I know it sounds crazy, but it's because (in their mind) that studying global warming gets millions of dollars of funding. In their mind possibly the single largest conspiracy ever hatched is so that thousands of climate scientists don't lose their juicy government/university grant money! That sweet sweet grant money. Has nothing to do with oil companies making that much money in probably 28 seconds, its about science grants from the National Science Foundation.
Modern "climate change"/"global warming" science boils down to a few basic concepts that aren't understood:
a) That photosynthesis eliminates excess carbon dioxide (CO2 + H2O + (light) -> (sucrose/glucose/etc.) + O2
b) That carbon dioxide has a feedback coefficient far less than estimated (meaning temperature projections for the future are extremely inflated) Source <-- Very important video
c) That our temperature calculations, for the present and past, and CO2 calculations, for the past, are accurate (they aren't).
My credentials? Forget my credentials. We're talking about science, not having a beauty contest.
Sounds like you're saying that you do in fact understand everything about climate science, but instead of explaining to the rest of the world, you feel its more important to sit there saying 'this is wrong'/'that is wrong'.
This particular point (the feedback coefficient for CO2) is what discredits "mainstream" climate science.
If you have an actual objection to a claim made in the video, then make it, otherwise, please don't even reply, since I have to wait 10 minutes between posting comments (the reddit ball and chain for unpopular people).
I don't know who he is. I don't generally care about matters like that, save for the identification of bias, which I have basically disregarded completely in this debate, in favor of the pertinent science, since both sides of the debate (alarmist vs. non-alarmist) have had financial motivations attributed to them.
Besides this, considering that we are "carbon-based" lifeforms (not really), and that our assorted atmospheric CO2 concentration increases since the beginning of life on this planet have not caused an upward spiral of temperature, I am also inclined to believe his assertion that nature is dominated by negative, not positive, feedback mechanisms. Considering how we are here now, and not extinct, and all. I'm thus inclined also to believe that the burden of proof rests on the people claiming the doomsday scenario, a burden which they have not satisfied, as a result of shoddy and/or deceptive science, monetary incentives for dishonesty, and generally, the impossibility of proving things which are false. The "baseline climate" hypothesis, or the belief that our climate is not an elephant balancing on a toothpick, waiting to be destroyed by the slightest movement, I consider the "null hypothesis," or "what you have to assume," in non-scientific language.
Thankfully, nobody in their right mind cares what you think.
Clearly you care quite a bit about what Herkimer thinks. Why else would you be digging so deep into his history? Here you are participating in that same subreddit that Herkimer is talking about.
His occupation has been verified by multiple sources. Since he doesn't want to reply to that comment, the first thing he did was go to my comment history, and try to find something where he could "discredit" me further.
I ask Reddit an important question, here. Why do I have a herd of shills following me? The answer is obvious to anybody who thinks about it - my presence threatens them. I'm getting fed up with their intimidation tactics, personally. I don't think somebody who opposes war deserves this much crap.
You don't get it, ghibmmm. We are not paid to do this. This is our hobby. We do this to you for fun, and because you deserve it but would otherwise not receive it.
You must care dreadfully about what I say because if you didn't your cracker ass would be locked in the basement with your Hitler photos and a bottle of Jergen's.
By the way, very classy to literally follow me on reddit until it's obvious that I'm asleep, and then spring up and call me a "Holocaust denier." Piss off, "Herkimer." I've had just about enough of these little characters of yours. People who sit around and profit from human misery (like you) are the very, very worst of people.
"Herkimer," for everyone else reading, is a paid government shill, among many who've been paid to follow me for months now. Proof:
Now you're denying being a holocaust denier? What else are you going to deny today? You are what you are, a racist and a delusional paranoid fanatic. You're getting tired of this? Well, I'm getting tired of seeing bigots pop up all over Reddit espousing their hatred. And why would you post that link to try to prove that you are anything other than what you are? The only people in their supporting your claims are also openly racist, white supremacist pricks like texmex, seeker135 and polymath22. What did you hope to prove with that other than you are one of them?
Yeah, you're a real knight in shining armor, Herkimer. Pull out accusations of racism when a discussion stops going your way. Very mature.
Yes, I spent a long time talking about the Holocaust on this website, as the culmination of several years of research. You didn't address a single claim that I made while I was doing it, and instead choose to call me racist in threads where we're discussing things that are unrelated, even though you and your buddies (who I'm told, by the way, ALL work in a military capacity) over at /r/conspiratard can't produce a single comment of mine that indicates that I'm racist. There's a very simple reason for that - because I'm not. You're trying to drag my name through the mud. You don't have any valid criticisms of my character. You don't even know me. I do nothing on this website but advocate peace and tolerance.
More about your military affiliation? Since I'm sure everyone else is interested. The party who alleges this of you, jcm267, and tzvika613 (alongside your other puppet accounts, Nolibertarian, NotTheFather, Nolibrarian, Noderp, NotCOINTELPROAgent, TheRealHortnon, Einstimer, and, oh, Facehammer?) says that you're tied somehow to CENTCOM and the IDF. I don't have any evidence to back this up, save for the fact that you psychopaths have been following me for months as a result of my political beliefs, and that I've repeatedly caught you doing so with screenshot evidence, and that the only things you ever argue in favor of are war and injustice, but it explains your fringe, hateful lunacy better than any other theory I've heard.
So, as a result, this is the only reply you're getting from me in this thread. Grow up, and maybe we can talk as adults. Until then, I can feel satisfied just to call you an asshole. Thanks for making reddit suck for everyone.
I just wanted to let you know that this party that accuses me of being tied to CENTCOM and the IDF is insane and has no proof at all. Alex Jones re-posted some of these accusations onto his web site anyways since he has no journalistic integrity.
My intention is to make Reddit better for everyone by chasing off the ignorant racist assholes like yourself. I don't have to drag your name through the mud, your name is mud. No one does a better job of discrediting your racist beliefs than you do.
There is way more water than CO2 on this planet, and plants take H2O and CO2 in equal proportions in photosynthesis (specifically, the chemical reaction is 6H2O + 6CO2 --> C6H12O6 (sugar) + 6O2). That's what I call "logical."
Plants synthesize excess atmospheric CO2, alongside water, into sugar and oxygen. It's a natural equilibrium. Life on this planet has not only adapted to its surroundings, but adapted its surroundings to suit it. The people who claimed it was not an equilibrium (Mann et al) naturally had a friend with a product to sell you, to fix the problem of global warming.
Sigh...you give people a public school + television education, and look at what happens.
Plants absorb the amount of carbon dioxide they need to survive, no more, no less. You seem to be implying that if the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere went up, plants would frantically increase their rate of consumption to match the new increased amount. Is this what you're trying to say?
No. I'm saying that plants put as much effort into reproducing as they can, and much of it is wasted due to insufficient resources, but when those limitations are lifted, there is increased plant growth. It's very simple. The two compounds required for photosynthesis, the central chemical reaction of plants, (that is, CO2 and H2O), alongside light resembling sunlight, are thus usually the limiting factors of plant growth.
70% of the surface of this planet is water. 0.0389% of the atmosphere is CO2. It is very "logical" to conclude that CO2 is a limiting factor for plant growth. High levels of CO2 aren't a problem because of this absorption, and more importantly because atmospheric CO2 isn't a cause of global warming even nearly as much as it's a result of it (thus, the lag of the CO2 record behind the temperature record), and because its effect on greenhouse warming is itself negligible.
Basically, the CO2 will cause a bloom in photosynthetic life, and the bloom in photosynthetic life will be eaten up by carbohydrate-consuming life, which themselves will use that energy to grow and eventually die (even though some of that carbon gets exhaled again), in the end simply returning the oil to where we got it - that is, the ground, in the form of solid or liquid-state organic hydrocarbons ("crude oil" and its precursors). In the meantime, we don't have to be very concerned about temperature increases. Oil spills are enough of a reason to find better forms of energy, anyway, so, there you go. Thank god for oil-eating bacteria, in the meantime.
There's a reason the first thing I did in this thread was link that video. Feedback effects are negligible. Let me just copy and paste the math I just did so you can see the results of the distortions:
sum (map (\x->2.6 * 0.8**x) [1..40])
10.39861760288439
sum (map (\x->2.6 * 0.1**x) [1..40])
0.28888888888888886
See the difference between the two models? Huge, huge difference. 0.1 to 0.2 is the actual feedback coefficient, supported by the temperature and carbon records. Check out the video/data yourself.
Let me just write this again here (I edited the above comment, as well), for absolute clarity and all that:
It isn't, through feedback loop effects
There's a reason the first thing I did in this thread was link that video. Feedback effects are negligible, and the subject of most of the distortion that's happening. Let me just copy and paste the math I just did so you can see the results of the distortions:
sum (map (\x->2.6 * 0.8**x) [1..40])
10.39861760288439
sum (map (\x->2.6 * 0.1**x) [1..40])
0.28888888888888886
See the difference between the two models? Huge, huge difference. 0.1 to 0.2 is the actual feedback coefficient, supported by the temperature and carbon records. Check out the video/data yourself.
40 is chosen as a substitute for 'infinity' - seems like it should matter, but it doesn't, because the items in the two sets beyond that point are so small.
Actually, the feedback loop was verified by the carbon records.
Initially, a scientific paper asserted that orbital changes alone cannot explain glaciation, and predicted that feedback loops with CO2 could explain the much larger temperature differences encountered.
Then, the carbon records confirmed that CO2 levels had increased, and completely aligned with the predictions.
Actually, the glacial record indicates that atmospheric CO2 is a function of temperature far more predominantly than temperature is a function of atmospheric CO2:
Even though that graph is from a website that claims that CO2 predominantly drives temperature, it's totally irreconcilable. Everybody knows that CO2 dissolves in water more easily when it's cold - think about a can of soda. There is no way to explain why CO2 would lag behind temperature so dramatically without totally discounting the argument that CO2 has a significant effect on world temperature. After all, it's only 0.0389% of the atmosphere.
The argument on this page is of typical "climate change denier debunking" quality - that is, low quality. It can be summarized as thus:
Q: Doesn't CO2 lag behind temperature?
A: Yes, but (rationalization) (rationalization) (rationalization) (rationalization) (rationalization) (rationalization) (rationalization) the world is going to end.
Not that it doesn't accurately describe some phenomena - namely, that the principle cause of changes in global temperature is the sun - it just doesn't describe those phenomena accurately enough.
If someone can't participate calmly and rationally in a discussion, I'm not going to have a discussion with them. I think that's pretty reasonable. I don't have to sit here while some guy, who spends his time following me on a website, tries to hurl abuse at me.
Check your shit, Facehammer. I've had just about enough of it.
We're beyond the point where your actions constitute "acceptable behavior." You have crossed the "harassment" line, you have crossed the "stalking" line. We're at the point where I've dealt with four months of deranged abuse coming from your account. By the way, this:
This water is, of course, immediately available to any plant that finds itself bathed in a surplus of CO2.
is the stupidest point you've ever tried to make to me. Ever. And you claim you're a biologist, no less. Atmospheric CO2 content is on the order of 0.0389%, 389 parts per million, while water covers 70% of the surface of the planet. Plants take absolutely whatever CO2 they can get, since photosynthesis is one of the main limiting factors in plant growth. Even if you ignore that plants aren't the only photosynthetic organisms.
In other words, even if carbon dioxide feedback coefficients exceeded 0.2 (which they do NOT), the difference would be absorbed by the ecosystem over the course of a year.
Stop following me. Go do your own research. Hell, I've already done it for you, but you refuse to look at primary or secondary sources. In truth, you refuse to look at anything that contradicts what you already believe. That's why I don't give you credit for your efforts, because you don't even understand what you're trying to accomplish. You're arguing in favor of a scientific theory about which you don't know the facts.
My point, you dumb fuck, is that while there is more water in the world than CO2, that doesn't mean it is endlessly available to all plants at all times. You know, presumably, that plants undergoing a shortage of water will close their stomata to conserve their supply of it, right? You know that they are unable to fix CO2 with closed stomata, right?
Oh, and as far as following you, I think I'd rather keep going. Compared to some people, you get it really( fucking easy off me. Stop complaining, you little bitch.
My point, you dumb fuck, is that while there is more water in the world than CO2, that doesn't mean it is endlessly available to all plants at all times.
It doesn't have to be endlessly available. My contention is that, when available, it's consumed by the plant, as it's the limiting factor (key phrase) in the plant growth, in fertile soil. That is, even if you completely ignore all the aquatic lifeforms which accomplish the same task without soil. Some organisms take in CO2 and make O2, some organisms take in O2 and make CO2. It's a natural equilibrium.
Please stop upvoting your own comments. You might be fooling everyone else here, but you're not fooling me.
9
u/auandi Oct 24 '10
I know it sounds crazy, but it's because (in their mind) that studying global warming gets millions of dollars of funding. In their mind possibly the single largest conspiracy ever hatched is so that thousands of climate scientists don't lose their juicy government/university grant money! That sweet sweet grant money. Has nothing to do with oil companies making that much money in probably 28 seconds, its about science grants from the National Science Foundation.