Poll: New Hampshire Tea Partiers don't trust scientists

Let's read some more facts about CO2, and not the lies being indoctrinated by the AGW crowd...

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

The higher the levels of atmospheric CO2, the more harvests/yields that all green biomass will have, including trees, and plants, which would mean we would be able to feed more people...

Let's actually hear it from those who deal with atmospheric CO2 to increase harvests in greenhouses...

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) contributes to plant growth as part of the miracle of nature known as photosynthesis. This enables plants to combine Carbon Dioxide and water with the aid of light energy to form sugar. Some of these sugars are converted into complex compounds that increase dry solid plant substances for continued growth to final maturity. However, when the supply of carbon dioxide is cut off, or reduced, the complex plant cell structure cannot utilize the sun's energy fully and growth or development is curtailed.

CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
IMPROVES PLANT GROWTH AND QUALITY
Research has shown that in most cases rate of plant growth under otherwise identical growing conditions is directly related to carbon dioxide concentration.

The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.

Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value.

www.homeharvest.com...


Actually some people who have greenhouses increase the level of atmospheric CO2 to much higher levels than 550 ppm. BTW to those who don't know it the amount of atmospheric CO2 on Earth is about 380 ppm, so it is NOWHERE near to being fatal for anything, much less plants who actually thrive with more atmospheric CO2...

Anyway further down in the above article you find...

SAMPLE RESULTS FROM CO2 ENRICHMENT STUDIES
BIBB LETTUCE
By adding CO2 to the atmosphere around the plant, a 40% crop increase was achieved. Whereas previous crops averaged 22 heads per basket, lettuce grown in the increased CO2 atmosphere (550 ppm) averaged 16 heads of better quality per basket.

CARNATIONS
CO2 levels to 550 ppm produced an obvious increase in yield (over 30%), but the greatest benefits were earlier flowering (up to 2 weeks) with an increased percentage of dry matter.

ROSES
The addition of controlled carbon dioxide provided a remarkable improvement in blossom quality, number and yield. Plants consistently produced many more flowers with 24 to 30 inch stems. Average yield was increased by 39.7%.

TOMATOES
Work in experimental stations has shown that crop increases of as much as 29% have been obtained by increasing the CO2 concentration. More desirable firmness and more uniform ripening are also observed.

www.homeharvest.com...


Let's continue shall we?...

Why you get more rapid and efficient growth and better plant quality with Johnson CO2.
Plants must absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight to produce the sugars vital for growth. A shortage of any of these requirements will retard the growing process. Normally there are approximately 300 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; when this level is increased to over 1 ,000 ppm, results are higher production and better plant quality. The Johnson Generator provides up to 1,500 ppm per unit in an average 24' x 200' greenhouse or an equivalent 50,000 cu. ft. volume based on one air change per hour.

www.johnsongas.com...

Perhaps those people who keep claiming that CO2 is bad for the environment now might understand why when Earth's atmosphere has had 7 and up to 12 times as much CO2 as now there was MORE green biomass, as in more trees, and more plants, not less, and life also flourished on land and in the oceans with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than now...

Not to mention...

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, June 5, 2003
Source: Goddard Space Flight Center

A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed, plants found it easier to grow.

The globally comprehensive, multi-discipline study appears in this week's Science magazine. The article states climate changes have provided extra doses of water, heat and sunlight in areas where one or more of those ingredients may have been lacking. Plants flourished in places where climatic conditions previously limited growth.

"Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth," said Ramakrishna Nemani, the study's lead author from the University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.
...

www.spaceref.com...

Also forgot to post this...

Underwater volcanoes heating Antarctic waters

Newly discovered volcanoes almost two miles tall

11 Jul 2011 - Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have discovered previously unknown volcanoes in the ocean waters around the remote South Sandwich Islands.

Sea-floor mapping technology reveals volcanoes beneath the sea surface

Using ship-borne sea-floor mapping technology during research cruises onboard the RRS James Clark Ross, the scientists found 12 volcanoes beneath the sea surface — some up to 3km (1.86 miles) high. They found 5km (3 mile) diameter craters left by collapsing volcanoes and 7 active volcanoes visible above the sea as a chain of islands.

According to a press release from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS), "this sub-sea landscape, with its waters warmed by volcanic activity creates a rich habitat for many species of wildlife and adds valuable new insight about life on earth." (Italics added)

The research is also important for understanding what happens when volcanoes erupt or collapse underwater and their potential for creating serious hazards such as tsunamis

Speaking at the International Symposium on Antarctic Earth Sciences in Edinburgh Dr Phil Leat from British Antarctic Survey said,

“There is so much that we don’t understand about volcanic activity beneath the sea — it’s likely that volcanoes are erupting or collapsing all the time. The technologies that scientists can now use from ships not only give us an opportunity to piece together the story of the evolution of our earth, but they also help shed new light on the development of natural events that pose hazards for people living in more populated regions on the planet.”
...

www.antarctica.ac.uk...

So why are there so many people who are not trusting certain "environmental scientists"? Because many of them have been caught lying time and time again.

Unfortunately this is also a determent to science, because there are "many" scientists who do care about the truth and do a great service to mankind.

But then again "climate science" has become a multi-billion dollar industry, and the scientists who back AGW receive more funding than those who post data that contradicts the false claims of the hoax that is AGW.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The actions of one - do scale up to ALL.

It isn't just the "actions of one"... Pretty much the main scientists proponents behind the AGW hoax have been caught lying time after time. From Michael Mann, who made up the Hockey Stick Graph trying to bury part of the Roman Warming period as well as the Medieval Warm period and the LIA despite the dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed data from many other scientists which show the Medieval and Roman warming periods were much warmer than the current warm period.

Then there is NASA's Hansen whom has been caught on many occasions publishing false data that claimed much higher temperatures in the present than actually has occurred.

There is Tremberth, Jones, the rest of the RealClimate.org scientists which includes Michael Mann, the scientists at the CRU (Climate Research Unit) which deleted the raw temperature data so that we can't verify their claims... That's just a few of the many AGW scientists who have been caught lying, hiding data, and trying to shutdown any scientists who would dare question their concocted AGW lie...

Oh, and who is to forget the claims by the IPCC about the "thousands" of expert scientists backing their claims, when in fact it has been discovered that most of the contributors to the IPCC were not experts in climate science, and only a few dozens commented and had any real knowledge of climate science. Not to mention that many of the "real experts" at the IPCC have spoken out against the false claims of the IPCC.

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotSeptember 27, 2013 2:11 AM

UN IPCC Climate Report Untrustworthy


See here for full news release and all media contacts.

NIPCC report now seen as more reputable

OTTAWA, Sept. 27, 2013 /CNW/ – “No one should trust the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report issued today,” said Professor Bob Carter, Chief Science Advisor of the International Climate Science Coalitionand former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia. “The IPCC has a history of malfeasance that even includes rewording recommendations of expert science advisors to fit the alarmist agenda of participating governments.”

Climate data analyst John McLean of Melbourne, Australia warned, “In previous IPCC assessment reports, media were tricked into reporting that thousands of climate experts endorsed the chapter in which climate change causes were discussed. In fact, only a few dozen scientists even commented on that part of the document. At today’s news conference in Stockholm, reporters should insist that the IPCC reveal how many climate experts actually reviewed and agreed with each of AR5′s most important conclusions.”

Dr. Tim Ball, former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, observed, “Inexplicably, the IPCC have increased their confidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases caused most of the warming of the past half-century despite the fact that all of their forecasts have failed. Sadly, this IPCC report will give governments unjustified confidence to impose CO2 regulations so severe that the world’s most important energy sources, hydrocarbon fuels, will be phased back sentencing billions of the world’s most vulnerable people to the misery of energy poverty.

“The IPCC’s reputation is now beyond retrieval,” Ball concludes. “Governments, media, and the public should turn instead to Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, the new report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). It shows that the balance of the evidence indicates that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening, something everyone, left, right and centre, should welcome.”

www.climatedepot.com... -of-malfeasance/

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I think you're doing a lot of cherry picking with the facts, as an example, in one of your many news articles it mentions:

From 1980 to 2000, changes to the global environment have included two of the warmest decades in the instrumental record; three intense El Nino events in 1982-83, 1987-88 and 1997-98; changes in tropical cloudiness and monsoon dynamics; and a 9.3 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which in turn affects man-made influences on climate. All these changes impact plant growth.

It's hard to reconcile the argument that 'scientists shouldn't be trusted' while you keep trying to post science papers from scientists. So should I trust yours or should I trust mine? Should we go with the consensus of 97% or should we listen to the 3%?

a reply to: links234

I am the one cherry-picking?... Really?... When it has been claimed by proponents of AGW that CO2 is more important to the climate than even the Sun itself or even water vapor?...

You are siding with scientists who have been knowingly lying to you... Who is really cherry-picking?...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I really don't want to feed the troll.

Do you believe the Earth is warming? Do you believe that there is a warming trend visible in the available data?

originally posted by: links234

...
It's hard to reconcile the argument that 'scientists shouldn't be trusted' while you keep trying to post science papers from scientists. So should I trust yours or should I trust mine? Should we go with the consensus of 97% or should we listen to the 3%?

First of all I was showing why there are more and more people who do not trust "environmental scientists" in general because of what the mainstream scientists and the main proponents of AGW have been doing by lying, publishing false data, erasing raw data, and trying to stop the truth and any other scientists who try to publish data which contradict their false claim...

I never wrote that science or all scientists shouldn't be trusted...

Now what you are doing is trying to twist what I wrote...

Your claim is similar to the claim other AGW proponents keep saying to this day... That people like me are "climate denialists"...

People like me do not deny that climate change does happen, because it does happen all the time... People like me are not saying that we shouldn't trust science or all scientists, but the scientists behind the AGW claim have been found lying and using dirty tactics to try to hide the truth...

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I really don't want to feed the troll.

Do you believe the Earth is warming? Do you believe that there is a warming trend visible in the available data?

LOL, so now I am a troll?... Really?... When you were the one trying to twist what I wrote?...

As to whether or not the Earth ahs been warming, it has been warming since the 1600s, over 200 years before the industrial revolution. When many part of the Earth were still recovering from the LIA (Little Ice Age) the Earth's interior was heating up and it has been heating up since then.

I even showed evidence that underwater volcanoes are warming the waters in the Antarctic. I showed that there are at least 3 million underwater volcanoes, not all of them active but many are.

Borehole temperature data has shown that since the 1600s the Earth has been warming from it's core.


www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Many scientists have been trying to tell people the truth behind the AGW claim. Including under the nose of NASA's Hansen.

At the bottom of the link below from NASA you will find the following excerpt.

...
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.
...

www.nasa.gov...

Atmospheric CO2 is considered a "pollutant", yet in the excerpt above it is stated that "it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas"...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
We can agree there's a warming trend. Good. Now, avoiding the obvious argument on whether or not humans are having any effect on that warming;

What, in your opinion, should we do about it?

How about ...just do nothing?

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
We can agree there's a warming trend. Good. Now, avoiding the obvious argument on whether or not humans are having any effect on that warming;

What, in your opinion, should we do about it?

Correction, there HAD been a warming trend. There has been a pause on the warming trend and no one knows what will happen next.

As to what should we do about it?... The same thing people do to prepare for other "possible" disasters, prepare. But sequestering atmospheric CO2, putting CO2 taxes and laws which unfortunately already exist, and taxing people to death while trying to place the blame on people to make them feel guilty and forcing the views and opinion of people is not going to solve anything except give more power to the global elite, and it will cause more famine and water will become scarcer than it already is. Not to mention that it will make regular people poorer.

Why, what were your thoughts about "what we should do"?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Why, what were your thoughts about "what we should do"?

We should prepare. We should ensure that coastal areas are prepared for flooding. We should prepare for further and worsening drought conditions.

I imagine we'll disagree on the usage of solar power and wind energy but, for the most part, I think we're in trouble for what's happening or what's going to happen.

originally posted by: links234

We should prepare. We should ensure that coastal areas are prepared for flooding. We should prepare for further and worsening drought conditions.

I imagine we'll disagree on the usage of solar power and wind energy but, for the most part, I think we're in trouble for what's happening or what's going to happen.

Yet that is not what is being done, and what most of the scientists who back the AGW claim say they want... Instead what they want are caps on CO2 emissions, and to further tinker with the environment by sequestering atmospheric CO2 and which is a real danger for humans, the world's fauna and flora because less atmospheric CO2 means less worldwide harvests and less water.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Well this poll just scared the crap out of me.

Fear is an emotion, wouldn't you say?