even address humans. You're going to claim Anthropogenic, then prove it. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can prove either (a) that there are no significant climate changes that have occurred in the last 150 years and (b) that the increase in carbon dioxide output during that time has had no effect then you have disproved AGW. Now, apart from the desire to drive a hummer to make up for your other inadequacies - what was your point? Jack Hughes (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)}}

Aside from the fact that you're presenting this argument as "Prove God doesn't it", this is still really easy to take apart. "that there are no significant climate changes that have occurred in the last 150 years". There has been significant climate change for 4 billion years. Greenland used to have a ton more arable land centuries ago, now it doesn't. So the climate was HOTTER centuries ago. You saying that we have an increase in Viking recently, since by your logic Viking make the climate warmer. "that the increase in carbon dioxide output during that time has had no effect" Actually, you have to prove that it HAS had an effect. CO2 concentration in the environment is very small, it's contribution to the greenhouse effect is miniscule compared to other factors, and humans contribute and insignificant amount to global emissions. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Isotope ratio mass spectrometry has been used to indicate the source of CO2, for example here, the first Google hit for "isotope ratio mass spectrometry global warming". sterile^talk 18:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay good find. But this just explains a tool, it doesn't for instance present any data on how much carbon dioxide is human in orgin. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Goalposts moved. Oh, and falsfiable = ability to disprove, not disprove. And science doesn't "prove" anything, it provides evidence for, or disproves, much cannot prove. A correlation could certainly disprove or provide evidence for. Until you get your understanding of these simple concepts down, there is no point trying to have a conversation with you. sterile^talk 19:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no point in "having a conversation with me" because you can't actually come up with a scenario where ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming would be falsified. The reason being because it's a belief system and not falsifiable in the first place. You belief system is that global warming is inherently anthropogenic and, like a belief in God, consider it an axiom. There's no place for that in science. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've told you above that showing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas would falsify AGW global warming. The fact that it might also falsify anything else is irrelevant. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So, are you denying the carbon cycle now, too? I'm fairly certain the sources and sinks are well known and the rates are measured well. (And it's ironic that your sources are important, but human, for some reason, are not.) Silly. sterile^talk 22:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What is this nonsense about humans contributing an amount of carbon 'too tiny to matter?' It doesn't matter how much carbon we produce, only that natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption. It is a system that is in place. Even if the amount humans add is smaller on whole than other sources, that human contribution is not part of the system, therefore producing more CO2 than the system can handle. The idea that some amount of carbon (that is quite large, and is only small compared to the size of the atmosphere in general) is too small and 'doesn't count,' just vanishing in the system and meaning nothing... that's absurd. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 23:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Methane and water vapour

While I'm sure this should be written down somewhere, let me spell it out for people. Methane is, indeed, a greenhouse gas and is, on a particular timescale about 24 times more powerful. The trouble is, it's an alkane hanging out in sunlight in an oxidising atmosphere, giving it a very short lifetime. While methane concentrations have gone up, it's still measured in the parts-per-billion range. So even given the fact that it's 20-or-so times more powerful as a greenhouse gas, it still doesn't add up to the sheer quantity of CO2.

Now, water vapour is a nice one because it's very much a case of "a little knowledge is dangerous". Water vapour is also causes powerful radiative force, indeed it probably causes the vast majority of the warming that brings the average temperature of the Earth from the -2 degrees that it should be (considering our orbit) to the 15 degrees that it is. However, it's at saturation in the atmosphere - which is why it occasionally forms magic little droplets and falls from the sky in something we scientists call "rain". While the saturation point is temperature and pressure dependent it would require something else to shift that temperature first. This is why there's a potential "tipping point" effect and how climate feedback mechanisms work. ^pathetic 18:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That's great. A pretty good "tipping point" is that giant radioactive ball of gas 80 million miles away and global atmospheric temperatures only correlate pretty much exactly to its activity. But Occam's Razor doesn't really address public policy, huh.

And you still haven't explained how AGW can be falsified. Yet again. --192.234.246.206 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Show that it a) isn't happening (which is demonstrably false) or b) has no connection to human activity. The latter is where most of the evidence is being studied -- lots of forensics involved. The burden of proof is to show that some or all of the evidence used does not work the way scientists say it does. You may not appeal to ideology or conspiratorial thinking. EVDebs (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Lush flora

Shouldn't we be striving to expel more CO2? It sounds like a lush, warm Earth would be a paradise.

From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/,

"The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA satellite data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%... CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up — carbon is the building block of life — and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: “Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.”... According to a growing number of scientists, the period of global warming that we have experienced over the past few centuries as Earth climbed out of the Little Ice Age is about to end. The oceans, which have been releasing their vast store of carbon dioxide as the planet has warmed — CO2 is released from oceans as they warm and dissolves in them when they cool — will start to take the carbon dioxide back." Abraxas (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Someone should tell the hundreds of scientists on the [IPCC] about this blog. They spend their lives and vast amounts of money studying this and they missed what this blogger discoveredin 2008! Wow!--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is something more recent: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.B33J..03C "Large historical growth in global gross primary production... A critical uncertainty in climate forecasts stems from our poor understanding of the extent to which increasing CO2 concentrations will cause growth in gross primary production (GPP)... The COS observations were most consistent with the COS simulations that were driven by high GPP-CO2 sensitivity, rather than low GPP-CO2 sensitivity"

Anyway, it looks like IPCC does take it into account; they say 0.7+/-1.0 Gt C/y: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=20#table1-2

The 2004 study mentioned above says 3.4 petagrams over 18 years, which averages out to 0.2 Gt C/y.

In any case, a greener Earth should be considered a plus, right? Abraxas (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Depending, I happen to like Many Arctic and Antarctic Animals and enjoy my summer not being like this years --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 19:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Anything from Willard's blog should be taken with a cartload of salt. I suggest looking at what other people are saying about that study.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If anything we should be planting more plants to scrub the CO2 out of the atmosphere. The problems are how limited we are in terms of space (there's not a lot of arable land left in the world, and we may eventually need it for food, not just CO2-recycling ground cover) and the invasive species problem (one word: kudzu). EVDebs (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)