Pages: 1 ... 51 52 [53] 54 55 ... 67   Go Down

Author Topic: Skepticism about Climate Change  (Read 37606 times)

ChrisMax

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1040 on: September 13, 2017, 07:31:46 PM »

Here's the thing about Climate Change it doesn't have borders or income levels or religion or anything else.  It is a fact the climate is getting warmer that is not in dispute.  What is disputed is whether humans are causing it or it is a natural cycle.  Perhaps it is a natural cycle that human activity is accelerating.  A cycle that might take a few hundred years to reach the present conditions has been reduced to mere decades.  We can choose to deny all the science but the oceans will still rise and there will be larger more deadly storms.  Extreme weather will be the norm.  It's only your children and grandchildren that will suffer the catastrophic effects but hey that's no reason to consider doing anything.  Warmer water caused hurricanes Harvey and Irma but was climate change responsible?  I'm sure some people will refuse to see reality until a wall of water or a giant twister or a cat 5 hurricane knocks some sense into them!
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2373
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1041 on: September 13, 2017, 08:49:08 PM »

Repeating this ridiculous "argument" simply demonstrates your lack of comprehension skills.

That's the best you can do?  Really?

I thought this was a discussion.  Your comment adds precisely zero value to it.

What "lack of comprehension skills" are you referring to?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 09:05:18 PM by Peter McLennan »
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
    • advantica blog
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1042 on: September 13, 2017, 09:48:12 PM »

Ray, you might want to read this article.  It turns out that CO2 may not be all that good for plants after all.  Because, like, science.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

Peter, thanks for posting that link. Highly interesting article.
I always knew that those beautiful and large tomatoes and peppers which are grown nowadays in the greenhouses don't have the same taste and nutrients as in the past, but it was a revelation that even the wild plants growing in the nature have shown decline in their nutrients.

Quote
They found that the protein content of goldenrod pollen has declined by a third since the industrial revolution—and the change closely tracks with the rise in CO2.
   

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 976
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1043 on: September 13, 2017, 10:10:25 PM »

The Tax Foundation has data going all the way back to 1913 (the first year of the income tax) so you can find any single year you want!!!!  https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/   Top rate in the 1950s was 91% (for incomes over $400K).  this went down to 77% following the Kennedy tax cut of 1963.  It went down to 70% for incomes over $200K and stayed there until the Reagan tax cut of 1982 when it dropped to 50% for incomes over $85K.  the big tax reform act of 1986 dropped it down to 38% for incomes over $90K (all the rates are for married couples filing jointly).

Corporate tax rates are here:  http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/corporate-top-tax-rate-and-bracket  and in the earlier time period were about 52%.  Remember that most corporations never pay the 'full' amount as they have a myriad of deductions (as do individuals)>

Thanks very much for this.
Logged
--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3258
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1044 on: September 14, 2017, 01:13:52 AM »

... Since the discussion is about policy options, I and others will feel free to express our opinions. We don't need to be US taxpayers to do so, and we don't need your permission. In any case, I did not think that we were only discussing American policy expenditures. The issues we're discussing apply to pretty much everybody. However, I don't see what my personal earnings and expenditures have to do with anything. I don't want to know about yours and never asked...

Yes, when you're making recommendations as to the cost to run the American government, being a taxpayer is very important.  Having opinions like you do about spending a lot of money when you have no stake in its cost make your recommendations less credible and thoughtful.  People and governments don't buy things without looking at their costs.  Without you having to pay anything for your policies, your recommendations do not include cost considerations.  Paying for Canadian government expenses with your Canadian taxes has nothing to do with American expenses and taxes because your taxes don't pay for ours.  Certainly people who read your recommendations should know that your taxes are not paying for these policies.  That should be taken into account when they judge what you say.
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1045 on: September 14, 2017, 03:06:52 AM »

Peter, thanks for posting that link. Highly interesting article.
I always knew that those beautiful and large tomatoes and peppers which are grown nowadays in the greenhouses don't have the same taste and nutrients as in the past, but it was a revelation that even the wild plants growing in the nature have shown decline in their nutrients.
 

So you haven't tried Village Farms' campari tomatoes grown in greenhouses in Marfa, Texas?

They travel approx. 150 miles away to my local grocer. I've been buying and eating them for the past five years or so. They're the most freshest, most real and rich tasting tomato I've ever had. I wonder how the science and research papers are going to explain that oddity?

http://www.producenews.com/more-company-profiles/company-profiles/11255-village-farms-texas-grown-concept-sprouted-from-consumer-demand-for-local-produce
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1560
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1046 on: September 14, 2017, 03:19:33 AM »

Yes, when you're making recommendations as to the cost to run the American government, being a taxpayer is very important.  Having opinions like you do about spending a lot of money when you have no stake in its cost make your recommendations less credible and thoughtful.  People and governments don't buy things without looking at their costs.  Without you having to pay anything for your policies, your recommendations do not include cost considerations.  Paying for Canadian government expenses with your Canadian taxes has nothing to do with American expenses and taxes because your taxes don't pay for ours.  Certainly people who read your recommendations should know that your taxes are not paying for these policies.  That should be taken into account when they judge what you say.
What a bunch of nonsense Alan. How can you say that when others make recommendations that have cost concequences that these are excluded from their thinking. This is an insulting and groundless accusation. Most people (incl. me) take all facts into consideration (incl. cost) when they make recommendations or suggestions. The fact you think they don't tells more about you, your model seems to be to be very careful when it concerns someone's own money and they don't care when it's someone else's money. Ill doers are ill deemers.

Also I do remember many, many posts of yours recommending non-US government spending, maybe you should go back and delete those as well, because according to your model they are very impolite. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. For me they can stay, I have no problem with them but if you're as wound up of this like you seem to be they need to go. Otherwise people will see that you put different standards on others vs. yourself. You don't want that to happen, do you? ;)
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 03:42:26 AM by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1047 on: September 14, 2017, 03:33:38 AM »

Ray, you might want to read this article.  It turns out that CO2 may not be all that good for plants after all.  Because, like, science.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

Oh my God! I just read that article.

There is about as much science demonstrated in that article showing the methodology applied to measure nutrient levels from one fast growing algae as there is in measuring the health benefits in the amount and quantity consumed in vitamin pills. That article insults science.

It's the lamest demonstration of the use of science to establish nutrient levels in food and its affect on public health I've ever seen. I don't see a rise in malnourished people since most of us are now living longer lives. If we were all now malnourished due to eating food grown in greenhouse gas environments, I'm not seeing it. Where's the evidence?
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
    • advantica blog
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1048 on: September 14, 2017, 03:49:12 AM »

So you haven't tried Village Farms' campari tomatoes grown in greenhouses in Marfa, Texas?

They travel approx. 150 miles away to my local grocer. I've been buying and eating them for the past five years or so. They're the most freshest, most real and rich tasting tomato I've ever had. I wonder how the science and research papers are going to explain that oddity?

http://www.producenews.com/more-company-profiles/company-profiles/11255-village-farms-texas-grown-concept-sprouted-from-consumer-demand-for-local-produce

Thank you, Bill, for posting the link to that article.  I don't think we can get the Village Farms' produce here in Ontario. The commercially grown tomatoes which we can buy here, look nice and last longer than the tomatoes from my garden, but they don't taste as good, and most likely they are also less nutritious.

If the greenhouse tomatoes in Texas are indeed as good as you say, I hope that other farms will adopt their methods. It would be interesting to scientifically compare the quality of tomatoes (taste, minerals, nutrients) grown on large farm fields, in the state-of-the-art greenhouses, and in the backyard.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 04:05:23 AM by LesPalenik »
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
    • advantica blog
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1049 on: September 14, 2017, 04:00:46 AM »

Oh my God! I just read that article.

There is about as much science demonstrated in that article showing the methodology applied to measure nutrient levels from one fast growing algae as there is in measuring the health benefits in the amount and quantity consumed in vitamin pills. That article insults science.

It's the lamest demonstration of the use of science to establish nutrient levels in food and its affect on public health I've ever seen. I don't see a rise in malnourished people since most of us are now living longer lives. If we were all now malnourished due to eating food grown in greenhouse gas environments, I'm not seeing it. Where's the evidence?

We don't see (at least not visually, not from outside) malnourishment in the people, whether it comes from eating highly processed food, nutrition-poor produce or from ingesting all kinds of pills with negative side effects. However, the general malnourishment is demonstrated by all kinds of modern ilnesses and decreased quality of life for many people. Obesity, diabetes, kidney disease and neurological conditions like Alzheimer's are all on the rise, both in the US and in much of the developed world.

One thing that we see everywhere in the western world today is a large proportion of obese people which is definitely not a healthy sign.

Quote
Adults today are less “metabolically healthy” — meaning health with regard to cholesterol, body weight and blood pressure — than adults from past generations, according to a new study in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/adults-metabolically-healthy-past-generations_n_3071549.html
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 04:57:48 AM by LesPalenik »
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 976
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1050 on: September 14, 2017, 07:08:43 AM »

Oh my God! I just read that article.

There is about as much science demonstrated in that article showing the methodology applied to measure nutrient levels from one fast growing algae as there is in measuring the health benefits in the amount and quantity consumed in vitamin pills. That article insults science.

It's the lamest demonstration of the use of science to establish nutrient levels in food and its affect on public health I've ever seen. I don't see a rise in malnourished people since most of us are now living longer lives. If we were all now malnourished due to eating food grown in greenhouse gas environments, I'm not seeing it. Where's the evidence?

"Politico.com" is not a scientific publication. The article does refer to researchers in that field, so it might be more useful for you to go read their own findings if you want more rigorous descriptions of their methodology and results.
Logged
--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9766
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1051 on: September 14, 2017, 09:02:15 AM »

Ray, you might want to read this article.  It turns out that CO2 may not be all that good for plants after all.  Because, like, science.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

Peter,
I see no evidence at all in the article that CO2 might not be good for plants. If elevated levels of CO2 were not good for plants, then the plants would not thrive, as they obviously do. It's indisputable that elevated levels of CO2 have the effect of greening the planet and increasing the biomass of plants and trees in general.

The issue raised in the article is that the food crops grown in elevated levels of CO2 might not be as nutritious for us humans, and that is a separate issue.
The nutritional quality of the food we eat is dependent upon a huge number of factors. However, both water and CO2 are fundamental necessities for any growth at all to take place.

Whether or not a particular food contains a normal or average amount of vitamins, minerals and proteins that we think it is supposed to have, depends upon soil health, soil fertility, soil pH, soil structure, the type of natural microbes, bacteria, insects and worms that normally thrive in natural soils and help roots take up nutrients, and more specifically the mineral content of the soil.

The presence or absence of certain minerals in the soils can either aid or supress a plant's uptake of certain elements that humans consider to be beneficial for their own health (but not necessarily the health of the plant). The following article gives an idea of the complexity of the issue.
http://www.ecogrowth.com.au/soil.html

If plant growth is encouraged, by introducing CO2 from bottled gas into greenhouses, for example, it's quite likely that the final crop will not contain the same proportional increase in minerals and vitamins and/or proteins, if additional minerals and fertilizers have not been added to the soil.

Nature consists of a balance. There is no natural law that dictates that a particular plant should have a particular percentage of a certain mineral, trace element or vitamin just because such elements are beneficial to humans.

For example, if a soil does not contain the trace element Selenium, or very little of it, that would not necessarily prevent a plant such as the 'Brazil Nut tree' from flourishing, but it would result in the Brazil Nut having an unusually small amount of Selenium.

The following site describes the benefits of Selenium.
https://www.livescience.com/43566-selenium-supplements-facts.html

Brazil nuts are recommended as a good source of Selenium. However, the attached graphical image shows the great variation in the quantity of Selenium in a Brazil nut, depending on where it was grown. A similar situation applies to the nutrients in all varieties of the food we eat.

Sure you could increase the protein content of wheat simply by reducing CO2 levels. You could increase the protein content even further by restricting the amount of available water, keeping everything else the same, such as the same amount of fertilizers, pH and soil structure. The result would be about half the total quantity of wheat production. We could do it for all food crops, resulting in mass starvation world-wide. What a crazy idea!

"Nitrogen is a primary constituent of protein, so an adequate soil nitrogen supply is an essential ingredient for producing wheat with a high protein content. Grain protein is modified by the grain yield of the crop - increasing grain yield has a diluting effect on grain protein.

This is why in drier seasons or seasons of low grain yield, a larger proportion of the crop is of a high protein percentage, whereas, in wetter growing seasons, high yields can be produced but may be at a lower protein. This seasonal variation is why paddock grain yield, protein and rainfall records should be kept for a number of years to obtain a true indication of its nitrogen fertility."



Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3258
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1052 on: September 14, 2017, 09:13:29 AM »

What a bunch of nonsense Alan. How can you say that when others make recommendations that have cost concequences that these are excluded from their thinking. This is an insulting and groundless accusation. Most people (incl. me) take all facts into consideration (incl. cost) when they make recommendations or suggestions. The fact you think they don't tells more about you, your model seems to be to be very careful when it concerns someone's own money and they don't care when it's someone else's money. Ill doers are ill deemers.

Also I do remember many, many posts of yours recommending non-US government spending, maybe you should go back and delete those as well, because according to your model they are very impolite. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. For me they can stay, I have no problem with them but if you're as wound up of this like you seem to be they need to go. Otherwise people will see that you put different standards on others vs. yourself. You don't want that to happen, do you? ;)
The opinion of a person who considers cost but doesn't have to pay for it does not have the same consideration as person who has too pay for it.   If it wasn't for the fact that I would have to pay more for climate control programs, I would also be all for it 


Pease point to where I said that others should spend money where I wasn't paying for it? If you talking about the 2% NATO posts, in that case American taxpayers are paying for stuff that European NATO countries do not pay for. So in those cases I do have skin in the game.  Frankly,  if it weren't for the fact my taxes were for paying for it, I wouldn't care what Europe pays for defense.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1560
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1053 on: September 14, 2017, 09:43:01 AM »

The opinion of a person who considers cost but doesn't have to pay for it does not have the same consideration as person who has too pay for it.   
Not true, as I said it might be your model but it's far from generally true.

Pease point to where I said that others should spend money where I wasn't paying for it? If you talking about the 2% NATO posts, in that case American taxpayers are paying for stuff that European NATO countries do not pay for. So in those cases I do have skin in the game.  Frankly,  if it weren't for the fact my taxes were for paying for it, I wouldn't care what Europe pays for defense.
Close but no cigar, we have skin in the game as well on global warming and your superfund sites leaching out to the worlds oceans (and other effects that the US has on the world as a whole). So it's perfectly OK for us to express our opinion on these matters, whether you like it or not. You're free to disagree but the bottom line is you're just as bad as all these liberals you are accusing of trying to limit free speech.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3258
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1054 on: September 14, 2017, 09:58:07 AM »

Everyone can say whatever they want. It's just important that everybody know what country each of the posters are from so we can ascertain what their recommendations mean to the person who doesn't live in the same country.

If you were German, you would like to know that a poster recommending the Germans bail out the Greek debt was coming from an American or from a German. The recommendations would have a difference quality and value depending on who's paying for it.   Don't you think so?
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1560
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1055 on: September 14, 2017, 10:14:01 AM »

Everyone can say whatever they want. It's just important that everybody know what country each of the posters are from so we can ascertain what their recommendations mean to the person who doesn't live in the same country.

If you were German, you would like to know that a poster recommending the Germans bail out the Greek debt was coming from an American or from a German. The recommendations would have a difference quality and value depending on who's paying for it.   Don't you think so?
Nope, I appreciate opinions (or don't) on this international forum for their content, not the nationality of the person they come from.

But I'm glad you say that everybody can say what they want and that you stop to try and shut them down by saying it's "none of your business" or "that's impolite because you're not from here", because those are nonsense arguments that don't fit very well in the discussion here.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3258
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1056 on: September 14, 2017, 11:04:57 AM »

I said they can say whatever they want.  However,   I still have the right to say it's impolite or politically expedient for them to take their position.   After all,  I also have the same right to say whatever I want too.  Unless you want to shut down my right of free speech.   
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7338
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1057 on: September 14, 2017, 11:38:21 AM »

Coffee vs. climate change: The news is not good
Warming will push coffee uphill and could limit pollinators.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/coffee-vs-climate-change-the-news-is-not-good/

Unfortunately, pollinators such as bees do not benefit from CO2 in the same fashion as plant biomass does at higher altitudes, and the taste of Coffee will change as well if there is less area at higher altitudes available for my favorite Arabica beans ..., prices will go up as well.

National economies will also be affected if they do not have the higher altitude grounds that are needed for crops like Coffee beans.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1058 on: September 14, 2017, 01:02:12 PM »

Coffee vs. climate change: The news is not good
Warming will push coffee uphill and could limit pollinators.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/coffee-vs-climate-change-the-news-is-not-good/

Unfortunately, pollinators such as bees do not benefit from CO2 in the same fashion as plant biomass does at higher altitudes, and the taste of Coffee will change as well if there is less area at higher altitudes available for my favorite Arabica beans ..., prices will go up as well.

National economies will also be affected if they do not have the higher altitude grounds that are needed for crops like Coffee beans.

Cheers,
Bart

Ah, i knew there was an inherent balance in there somewhere:
Global warming leads to less coffee.
Less coffee is less active humans.
Less human activity leads to less greenhouse gas.

Problem solved, end of thread!

;-)
Logged
Regards,
Oscar

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10920
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #1059 on: September 14, 2017, 01:17:46 PM »

 👏Bravo, Oscar! 😀
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 [53] 54 55 ... 67   Go Up