Australian Politics Forum - The effects of co2 on plant growth

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 137588 Gender:	Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth Reply #15 - Feb 13^th, 2013 at 12:28pm Swagman wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 12:17pm: Lefties think CO2 is a pollutant No they don't: AGW alarmists do. The AGW debate is not a "left" or "right" issue: it's an "open-minded" or "close-minded" issue. I'm an open-minded lefty, so please don't put me in the same camp as the close-minded alarmists.
Back to top	IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #16 - Feb 13^th, 2013 at 2:54pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 12:06pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 8:58am:

You can't have it both ways Phil.

From your post you seem to think that CO2 is a pollutant because it is a greenhouse gas. In other words CO2 is a pollutant because it contributes to the greenhouse effect.

Using your rationale water vapour must also be a pollutant because it has a much greater effect on the greenhouse effect. Huh

I believe Phil was slightly off mark. Being a greenhouse gas is not what makes CO2 a pollutant.

A pollutant is something that occurs in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Co2 is a pollutant because the CO2 which is a waste product of burning fossil fuels is occurring at harmful concentrations in the atmosphere by contributing to an advanced greenhouse effect.

Although water vapour would not be considered a pollutant with respect to the natural hydrological cycle - it can still certainly be a pollutant. An example would be if, say, a coal burning power plant were sited in such a way that it's steam emissions directly impacted upon a fragile ecosystem or human infrastructure - eg if it were built at the bottom of a hill and a forest or a town or whatever was at the top of the hill.

So if one is using CO2 or water vapour to make money it is a pollutant. A convenient message for socialists to peddle as it fits their anti-enterprise agenda.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

Lefties think CO2 is a pollutant

No they don't: AGW alarmists do.

The AGW debate is not a "left" or "right" issue: it's an "open-minded" or "close-minded" issue.

I'm an open-minded lefty, so please don't put me in the same camp as the close-minded alarmists.

It shouldn't be but it is.

Most of your Lefty crowd have hijacked the issue to push their socialist agenda (see above).

Go to any whack job socialist political website and they'll be beating the alarmist drum. Huh

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #17 - Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:00pm

It shouldnt be left vs right, but it is.

Lefties, usually being intellectuals, understand scientific principles and use logic to determine action.

Righties, being usually grumpy and emotional, use religous beliefs, or nimby beliefs to resist science and logic.

These are generalisations, and as we've see righties can be logical on some occations (eg Turnbull) and there are probably some god bothers in labor who man doesnt have to be responsible for his own actions (ie man is not in control of his destiny)

But the great thing is, that the majority of righties, who are well known to go off half-cocked on issues, can, slowly be convinced by logic and time. The deniers are running out of logical reasons to deny.

In other good news, Australias emissions are falling due to efficiency and renewable gains obtained during the lefties rein in state and federal politics over the last 10 years, despite the best efforts of the righties.

Good will eventually prosper.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 137588 Gender:	Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth Reply #18 - Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:40pm Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:00pm: Lefties, usually being intellectuals, understand scientific principles and use logic to determine action. And the AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, which is why I (as a far-lefty) am sceptical of it.
Back to top	IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #19 - Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:54pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Lefties, usually being intellectuals, understand scientific principles and use logic to determine action.

And the AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, which is why I (as a far-lefty) am sceptical of it.

Only in your mind.

As a far-lefty, your mental state is already questionable. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137588
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #20 - Feb 13^th, 2013 at 4:28pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Lefties, usually being intellectuals, understand scientific principles and use logic to determine action.

And the AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, which is why I (as a far-lefty) am sceptical of it.

Only in your mind.

No, not just in my mind.

"Twenty years ago, the alarmists were talking about the science. Now, without the facts on their side, they are reduced to talking about other justifications, like consensus science."

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Climate-change-alarmists-ignore-sci...

"Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science." Roll Eyes

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..” (a response from a scientist that actually took part in the Doran survey).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

The AGW alarmists choose to ignore scientific principles.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #21 - Feb 13^th, 2013 at 7:38pm

Swagman wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 12:06pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 8:58am:

You can't have it both ways Phil.

From your post you seem to think that CO2 is a pollutant because it is a greenhouse gas. In other words CO2 is a pollutant because it contributes to the greenhouse effect.

Using your rationale water vapour must also be a pollutant because it has a much greater effect on the greenhouse effect. Huh

I believe Phil was slightly off mark. Being a greenhouse gas is not what makes CO2 a pollutant.

A pollutant is something that occurs in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Co2 is a pollutant because the CO2 which is a waste product of burning fossil fuels is occurring at harmful concentrations in the atmosphere by contributing to an advanced greenhouse effect.

Although water vapour would not be considered a pollutant with respect to the natural hydrological cycle - it can still certainly be a pollutant. An example would be if, say, a coal burning power plant were sited in such a way that it's steam emissions directly impacted upon a fragile ecosystem or human infrastructure - eg if it were built at the bottom of a hill and a forest or a town or whatever was at the top of the hill.

So if one is using CO2 or water vapour to make money it is a pollutant. A convenient message for socialists to peddle as it fits their anti-enterprise agenda.

Who said anything about making money?

This is not a difficult concept. Are you being deliberately dense? Or are you genuinely stupid?

A pollutant is something that occurs in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Co2 is a pollutant because the CO2 which is a waste product of burning fossil fuels is occurring at harmful concentrations in the atmosphere by contributing to an advanced greenhouse effect.

What exactly don't you understand about that?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #22 - Feb 13^th, 2013 at 7:40pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Lefties, usually being intellectuals, understand scientific principles and use logic to determine action.

And the AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, which is why I (as a far-lefty) am sceptical of it.

Only in your mind.

No, not just in my mind.

"Twenty years ago, the alarmists were talking about the science. Now, without the facts on their side, they are reduced to talking about other justifications, like consensus science."

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Climate-change-alarmists-ignore-sci...

"Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science." Roll Eyes

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..” (a response from a scientist that actually took part in the Doran survey).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

The AGW alarmists choose to ignore scientific principles.

What scientific principles are being ignored Greggery?

Can you tell us?

Or are you just repeating something Bolty said?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #23 - Feb 13^th, 2013 at 7:41pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Lefties, usually being intellectuals, understand scientific principles and use logic to determine action.

And the AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, which is why I (as a far-lefty) am sceptical of it.

Please explain to us what scientific principles are being ignored Greggery.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137588
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #24 - Feb 13^th, 2013 at 8:27pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Lefties, usually being intellectuals, understand scientific principles and use logic to determine action.

And the AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, which is why I (as a far-lefty) am sceptical of it.

Please explain to us what scientific principles are being ignored Greggery.

FFS, are you blind?

Didn't you read this?

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

Which part don't you understand?

Honestly, I sometimes wonder why I even bother with some of you cult members.

Basic scientific principle: a consensus does NOT mean that a theory or hypothesis is correct.

Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth Reply #25 - Feb 13^th, 2013 at 8:41pm greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:40pm: And the AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, which is why I (as a far-lefty) am sceptical of it. Traitor
Back to top	IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #26 - Feb 13^th, 2013 at 10:49pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 8:27pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Lefties, usually being intellectuals, understand scientific principles and use logic to determine action.

And the AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, which is why I (as a far-lefty) am sceptical of it.

Please explain to us what scientific principles are being ignored Greggery.

FFS, are you blind?

Didn't you read this?

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

Which part don't you understand?

Honestly, I sometimes wonder why I even bother with some of you cult members.

Basic scientific principle: a consensus does NOT mean that a theory or hypothesis is correct.

Roll Eyes

You claimed AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles, Greggery.

I am asking you to tell us what scientific principles were ignored.

Nobody has ever said that a consensus means that a theory or hypothesis is correct. That appears to be something you just made up. Or something you heard Bolty say.

AGW theory is based on numerous hypotheses, all of which are supported by a vast body of empirical evidence.

Now please tell us what scientific principles you think were ignored in developing the hypotheses which make up the theory and what scientific principles you think were ignored in the collection of the vast body of empirical evidence which supports these hypotheses.

Can you do that?

See Greggery, this is the problem when you come on here parrotting something Bolty told you. It makes you sound like an idiot.

Back to top

IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #27 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 10:55am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Who said anything about making money?

This is not a difficult concept. Are you being deliberately dense? Or are you genuinely stupid?

A pollutant is something that occurs in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Co2 is a pollutant because the CO2 which is a waste product of burning fossil fuels is occurring at harmful concentrations in the atmosphere by contributing to an advanced greenhouse effect.

What exactly don't you understand about that?

Oh here we go. The same old Lefty tune. "You don't agree with me, so you have to be stupid." Roll Eyes

CO2 is also a waste product of respiration. That makes you a pollutant Rabbit? Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #28 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:17pm

Swagman wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 10:55am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Who said anything about making money?

This is not a difficult concept. Are you being deliberately dense? Or are you genuinely stupid?

A pollutant is something that occurs in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Co2 is a pollutant because the CO2 which is a waste product of burning fossil fuels is occurring at harmful concentrations in the atmosphere by contributing to an advanced greenhouse effect.

What exactly don't you understand about that?

Oh here we go. The same old Lefty tune. "You don't agree with me, so you have to be stupid." Roll Eyes

CO2 is also a waste product of respiration. That makes you a pollutant Rabbit? Grin

No - you are stupid because you seem to be deliberately denying a simple fundamental fact

A pollutant is something that occurs in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Co2 is a pollutant because the CO2 which is a waste product of burning fossil fuels is occurring at harmful concentrations in the atmosphere by contributing to an advanced greenhouse effect.

Why do you find it so hard to understand something most primary school children would know?

Back to top

IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #29 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:23pm

Even if your argument is right that too much co2 is a pollutant why do you get to decide the dangerous level?, plants have been shown to thrive at 1200ppm co2 and NASA has shown that the safe limit for humans is 5000ppm co2 , millions of years ago the same plants and animals thrived when co2 was far higher than today.
Who has decided that the current co2 level is the best and why?

Back to top

IP Logged