Started By
Message

re: WH Science Adviser: Make CO2 Emissions 'Close to Zero

Posted on 12/29/14 at 7:40 am to
Posted by Vegas Bengal
Member since Feb 2008
26344 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 7:40 am to
Is that why you're so 'devout'? Like SEacCrazy on the chain gang, you turned to religion when all seemed lost? Understandible. Do the meds help at all?
Posted by Vegas Bengal
Member since Feb 2008
26344 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 7:42 am to
There's a reason why you've now referred to your link three times without any copying and pasting to back up your assertions.... Because it doesn't.
Posted by son of arlo
State of Innocence
Member since Sep 2013
4577 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 7:47 am to
quote:

For all of you who's religion is science


Stopped reading due to this ridiculous statement.


Started reading again after noticing a grammar gaffe! Tsk tsk Revelator!

However, Revelator does have a point. AGW enthusiasts proselytize with an even greater zeal than atheists.
Posted by tigernchicago
Alabama
Member since Sep 2003
5075 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:01 am to
quote:

There's a reason why you've now referred to your link three times without any copying and pasting to back up your assertions.... Because it doesn't.


Are you the least intelligent idiot on the rant?

Do you need to be spoon fed?

Are you still waiting on your mother to give you your morning bottle?

More CO2 in the air means more plant growth.
Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow (see table below).

Adding more CO2 to the air also benefits plants in other ways:
They generally do not open their leaf stomatal pores as wide as they do at lower CO2 concentrations, and they tend to produce fewer such pores per unit area of leaf surface. Both of these changes tend to reduce plant transpiration or water loss; and the amount of growth they experience per unit of water lost (water-use efficiency) therefore rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. And with fewer and smaller stomatal openings, plants exposed to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are also less susceptible to damage by noxious air pollutants, including ozone and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, that gain entry into plants via these portals. Higher CO2 concentrations also help plants by reducing the negative effects of a number of other environmental stresses, such as high soil salinity, high air temperature, low air temperature, low light intensity, low levels of soil fertility, oxidative stress, and the stress of herbivory.
Posted by Vegas Bengal
Member since Feb 2008
26344 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:11 am to
None of whT you posted has anything to do with the subject. I'm sorry that you don't understand. But your ignorance is understandable. You actually take the word of the oil industry over NASA on the subject. That fact alone calls into question your ability to tie your shOe laces.
Posted by Strannix
District 11
Member since Dec 2012
49087 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:14 am to
quote:

over NASA


And what makes NASA climate experts?
Posted by Vegas Bengal
Member since Feb 2008
26344 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:20 am to
quote:

And what makes NASA climate experts?


Your question explains a lot about the Right. Thanks for represent.
Posted by Hester Carries
Member since Sep 2012
22511 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:26 am to
quote:

For all of you who's religion is science, here is what scientist are saying we have to do to save the earth. Are you on board with this science?!


You are truly terrified.
Posted by tigernchicago
Alabama
Member since Sep 2003
5075 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:42 am to
Higher plant growth, increased yields and less consumption of water does not support that increased CO2 atmospheric concentrations does not improve plant growth.

We have found the TigerDroppings Political Board VILLAGE IDIOT:

It is VEGAS BENGAL.

Congratulations!!!!
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
67515 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:53 am to
quote:

WH Science Adviser

Would wager that a 9th grade science student knows more
Posted by McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
31567 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 8:59 am to
quote:


The fact that you believe plants and vegetation depend upon the emissions of cars and coal plants shows the level of ignorance with deniers.


No. It shows the level of ignorance of one person in one context. To extrapolate that out is unscientific.
Posted by Revelator
Member since Nov 2008
58252 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 9:14 am to
quote:

You are truly terrified.


I asked a simple question which was dogged by many including yourself. Those on here that place all their faith in science and consider it the," end all be all" will you agree with the head of science for the White House on his recommendations? It's a simple question.
Posted by Strannix
District 11
Member since Dec 2012
49087 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 9:24 am to
quote:

Your question explains a lot about the Right. Thanks for represent.


I thought NASA'a main role was Islamic outreach these days? How much C02 is NASA responsible for in it's history?
Posted by Hester Carries
Member since Sep 2012
22511 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:02 am to
quote:

will you agree with the head of science



Thats the difference between us and you. Science has no authorities. There are no decrees that are based on the merit of the one saying it. If a scientific expert says something you might say "Well this guy has proven to be accurate and knowledgeable, we should really look into what he is saying." That's different than "The Pope updates religious doctrine" or "Mormon leaders now say that X is what God thinks"

Also, i agree that most of your questions are "simple"
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 10:05 am
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
56780 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:03 am to
quote:

Unless he specifically said gross emissions, it would be obvious to anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy (so, maybe 5% of the population) that he's referring to net emissions.



So, only those without an ounce of scientific literacy were correct about what he was referring to?

Is this one of those cases when you'll assume you were right even though you were wrong?
Posted by Vegas Bengal
Member since Feb 2008
26344 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:05 am to
quote:

I thought NASA'a main role was Islamic outreach these days?


Most of what you think is clearly wrong.
quote:

How much C02 is NASA responsible for in it's history?

Why are you asking me?
Posted by Revelator
Member since Nov 2008
58252 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:11 am to
quote:

Thats the difference between us and you



Who is this us and you, you speak of?
Perhaps scientist should study the anomaly that is the TigerDroppings Political Board because it seems to have an inordinate amount of self proclaimed geniuses.
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 10:26 am
Posted by Hester Carries
Member since Sep 2012
22511 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:18 am to
quote:

Who is this us and you, you speak of?


You being Revelator. Us being "People who claim science as our religion"

Bro, you are the one that picked these teams. Do you not even remember the stuff you say?

But I see that that misguided attempt at a gotcha was the only move you had.
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 10:19 am
Posted by Revelator
Member since Nov 2008
58252 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:28 am to
quote:

Bro, you are the one that picked these teams. Do you not even remember the stuff you say? But I see that that misguided attempt at a gotcha was the only move you had.




So you are saying that your attempt at a gotta towards me is the only thing you have? Irony is a funny thing.
A smart guy like you should have saw this coming!
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 10:32 am
Posted by Hester Carries
Member since Sep 2012
22511 posts
Posted on 12/29/14 at 10:32 am to
quote:

So you are saying that your attempt at a gotta towards me is the only thing you have? Irony is a funny thing.



What are you talking about? The main aspect of my post was informing you that no one with half a brain accepts that there is a head of science. And no one with half a brain accepts something simply because a scientist says. Facts have authority. Scientists report facts.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram