Group Defends Carbon Dioxide as ‘Elixir of Life’ in Climate Change Debate

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I do not assume anything,

You quite clearly did.

...some of my family and friends are left leaning, but I love them very much.
How is that, in any way, a defense of the fact that you call anyone you disagree with on this forum a leftist?

Your assumption that everyone who disagrees with me is left is not true.
I made no such assumption.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Not according to leaked emails recently.

You mean 'not according to conservative websites' interpretations about leaked emails'.
When were these emails leaked? Give us a reference? The last I heard about leaked emails was many years ago.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You mean 'not according to conservative websites' interpretations about leaked emails'.
When were these emails leaked? Give us a reference? The last I heard about leaked emails was many years ago.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#7ee701127ba6

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Not according to leaked emails recently.

I think the real problem is that scientists deal with actual facts and not 'alternative facts' so you see them as leftist.

Wikileaks emails show Democrats see climate as weapon

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/25/wikileaks-emails-show-democrats-see-climate-as-weapon/

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think the real problem is that scientists deal with actual facts and not 'alternative facts' so you see them as leftist.

Then why do they lie and cover up and suppress findings?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#7ee701127ba6

I see. So 'recently' means five years ago?

I see no evidence in that article of a leftist conspiracy in science. Would you care to expand on your claim that those emails indicate a leftist conspiracy?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Wikileaks emails show Democrats see climate as weapon

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/25/wikileaks-emails-show-democrats-see-climate-as-weapon/

So now you are talking about emails by democrats? Not scientists? I think you have lost the thread somehow.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Then why do they lie and cover up and suppress findings?

Please provide evidence of lying, then I will guess at why a particular scientist might have lied. (leftist conspiracy will not be high on my list of guesses as it hardly seems plausible.).

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see. So 'recently' means five years ago?

I see no evidence in that article of a leftist conspiracy in science. Would you care to expand on your claim that those emails indicate a leftist conspiracy?

I just posted how the DNC uses it as a weapon. You said it is not political. I said I agree but they do make it political when they twist, suppress, etc. 7 years ago, or 2 days ago, a lie is a lie. It does not change over time.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandler

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Not according to leaked emails recently.

No leaked e-mails revealed anything remotely approaching a conspiracy of any kind related to scientific study of our climate, your gullibly consumed diet of propaganda notwithstanding.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I just posted how the DNC uses it as a weapon.

Why? Its irrelevant.

The DNC was never a part of the scientific establishment. Don't confuse american politicians with scientists, and don't assume science is only practiced in the US. There are scientists all over the world. I will readily accept that there are individual scientists who have political motives. But you are essentially charging all climate scientists world wide of engaging in global conspiracy to help out Hillary Clinton? Seriously?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I generally accept that an increase in plant growth may, in some circumstances, be a benefit of global warming. I could list many many other benefits, some of them unquestionably beneficial. The problem is the OP is not just saying 'this is one benefit', it is saying 'global warming isn't harmful'.

Yes, I agree that's a silly position to take.

Still, an analysis of both the positive and negative effects of global warming is not such a terrible thing. Maybe for every square kilometer made uninhabitable by flooding, two are made habitable by warming in the Arctic regions. Maybe increased vegetation takes CO2 out of the air, thereby causing a negative feedback cycle that limits the need to cut down on CO2 emissions. I don't know.

It would be nice to hear from someone in the media without an axe to grind on these issues every now and again.

Originally posted by sh76
Still, an analysis of both the positive and negative effects of global warming is not such a terrible thing.

I agree. And most people that have done that come to the conclusion that global warming will have an overwhelmingly negative outcome in sum.

Maybe for every square kilometer made uninhabitable by flooding, two are made habitable by warming in the Arctic regions.
Sure, but the earth isn't short of habitable land. The issue isn't availability of habitable land. One of the issues (only one mind) is the change in habitable land. The Canadians have not taken in all the Syrians yet. New habitable land in the arctic will not be utilized by the people loosing habitable land.
Another very large factor is the amount of infrastructure that is on the coasts. Sea level rise of a mere metre would destroy trillions of dollars worth of property and infrastructure. Several metres would destroy several of the worlds largest cities (New York included). But it is changes in weather patterns that concern me most.

Maybe increased vegetation takes CO2 out of the air, thereby causing a negative feedback cycle that limits the need to cut down on CO2 emissions. I don't know.
Well I do know. CO2 is rising at a fairly steady pace unabated. No negative feedback cycle so far, and warming is already taking place - and will continue to take place even if we do not increase the CO2 levels from where they are now.

It would be nice to hear from someone in the media without an axe to grind on these issues every now and again.
Why? Far better to listen to non-media voices on this issue. The media are often motivated by selling stories and are typically not well educated in the sciences.

Originally posted by sh76
Yes, I agree that's a silly position to take.

Still, an analysis of both the positive and negative effects of global warming is not such a terrible thing. Maybe for every square kilometer made uninhabitable by flooding, two are made habitable by warming in the Arctic regions. Maybe increased vegetation takes CO2 out of the air, thereby causing a negative fee ...[text shortened]... e to hear from someone in the media without an axe to grind on these issues every now and again.

The analysis has been made already, of course. Long story short: climate change is expected to make certain areas more habitable e.g. through increased rainfall, but overall the net effect is negative for mankind largely because of people who now live in large numbers in certain areas that will become less habitable in the future. So they will have to move elsewhere which will cost a lot of resources and may lead to conflict.