Australian Politics Forum - The effects of co2 on plant growth

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #45 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:32pm

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137588
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #46 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:50pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.

However, the alarmists still like to push their hypothesis with garbage like this:

"Scientific consensus on global warming"

"The only real debate is about how fast warming will occur, and how much damage will be done ... "

http://www.edf.org/climate/scientific-consensus

Their minds are closed on the subject. No debate!? Unbelievable! They ignore science (and scientific skepticism) and continue to insist that they are right.

It's no wonder their religion is losing so many disciples.

Back to top

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #47 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:57pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.

However, the alarmists still like to push their hypothesis with garbage like this:

"Scientific consensus on global warming"

"The only real debate is about how fast warming will occur, and how much damage will be done ... "

http://www.edf.org/climate/scientific-consensus

Their minds are closed on the subject. No debate!? Unbelievable! They ignore science (and scientific skepticism) and continue to insist that they are right.

It's no wonder their religion is losing so many disciples.

To stimulate debate, some new evidence needs to be produced that contradicts the stated position. None is forthcoming, and I cant see you producing any.

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 #48 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 2:05pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

To stimulate debate, some new evidence needs to be produced that contradicts the stated position. None is forthcoming, and I cant see you producing any.

Are you for real?, there is so much evidence that man made global warming is a crock of sh#t that its just amazing how anyone can not be a skeptic.

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 #49 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 2:10pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

Co2 has become 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 does this simple fact have to do with any "political agenda"?!?!

I'm glad you asked.

The political agenda of Eco-socialists Sad

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137588
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #50 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 2:15pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 2:05pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

To stimulate debate, some new evidence needs to be produced that contradicts the stated position. None is forthcoming, and I cant see you producing any.

Are you for real?, there is so much evidence that man made global warming is a crock of sh#t that its just amazing how anyone can not be a skeptic.

Yes, but the alarmists simply ignore any contradictory evidence.

Theirs is a faith based religion and as such they put all of their faith in the "scientific consensus".

It's really quite alarming how many decent people have been brainwashed by this cult.

Back to top

IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth Reply #51 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 2:22pm "Skeptical science" has rotted their brains, thats the place they get all their info from, it reminds me of a 911 or moon landing conspiracy site, just a bunch of galahs making up sh#t for the gullible as they go. I bet 100% of all nigerian scammer victims also believe in man made global warming, thats a given.
Back to top	IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #52 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 6:46pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

“..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).

Something all alarmists should be aware of.

Yes Greggery. A scientific issue 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. That is very correct.

Glad you finally agree.

We're getting somewhere.

I have never disagreed with the above statement.

Good to hear.

So, maybe you can tell the other disciples to stop referring to "scientific consensus". It's just making them look silly (er).

Answer the question Greggery.

Why do you keep running away?

You claimed that the AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles
What scientific principles are being ignored Greggery?

Why do you make such a stupid statement when you are not able to explain it?

You have been asked 10 separate times now - but you have run away like a little girl every single time.

Answer the question Greggery.

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.

Any answer Greggery?
Or will you just run away again?

Pretty pathetic Greggery

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #53 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 6:47pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 2:05pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

To stimulate debate, some new evidence needs to be produced that contradicts the stated position. None is forthcoming, and I cant see you producing any.

Are you for real?, there is so much evidence that man made global warming is a crock of sh#t that its just amazing how anyone can not be a skeptic.

Really!!!!

there is so much evidence that man made global warming is a crock of sh#t !!!

Please show us a piece of this evidence.

Could you do that?

THanks

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #54 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 6:49pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.

Exactly right. And if you ever hear anyone tell you that scientific consensus by itself is a scientific argument - then you make sure you tell them that.

Now - how about you show us some of this "evidence" that you claim shows that man made global warming is a crock of sh#t.

Could you do 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 #55 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 6:53pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.

However, the alarmists still like to push their hypothesis with garbage like this:

"Scientific consensus on global warming"

"The only real debate is about how fast warming will occur, and how much damage will be done ... "

http://www.edf.org/climate/scientific-consensus

Their minds are closed on the subject. No debate!? Unbelievable! They ignore science (and scientific skepticism) and continue to insist that they are right.

It's no wonder their religion is losing so many disciples.

What science is being ignored Greggery.

Can you tell us?

Or do you need to wait for the next Bolt blog to find another talking point?

And what do you want to debate Greggery?
It is a bit hard to debate someone who runs away like a little girl every time they are asked a question, like you do.

How about we debate why you claimed that the AGW hypothesis ignores scientific principles
What scientific principles are being ignored Greggery?

Lets' debate it Greggery.

What scientific principles do 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?

DO you have an answer Greggery?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #56 - Feb 14^th, 2013 at 6:55pm

Swagman wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

Co2 has become 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 does this simple fact have to do with any "political agenda"?!?!

I'm glad you asked.

The political agenda of Eco-socialists Sad

There was nothing on that wiki page that disproved the simple fact that Co2 has become 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 deny a simple basic fact that most school children understand?

DO you own a dictionary? Have you looked up what the word "pollutant" means? Find a grown-up and ask them to read it out for you.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #57 - Feb 15^th, 2013 at 12:54am

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 2:15pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 2:05pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

To stimulate debate, some new evidence needs to be produced that contradicts the stated position. None is forthcoming, and I cant see you producing any.

Are you for real?, there is so much evidence that man made global warming is a crock of sh#t that its just amazing how anyone can not be a skeptic.

Yes, but the alarmists simply ignore any contradictory evidence.

Theirs is a faith based religion and as such they put all of their faith in the "scientific consensus".

It's really quite alarming how many decent people have been brainwashed by this cult.

wOW, DESCRIBING THE REAL ESTATE SCHTICK ARE YA???????????????????????????

DON'T YA LOVE HOW TRADIES END UP IN REAL ESTATE AND BUILD DODGY RENOS ON DOUBLE BLOCKS!!!!!

OH OH....SOMEONES PULLING A SCAM,... QUICK - FLOOD THE INTERNET WITH MINDLESS PROPAGNADA TO PUT A STAMP ON IT!!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

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 #58 - Feb 15^th, 2013 at 9:14am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

Co2 has become 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 does this simple fact have to do with any "political agenda"?!?!

I'm glad you asked.

The political agenda of Eco-socialists Sad

There was nothing on that wiki page that disproved the simple fact that Co2 has become 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 deny a simple basic fact that most school children understand?

DO you own a dictionary? Have you looked up what the word "pollutant" means? Find a grown-up and ask them to read it out for you.

Your question was

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

What does this simple fact have to do with any "political agenda"?!?!

...and I referred you to Wiki's eco-socialism page in answer?

Do you deny the political agenda?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

Have you looked up what the word "pollutant" means

Webster online

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollutant
Quote:

Definition of POLLUTANT
: something that pollutes

Quote:

Definition of POLLUTE
1a : to make ceremonially or morally impure : defile b : debase 1 <using language to deceive or mislead pollutes language — Linda C. Lederman>
2a : to make physically impure or unclean : befoul, dirty b : to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste

CO2 doesn't fit the definition.

Does CO2 make impure, unclean, befoul, dirty or contaminate an environment?

No. You can't smell it, you can't see it and it certainly doesn't contaminate an environment, quite the opposite, plants use CO2 to produce oxygen. The oxygen purifies the environment Rabbit old bean. Cool

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: The effects of co2 on plant growth
Reply #59 - Feb 15^th, 2013 at 9:49am

Swagman wrote on Feb 15^th, 2013 at 9:14am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

Co2 has become 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 does this simple fact have to do with any "political agenda"?!?!

I'm glad you asked.

The political agenda of Eco-socialists Sad

There was nothing on that wiki page that disproved the simple fact that Co2 has become 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 deny a simple basic fact that most school children understand?

DO you own a dictionary? Have you looked up what the word "pollutant" means? Find a grown-up and ask them to read it out for you.

Your question was

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

What does this simple fact have to do with any "political agenda"?!?!

...and I referred you to Wiki's eco-socialism page in answer?

Do you deny the political agenda?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

Have you looked up what the word "pollutant" means

Webster online

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollutant
Quote:

Definition of POLLUTANT
: something that pollutes

Quote:

Definition of POLLUTE
1a : to make ceremonially or morally impure : defile b : debase 1 <using language to deceive or mislead pollutes language — Linda C. Lederman>
2a : to make physically impure or unclean : befoul, dirty b : to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste

CO2 doesn't fit the definition.

Does CO2 make impure, unclean, befoul, dirty or contaminate an environment?

No. You can't smell it, you can't see it and it certainly doesn't contaminate an environment, quite the opposite, plants use CO2 to produce oxygen. The oxygen purifies the environment Rabbit old bean. Cool

2b : to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste

As you have already been told - Co2 has become 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.

It is contaminating an environment with man-made waste. Just as the definition in the link you provided said.

Back to top

IP Logged