Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #684242 > unrolled thread

Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy -- the Greening of Earth

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy -- the Greening of Earth Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-07 19:33 -0500
    Re:Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy -- the Greening of Earth Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-08 08:04 +0200
      Re: Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy -- the Greening of Earth Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-08 08:06 -0400
        Re: Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy -- the Greening of Earth Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-08 15:42 +0200
          Re: Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy -- the Greening of Earth Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-09 01:00 -0400
            Re: Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy -- the Greening of Earth Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-09 07:53 +0200
              Re: Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy -- the Greening of Earth Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-09 07:55 -0400
                Re: Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy -- the Greening of Earth benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 10:46 -0400
    Re: Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy -- the Greening of Earth Boris Mohar <borism_void_@sympatico.ca> - 2018-05-09 05:26 -0400

#684242 — Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy -- the Greening of Earth

Carbon Dioxide Benefits the World: See for Yourself, reviews the current
state of climate science with particular attention to its biological
impact. It is undeniably true that global temperature increases have
been far, far less than doomsday computer models predicted – about ten
times smaller, and there are good reasons to suspect the increases from
further human CO2 emissions would be smaller still, without imposing
draconian regulations. Not only has this warming been small, but there
is no real reason to think it’s harmful.

On the contrary, while alarmist claims of increased catastrophic weather
phenomenon are easily debunked, and their warnings of rising sea levels
remain highly speculative, it’s hard to argue with the verifiable
*increase in plant life* across much of the world. The white paper
includes several measurements of increased plant life, including a
striking map that shows the “greening of the Earth” from 1982 to 2006.

“As CO2 levels continue to rise, the Earth will grow greener and
agricultural yields will continue to increase, with additional
contributions from better varieties, improved cropping practices, more
efficient use of fertilizer, and other factors,” the paper predicts.

No one interested in scientific truth should ever be afraid to look at
the other side. In the case of carbon dioxide and its allegedly
apocalyptic effect on the Earth’s atmosphere, the other side is leafy,
green, and edible.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#684301

The biggest enemies are usually our former friends who have turned
 wild.

It is valid from  society through  physiology till environment.

It occurs in many scenarios, that factors, otherwise beneficial or
 even essential, become harmful or even fatal at different
 conditions.

Increasing CO2 content makes climate change worse, no matter if it
 is caused  by CO2 or if CO2 is just  one of factors.

Saying it is good for us is a gazardous experiment with humanity. 

Generally, plant growth is much more limited by water availability
 than CO2 content. But it does not seem more CO2 has brought more
 precipitation to already dry regions of  Africa.



-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684316

On Tue, 8 May 2018 08:04:31 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:

>The biggest enemies are usually our former friends who have turned
> wild.
>
>It is valid from  society through  physiology till environment.
>
>It occurs in many scenarios, that factors, otherwise beneficial or
> even essential, become harmful or even fatal at different
> conditions.
>
>Increasing CO2 content makes climate change worse, 

Your statement implicitly assumes that climate change is bad.

Is **all** climate change bad?

Has a climate never changed for the *better* ... anywhere in the
world?

Who says the climate changes that caused glaciers to retreat from
lower latitudes in the northern hemisphere were bad?

If some climates change for the better and some change for the worse,
is it a zero-sum game? That is: is the net effect on the planet a
"wash" ... and healthy for the planet (comparable to crop rotation)?

Is climate change "bad" only if it inconveniences humans?

Some PETA members will stress that humans are only a small fraction of
the creatures living on Earth.

Would Gaia want greenies to be **so** concerned about their own
personal, short-term convenience?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684326

Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> Wrote in message:
> On Tue, 8 May 2018 08:04:31 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:
> 
>>The biggest enemies are usually our former friends who have turned
>> wild.
>>
>>It is valid from  society through  physiology till environment.
>>
>>It occurs in many scenarios, that factors, otherwise beneficial or
>> even essential, become harmful or even fatal at different
>> conditions.
>>
>>Increasing CO2 content makes climate change worse, 
> 
> Your statement implicitly assumes that climate change is bad.

My statement implicitly assumes that A change is bad, if you do
 not know  it's consequences.

----------------------------
> Is **all** climate change bad?

Yes, every climate change is bad, but no climate change is  bad in
 all its aspects.
----------------------------
> 
> Has a climate never changed for the *better* ... anywhere in the
> world?

Would killing one person ever change for better life anywhere in
 the world ? Sometimes it would. But it does not make killing a
 person a good thing.
----------------------------
> Who says the climate changes that caused glaciers to retreat from
> lower latitudes in the northern hemisphere were bad?

All the species that disappeared, totally or locally.

It is said Homo neanderthalensis extincted because he lost his
 evolutionary advantage against Homo sapiens, as he was better
 adapted to ice age.
----------------------------


> If some climates change for the better and some change for the worse,
> is it a zero-sum game? 

In era of human society, the rich ones abuse the change to get
 more rich and poor will get more poor.
Would you call zero sum game ?
----------------------------
That is: is the net effect on the planet a
> "wash" ... and healthy for the planet (comparable to crop rotation)?

It is a Russian roulette.
If the chamber is empty , it is fun and exciting. If not, it is
 just killing.

Such change has many consequences and we are aware just about some
 and only some we can predict.

If the "wash" would affect majority of population, would you
 consider it good and healthy ?

And if it would affect only your and neighbour countries, but
 other would benefit from it to sell you supplies,
would you still consider it good and healthy ?
----------------------------
> 
> Is climate change "bad" only if it inconveniences humans?

It is bad for its destroying  potential.
----------------------------
> 
> Some PETA members will stress that humans are only a small fraction of
> the creatures living on Earth.

Sure, but we have responsibility for all of them, especially if 
 our own acting affects the environment.

And it does. CO2 raising, killing worming abd acidification of
 ocean s,, deforestation and asphaltification are just few
 examples.
----------------------------
> 
> Would Gaia want greenies to be **so** concerned about their own
> personal, short-term convenience?
> 
Rather, rich west people bother ONLY if their personal, short-term
 convenience is affected.

What is just annoyance for some, is question of life and death for
 others.
Starving to death as raining  looks accross the ocean as personal,
 short-term convenience.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684507

On Tue, 8 May 2018 15:42:57 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:

>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Tue, 8 May 2018 08:04:31 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:
>> 
>>>The biggest enemies are usually our former friends who have turned
>>> wild.
>>>
>>>It is valid from  society through  physiology till environment.
>>>
>>>It occurs in many scenarios, that factors, otherwise beneficial or
>>> even essential, become harmful or even fatal at different
>>> conditions.
>>>
>>>Increasing CO2 content makes climate change worse, 
>> 
>> Your statement implicitly assumes that climate change is bad.
>
>My statement implicitly assumes that A change is bad, if you do
> not know  it's consequences.

So if the consequences will be good, but you don't know they will be
good, then the change is bad?

So Schrodinger's cat is necessarily dead because you don't know it is
alive, right?


>----------------------------
>> Is **all** climate change bad?
>
>Yes, every climate change is bad, but no climate change is  bad in
> all its aspects.
>----------------------------

So all climate stasis is good?

Or is it bad, but not bad in all its aspects?

What a worthless, depressing dead-end of a religion is greenie-ism!

There is no gospel (good news).

Instead everything it bad ... until "it's worse than we thought."

 
>> Has a climate never changed for the *better* ... anywhere in the
>> world?
>
>Would killing one person ever change for better life anywhere in
> the world ? Sometimes it would. But it does not make killing a
> person a good thing.

You went too far off into a lala diversion there.

The question was:  Has a climate never changed for the *better* ...
anywhere in the world?



>----------------------------
>> Who says the climate changes that caused glaciers to retreat from
>> lower latitudes in the northern hemisphere were bad?
>
>All the species that disappeared, totally or locally.
>
>It is said Homo neanderthalensis extincted because he lost his
> evolutionary advantage against Homo sapiens, as he was better
> adapted to ice age.
>----------------------------

So we should have had Homo neanderthalensis instead of you?

>> If some climates change for the better and some change for the worse,
>> is it a zero-sum game? 
>
>In era of human society, the rich ones abuse the change to get
> more rich and poor will get more poor.
>Would you call zero sum game ?

I asked for your opinion.

>----------------------------
>That is: is the net effect on the planet a
>> "wash" ... and healthy for the planet (comparable to crop rotation)?
>
>It is a Russian roulette.
>If the chamber is empty , it is fun and exciting. If not, it is
> just killing.

Why isn't forced climate stasis like Russian roulette?


>Such change has many consequences and we are aware just about some
> and only some we can predict.

Call it "predict" if you want, but the track record of
climastrologists is lousy.


>If the "wash" would affect majority of population, would you
> consider it good and healthy ?

Again, your wannabe point is meandering.

>And if it would affect only your and neighbour countries, but
> other would benefit from it to sell you supplies,
>would you still consider it good and healthy ?

Still meandering.

>----------------------------
>> 
>> Is climate change "bad" only if it inconveniences humans?
>
>It is bad for its destroying  potential.
>----------------------------

So is stasis bad for its destroying potential.
 
>> Some PETA members will stress that humans are only a small fraction of
>> the creatures living on Earth.
>
>Sure, but we have responsibility for all of them, especially if 
> our own acting affects the environment.
>
>And it does. CO2 raising, killing worming abd acidification of
> ocean s,, deforestation and asphaltification are just few
> examples.
>----------------------------
>> 
>> Would Gaia want greenies to be **so** concerned about their own
>> personal, short-term convenience?
>> 
>Rather, rich west people bother ONLY if their personal, short-term
> convenience is affected.
>
>What is just annoyance for some, is question of life and death for
> others.
>Starving to death as raining  looks accross the ocean as personal,
> short-term convenience.

Evasive, diversionary, or something else or a combination of avodance
techniques that miss the mark -- which is the goal of avoidance.

Bottom line: greenie-ism is bullshit for masochists.

They are despicable in that they won't claim their martyr:

https://thebaffler.com/latest/metaphor-for-the-planet-downey
no major environmental organization has even publicly acknowledged his
existence in the week since he died. Like Buckel’s death, their
inaction is also communicative: he is not of them. His memory is
dangerous to their more moderate calls for legislative gradualism and
personal lifestyle change

IOW: Weasels prefer to be insidious, not declarative.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684511

Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> Wrote in message:
> On Tue, 8 May 2018 15:42:57 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:
> 
Please, do proper quoting. Deletion of old stuff in the Android
 phone is inconvenient.

>>
>>My statement implicitly assumes that A change is bad, if you do
>> not know  it's consequences.
> 
> So if the consequences will be good, but you don't know they will be
> good, then the change is bad?

Would you put in a bet all your possession if you did know  the
 result ?
> 
> So Schrodinger's cat is necessarily dead because you don't know it is
> alive, right?

You would not put your beloved cat in that  box, would you ? 

>>----------------------------
>>> Is **all** climate change bad?
>>
>>Yes, every climate change is bad, but no climate change is  bad in
>> all its aspects.
>>----------------------------
> 
> So all climate stasis is good?

Living beings are adapted to stable  climate. Unstable one puts
 them  on the risk. 
--------
> 
> Or is it bad, but not bad in all its aspects?

Our world is not B/W. But some grey is darker than another.
------
> 
> What a worthless, depressing dead-end of a religion is greenie-ism!

What a worthless illogical reasoning.
------

>>> Has a climate never changed for the *better* ... anywhere in the
>>> world?
>>
>>Would killing one person ever change for better life anywhere in
>> the world ? Sometimes it would. But it does not make killing a
>> person a good thing.
> 
> You went too far off into a lala diversion there.

No, I have just pointed out the absurdness of your reading on an
 absurd analogy.

------------
> 
> The question was:  Has a climate never changed for the *better* ...
> anywhere in the world?
> 
Was already answered....

Has a poker player never  win money ? He won them mant times.
And he lost all money many times.

For now, observed climate changes bring much more troubles than gain.


>>----------------------------
> 
> So we should have had Homo neanderthalensis instead of you?

No, we should have chimps instead  of you, they are less dangerous
 to climate.
------
> 
>>> If some climates change for the better and some change for the worse,
>>> is it a zero-sum game? 
>>
>>In era of human society, the rich ones abuse the change to get
>> more rich and poor will get more poor.
>>Would you call zero sum game ?
> 
> I asked for your opinion.

And I have given it.
> 
>>----------------------------

> 
> Why isn't forced climate stasis like Russian roulette?

Start thinking.
Change is pulling the trigger.
Stasis is a steady finger.

-----------------
>>Such change has many consequences and we are aware just about some
>> and only some we can predict.
> 
> Call it "predict" if you want, but the track record of
> climastrologists is lousy.
> 
Track record of people dishonesting opponents us just sad.

Track record of people having no climatology background is more lousy.
----------------

>>If the "wash" would affect majority of population, would you
>> consider it good and healthy ?
> 
> Again, your wannabe point is meandering.

There is direct IT abalogy.
If you do not know what are you are doing, do not do it.
------------
> 
>>And if it would affect only your and neighbour countries, but
>> other would benefit from it to sell you supplies,
>>would you still consider it good and healthy ?
> 
> Still meandering.

Still not seeing consequences of your. ideas
> 
>>----------------------------
>>> 
>>> Is climate change "bad" only if it inconveniences humans?
>>
>>It is bad for its destroying  potential.
>>----------------------------
> 
> So is stasis bad for its destroying potential.

Are you still here ? If yes, then it refutes your statement.
------------

>>----------------------------


> 
> Evasive, diversionary, or something else or a combination of avodance
> techniques that miss the mark
 which is the goal of avoidance.

Yes, you try to avoid to see consequences of your ideas by any means.
-------


> Bottom line: greenie-ism is bullshit for masochists.

Rather, you have years long  ignorance record, as far as I observe.



-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684544

On Wed, 9 May 2018 07:53:56 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:

>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Tue, 8 May 2018 15:42:57 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:
>> 
>Please, do proper quoting. Deletion of old stuff in the Android
> phone is inconvenient.

Okay ... snipping lame reply.

I have usually seen better from you.

I noticed you snipped the reference to David Buckel.

It is curious to me how quickly and completely AGW alarmists scurry
away from that issue ... no condolences, no regrets for what their
message did to someone, no condemnation of suicide, nor approval.

Just **nothing**, in apparent hope that everyone will forget what he
did and why he did it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684563

On 5/9/2018 7:55 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2018 07:53:56 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:
> 
>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> Wrote in message:
>>> On Tue, 8 May 2018 15:42:57 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:
>>>
>> Please, do proper quoting. Deletion of old stuff in the Android
>> phone is inconvenient.
> 
> Okay ... snipping lame reply.
> 
> I have usually seen better from you.
> 
> I noticed you snipped the reference to David Buckel.
> 
> It is curious to me how quickly and completely AGW alarmists scurry
> away from that issue ... no condolences, no regrets for what their
> message did to someone, no condemnation of suicide, nor approval.
> 
> Just **nothing**, in apparent hope that everyone will forget what he
> did and why he did it.
> 
Remember when Libs with one voice called Trump a Nazi and White 
supremacist because he condemned violence on BOTH the left and right. In 
their world there can be no criticism of the left. So libs just get 
silent. Remember when hey all shut up over Clinton's sexual over-reach? 
even the NOW crowd had their man-hating lips sealed.

For libs whatever they can imagine is their reality. So if they pretend 
something does not exist, it no longer does, just as if they pretend 
something does, then that become their truth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684520

On Mon, 7 May 2018 19:33:04 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

>Carbon Dioxide Benefits the World: See for Yourself.....

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/09/climate-change-it-was-the-sun-all-along-so-say-the-bulgarians/


Regards,

Boris Mohar

Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs (among other things) http://www.viatrack.ca

void _-void-_ in the obvious place

 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web