Say no to a carbon tax!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You claimed the oldest known plants are under 10,000 years old and now you claim you never stated otherwise. You are a liar.

I claimed the oldest known living individual plants are under 10,000 years old. You are confusing individual plants / species / families and the whole category 'plants' and trying to act like they all mean the same thing. They don't.
Since you clearly have misunderstood me several times (probably intentionally, but we'll leave that be) let me summarize my position in words you can hopefully understand:

1. No individual plant alive today was alive during the Pliocene.
2. No individual plant alive today has identical genetics to those alive during the Pliocene.
3. There were plants we call 'ferns' during the Pliocene. 'Ferns' is a large category of plants on a simlar level to 'grasses' or 'mammals' or 'reptiles. That there were 'ferns' during the Pliocene and 'ferns' existing today does not imply in any way that todays ferns are identical to those during the Pliocene. In fact, it is well known that most ferns found today are quite different from those during the Pliocene, Just as most mammals and most reptiles are quite different.
4. The fact that Plants during the Pliocene managed to survive high levels of CO2 tells us nothing whatsoever about how well specific species will do today.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I claimed the oldest known living individual plants are under 10,000 years old. You are confusing individual plants / species / families and the whole category 'plants' and trying to act like they all mean the same thing. They don't.
Since you clearly have misunderstood me several times (probably intentionally, but we'll leave that be) let me summarize m ...[text shortened]... ve high levels of CO2 tells us nothing whatsoever about how well specific species will do today.

According to the Holy Bible, no plant or animal could be older than about 6000 years. 😏

The Near Genius

Originally posted by RJHinds
According to the Holy Bible, no plant or animal could be older than about 6000 years. 😏

The Near Genius

The Holy Bible is obviously wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I claimed the oldest known living individual plants are under 10,000 years old. You are confusing individual plants / species / families and the whole category 'plants' and trying to act like they all mean the same thing. They don't.
Since you clearly have misunderstood me several times (probably intentionally, but we'll leave that be) let me summarize m ...[text shortened]... ve high levels of CO2 tells us nothing whatsoever about how well specific species will do today.

"1. No individual plant alive today was alive during the Pliocene."

Okay captain obvious.

Plants today are doing fine. With more CO2 they are doing better than fine. Furthermore, the planet is not experiencing an alarming warming rate.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/the_climate_warming_pause_goes_awol.html

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Plants today are doing fine.

How do you know this?

Originally posted by twhitehead
How do you know this?

You made the claim CO2 hurts some plant species so how do you know that? I don't think you know what you are talking about.
How do you know that?

Prove your positive. I can't prove a negative and you know it. You are being unreasonable because you can't back up your claim. Prove it or admit you made it up.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You made the claim CO2 hurts some plant species so how do you know that?

I saw some scientific reports making the claim that it did.

I can't prove a negative and you know it.
I didn't ask you to prove it. I asked why you thought it. Did you claim it just for the sake of taking the opposite stand to mine? Did you just make the claim because you don't want carbon taxes to come into effect?
Its not a question of whether or not you can prove it, its a question of whether or not you actually think it is true and if you do, why you do - as the truth is that there is no possible way you could know it from actual evidence. Scientists haven't even catalogued all the plant species in the world - there is no way that they have done scientific studies on them all checking for CO2 toxicity.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I saw some scientific reports making the claim that it did.

[b]I can't prove a negative and you know it.
I didn't ask you to prove it. I asked why you thought it. Did you claim it just for the sake of taking the opposite stand to mine? Did you just make the claim because you don't want carbon taxes to come into effect?
Its not a question of whet ...[text shortened]... - there is no way that they have done scientific studies on them all checking for CO2 toxicity.[/b]

CO2 is a plant nutrient. They grow better now. I simply don't believe it has harmed plants at these low levels. Carbonic acid is at such low levels I know that isn't it, so I don't believe you saw any scientific reports making that claim at all.

You probably read some alarmist climate change link that had false information on it. That seems likely since you are using incorrect terms like "the ocean is becoming more acidic" when it is still alkaline. That is usually followed by a bunk claim that the coral reefs will be hurt by it. That is completely false too.

I have corrected so much disinformation peddled by alarmists on their websites it is truly sad. You would think people educated in science would know most of it is bunk, but much of that junk was believed by many who frequent the science forum, like you, sonhouse, googlefudge and especially humy. All of them claim to have decent science credentials, but they clearly do not have very good critical thinking skills. Amazingly, they thought that bunk website skeptical science was a decent source of information. I have proved a lot of what that site says is completely false crap, yet they still read it like it is their bible or something. Climate scientists like Dr Richard Lindzen said global warming alarmists are becoming more hysterical in their arguments and added. "As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2922553/Global-warming-believers-like-hysterical-cult-MIT-scientist-compares-climate-alarmists-religious-fanatics.html

He is spot on. No matter how much I prove their assertions wrong they keep making fanatical comments as if I'm a threat to their chicken little religion of the falling sky.
Most climate scientists are not alarmists and the few that are have been proven wrong and have no credibility.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I simply don't believe it has harmed plants at these low levels.

And I have asked you why. Saying you 'simply don't believe' suggest you just made an arbitrary decision not to believe it. Seems kind of a stupid thing to do.

Carbonic acid is at such low levels I know that isn't it, so I don't believe you saw any scientific reports making that claim at all.
So this time you don't believe I saw some reports based on your guesses about carbonic acid? Again: a stupid way to form a belief. Why not just Google it?

That seems likely since you are using incorrect terms like "the ocean is becoming more acidic" when it is still alkaline.
Once again, it is you that simply doesn't know the terminology.

Educate yourself. I suggest you see what one of the worlds foremost authorities on the ocean has to say:
http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

.... [moaning about other people you don't like] .....
I have no interest in a discussion where you try to argue against someone that isn't here about something I haven't said to try and take the focus off what I did say.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I have asked you why. Saying you 'simply don't believe' suggest you just made an arbitrary decision not to believe it. Seems kind of a stupid thing to do.

[b]Carbonic acid is at such low levels I know that isn't it, so I don't believe you saw any scientific reports making that claim at all.
So this time you don't believe I saw some reports ba ...[text shortened]... one that isn't here about something I haven't said to try and take the focus off what I did say.[/b]

"And I have asked you why. Saying you 'simply don't believe' suggest you just made an arbitrary decision not to believe it. Seems kind of a stupid thing to do."

And I told you why. There is another reason though, your refusal to prove yourself and your insistence that I prove negative which in this case is impossible. You made the false claim, not me.

" Why not just Google it?"

I did. Why do you think I am calling you a liar? Let me make it crystal clear. I AM CALLING YOU A LIAR!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
And I told you why.

No, you didn't. You gave no reasons and said you 'simply don't believe'.
Or was the part where you said it is a plant nutrient your reason? You do know that plant nutrients can harm plants?

There is another reason though, your refusal to prove yourself and your insistence that I prove negative which in this case is impossible.
So basically an even stupider reason. You believe something because I said the opposite and chose not to prove it.
So if I tell you the moon is not made of cheese, you are going to believe it is made of cheese until I proove otherwise?

You made the false claim, not me.
I made a claim. You have not provided any reasonable evidence to think it is false. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility that I am right and right for a good reason ie because of evidence I am privy to. Your claim however cannot be proven as you readily admit, but much worse, you cannot possibly know that your claim is true as the evidence for it simply doesn't exist. You instead either made an arbitrary decision to believe it or believe it for a ridiculously stupid reason such as opposing whatever I say, or because you think that somehow believing it will stop carbon taxes.

I did. Why do you think I am calling you a liar? Let me make it crystal clear. I AM CALLING YOU A LIAR!
I honestly don't really care. I know I didn't lie and that's good enough for me. All this really tells us is that your Googling skills suck.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, you didn't. You gave no reasons and said you 'simply don't believe'.
Or was the part where you said it is a plant nutrient your reason? You do know that plant nutrients can harm plants?

[b]There is another reason though, your refusal to prove yourself and your insistence that I prove negative which in this case is impossible.
So basically an ...[text shortened]... t lie and that's good enough for me. All this really tells us is that your Googling skills suck.[/b]

There is no logical reason to believe you. You made a false claim and you are a liar. That is evident. You are just like humy. You are both lying cowards that cannot admit you are wrong. You are pathetic!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
CO2 is a plant nutrient.

Sugar is a human nutrient.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There is no logical reason to believe you. You made a false claim and you are a liar. That is evident. You are just like humy. You are both lying cowards that cannot admit you are wrong. You are pathetic!

I guess that insults is all you are left with. It won't get you out of paying carbon tax though.
It is rather interesting how you keep attacking people who aren't here.

The economics of clean energy technology are rapidly changing and, as a result, fossil fuel and electric utility companies are increasingly concerned about the rise of cheap clean energy.

In response, these industries have financed attacks on pro-clean energy policies across the country, specifically targeting renewable energy standards and net metering policies.

Energy & Policy Institute's new report exposes the strategies, front groups, and people used by the fossil fuel and utility corporations to attack clean energy policies.

Fossil fuel companies, such as Koch Industries and Peabody Energy, and electric utility companies, like American Electric Power and Duke Energy, have worked to delay the growth of clean energy competition. These companies want to continue selling as much coal, oil, and gas as possible. And, in their effort to roll back clean energy policies, they are spreading misinformation about clean energy and the energy market.

But why are these special interests trying so desperately to weaken renewable energy policy? Because the economics of clean technology are rapidly changing the electricity market. Cheap clean energy is transforming the electricity market at a pace similar to the rise of the automobile or mobile phones.

Why would Koch Industries and other fossil fuel interests want to make clean energy seem expensive? Because they have a financial interest in squashing the market for clean energy.

Furthermore, these attacks on pro-clean energy policies are not about "creating free markets" as opponents of clean energy policies, like the State Policy Network (SPN) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), claim. It's about manipulating markets to benefit their allies (and financiers) in the fossil fuel business.

In a majority of states in the U.S., there is no free market for electricity; individuals cannot choose from which company to buy their electricity or from what source their electricity comes. In many locales, Public Utilities Commissions regulate monopoly utility companies in a closed marketplace.

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and net metering policies are sparking massive investment and deployment of clean energy technologies. And these two key policies, driving more of the grid to clean energy, are now under assault at the state level from fossil fuel and utility interests.

Renewable portfolio standards set requirements for utilities to slowly increase the use of clean, renewable energy sources — which is exactly why fossil fuel interests like Koch Industries, Peabody Energy, and others want to eliminate them. RPS laws have driven billions of dollars of investment into cleantech projects and generated thousands of jobs. The fossil fuel-funded Heartland Institute sponsored model legislation at ALEC’s meeting in June 2012 to eliminate RPS laws. In the past year and a half, these rollback attempts have surfaced in at least 15 states around the country.

http://www.energyandpolicy.org/