Prominent Scientists Call for Social Engineering by Forcing People to Accept their Environmental Pol

reply to post by generik


Yep, that is part of agenda 21, which includes the state only allowing one child per family, of course unless you are part of the 1%-10% you will be exempted...

Originally posted by dominicus

Really? Would you like to provide a source?

Have you seen the pollution levels in china or the nasty smog in l.a.? These layers of pollution have direct effect on temp, weather, health, etc

Pollution has nothing to do with either CO2 nor "Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change"...

...
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...

Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
GILBERT P. COMPO
PRASHANT D. SARDESHMUKH
Climate Diagnostics Center,
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, and
Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
325 Broadway R/PSD1
Boulder CO 80305-3328
[email protected]
(303) 497-6115
(303) 497-6449

Citation:
Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate
Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9.
This article is published by Springer-Verlag. This author-created version is distributed courtesy of Springer-Verlag.
The original publication is available from www.springerlink.com at
www.springerlink.com...

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.

Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

A mysterious phenomenon is causing four major glaciers in the Antarctic to shrink in unison, causing a significant increase in sea levels, scientists have found.

The rise in atmospheric temperatures caused by global warming cannot account for the relatively rapid movement of the glaciers into the sea, but scientists suspect that warmer oceans may be playing a role.

"There is a possibility that heat from the ocean is somehow flowing in underneath these glaciers, but it is not related to global warming," said glaciologist Duncan Wingham of University College London. "Something has changed that is causing these glaciers to shrink.

"At this rate the glaciers will all be afloat in 150 years or so."
.....................
However, it would take about 200 years for extra heat from the ocean to reach the underside of the glaciers, which makes it difficult to believe that the present shrinkage is due to global warming, Dr Wingham said.

news.independent.co.uk...


If Anthropogenic Global Warming was a fact they wouldn't need to change their hoax to "Climate Change'... Since the climate ALWAYS changes now they can claim any change in the climate is being done by humans when in reality we are not to blame for Climate Change.

If there was any truth to their hoax they wouldn't/shouldn't have a need to lie, publish false information, and trying to bury any evidence that disproves the AGW religion...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
.........

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW, this plan they have goes in line with this one.

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
July 5, 2012

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) are focusing on population control through their Global Health Development Programs. By using citizens in under-developed nations, like Africa and India, was Guinea pigs for their research and development for “new interventions such as vaccines, drugs and diagnostics”, these globalists hope to ensure their family planning schemes are effective.

Melinda Gates has made family planning and the population control agenda her personal mission . She justifies her cause by claiming that 100,000 women die in child birth from unintended pregnancies. Although this statistic has no scientific basis, since it sounds good and mainstream media do not check facts, it has helped the BMGF team up with the British government to raise more than $4 billion to fun depopulation programs under the guise of bringing contraceptives to under-developed nations.

The BMGF assert that by 2050 “the global population is expected to grow to over 9 billion people” and this is unacceptable to them. By applying pressure to social programs and resources, the BMGF want to use family planning as an investment for all national governments globally.

Strategies to accomplish their goals include:
Using financial influence to force governments and policymakers to implement their family planning schemes
Empower NGOs who promote family planning propaganda
Coerce the integration of family planning into all “humanitarian” efforts by using funds from the UN Global Fund
Pour money into efforts that further family planning through national policy controls that adhere to the UN’s Millennium Development Goals

BMGF has partnered with drug corporations like Shanghai Dahua Pharmaceuticals in China to develop implantable fertility controls that will be used in over 20 developing countries to curb population growth.

The injectable Depo-Provera is being sold to under-developed nations and being administered by healthcare workers and nonmedical providers, or by the women themselves. Policy and training systems are underway to ensure these drugs are utilized in areas like the sub-Saharan Africa. By using these areas as testing grounds for new fertility drugs, as well as forcible sterilization schemes, the BMGF are focusing on preventative situations over dealing with abortable pregnancies which become complicated.
...

occupycorporatism.com...

We know as a fact that computer Global Climate Models are flawed to a fault.

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...


Another of the many flaws of GCMs..

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...

Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...

Also, since they do want to implement China's one child policy, who is to say that the states in countries like the U.S. won't decide whether or not to murder not only fetuses, but even babies that have been born even without the consent of the parents?...

After all, according to "liberal scientists" even babies that have been born don't have the moral status of a person, or a right to live...

J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411
Law, ethics and medicine
Paper


After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini1,2,
Francesca Minerva3

+ Author Affiliations

1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy


2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; [email protected]

Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.

Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
...

jme.bmj.com...

There are examples like Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who have this to say on this subject.

In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg admitted that abortion is about getting rid of certain types of people that the elite do not want to have around:

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we dont want to have too many of."

futurestorm.blogspot.com...

Add to that what the rich elites want to do...

Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

America's richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a 'disastrous' environmental, social and industrial threat

John Harlow, Los Angeles

SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of Americas wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

(NaturalNews) In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit

Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero."

Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:

"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

You can watch this yourself at:
www.naturalnews.tv...

edit on 22-2-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Then we have this fact.

The GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization)

The GAVI Alliance, founded in 2000 with the help of the Gates Foundation, has the goal of vaccinating all of the third world. The member organizations of GAVI are listed on group’s the website, which include:

“…national governments of donor and developing countries, the Bill and Melinda Gates Children’s Vaccine Program, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA), the Rockefeller Foundation, UNICEF, the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (WHO).”

In December of 2000, David Rockefeller and William H. Gates Sr., among others, (pictured to the right) visited the Rockefeller University campus to take part in a meeting on “Philanthropy in a Global Century”. While there, Gates spoke glowingly about his inspiration from Rockefeller in founding GAVI,

“Gates said that ‘Taking our lead and our inspiration from work already done by The Rockefeller Foundation, our foundation actually started GAVI by pledging $750 million to something called the Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines, an instrument of GAVI.’”

He also praised the Rockefeller family’s century of philanthropy, saying, ‘It seems like every new corner we turn, the Rockefellers are already there. And in some cases, they have been there for a long, long time.’”

The fact that such a global mechanism like GAVI exists – in the hands of outspoken population control advocates – for delivering vaccines to millions of people across the world should be disconcerting to say the least; Especially when confronted with the mountains of documentation proving that anti-fertility vaccines have been researched and delivered by the World Health Organization with grant money from the Rockefeller Foundation.
...

Anti-fertility vaccines

As Jurriaan Maessen reports, the World Health Organization, one of GAVI’s partners, teamed up with the World Bank and UN Population Fund in the 1970′s under the “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”. The Task Force,


“…acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.”

In 1989 research was conducted by the National Institute of Immunology in New Delhi India on the use of ‘carriers’ such as Tetanus Toxoid and Diphtheria to bypass the immune system and deliver the female hormone called human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). The research paper was carried in the Oxford University Press in 1990 and was titled “Bypass by an alternate ‘carrier’ of acquired unresponsiveness to hCG upon repeated immunization with tetanus-conjugated vaccine.” The Rockefeller Foundation is listed in the document as giving grants for the research.

By delivering hCG within a Tetanus vaccine – which acts as the carrier – the human body treats hCG as an intruder and creates antibodies against it. This has the effect of sterilizing women who receive the vaccine, and in many cases miscarriage when given during pregnancy.
...

www.oldthinkernews.com...

Now, let's look at who has been involved in this scheme.

...
ACTORS INVOLVED
In the early 1970s a group of scientists came together at the WHO to discuss the impact of the advances in biosciences on birth control. In 1973 the WHO established the Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation, as part of the HRP. The HRP, today under the auspices of the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the WHO and the World Bank, concentrates on research and development of contraceptive methods and services in developing countries and its social, ethical, legal and regulatory issues.
The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.
Currently five large and a number of small institutions are conducting research on anti-fertility vaccines. The five large institutions involved are:

* WHO/HRP, Switzerland. Major supporters of the programme are the governments of Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, Germany and Canada, as well as the UNFPA and the World Bank.

* The Population Council, United States. Among the Council s financiers are the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the US Agency for International Development.

* National Institute of Immunology, India. Major financiers are the Indian government, the Canadian International Development Research Centre and the Rockefeller Foundation.

* The Contraceptive Development Program (CONRAD), United States. Publicly funded.

* The Center for Population Research at the National Institute of Child Health and Development/the National Institutes of Health (NICHD/NIH), United States. Publicly funded.
...

home.snafu.de...

Now, shall we take a look at what their handy work has done for third world nations and their people?...

Forced Sterilization
Women around the world have many issues that they face and need to overcome. One of these issues is forced sterilization. Forced sterilization is the process of permanently ending someone's ability to reproduce without his or her consent. This has occurred around the world, including here in the United States. The reasons for this atrocity also varies, as does the procedure. Along with the human rights violation that forced sterilization infringes upon comes some health risks.
...
Peru's population control program, although it is not officially recognized by the government, uses some of these tactics (mcsnet.ab.ca...). Women are promised food and clothing for their children. When they show up to receive the food and clothes, they are told that in order to get the items they must be sterilized. If the refuse, sometimes they will get the items that month but are told that in the future they must be sterilized before getting the food and clothes. In these cases, the women feel as if they are being forced into making this decision in order to help care for the children she already has. In other cases, women are not even notified. Sometimes when women give birth, the doctors sterilize her without her consent and without her even knowing it. Another tactic that was used to trick the people was in Japan. There, some victims were told that they could have the procedure reversed at any time down the road (Yamaguchi, 1997).
...
Even with the health risks that are evident for the victims, countries still used forced sterilizations as a means to an end, whether it be a eugenics program or a population control program. Forced sterilizations are then just one more example of something that women must endure throughout the world.
...

www.webster.edu...

And more recent developments on this...

UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India's poor

Money from the Department for International Development has helped pay for a controversial programme that has led to miscarriages and even deaths after botched operations

Gethin Chamberlain

The Observer, Saturday 14 April 2012

Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony. A number of pregnant women selected for sterilisation suffered miscarriages and lost their babies.

The UK agreed to give India £166m to fund the programme, despite allegations that the money would be used to sterilise the poor in an attempt to curb the country's burgeoning population of 1.2 billion people.

Sterilisation has been mired in controversy for years. With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object. Activists say some are told they are going to health camps for operations that will improve their general wellbeing and only discover the truth after going under the knife.

Court documents filed in India earlier this month claim that many victims have been left in pain, with little or no aftercare. Across the country, there have been numerous reports of deaths and of pregnant women suffering miscarriages after being selected for sterilisation without being warned that they would lose their unborn babies.

Yet a working paper published by the UK's Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were "complex human rights and ethical issues" involved in forced population control.
...

www.guardian.co.uk...-of-comments

...
In July, the UK will host a family planning summit in London along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The “event will aim to generate unprecedented political commitment and resources from developing countries, donors, the private sector, civil society and other partners to meet the family planning needs of women in the world’s poorest countries by 2020,” stated the UK’s Department for International Development.
...

www.turtlebayandbeyond.org...

This reminds me of a few quotes which are directly related with this article.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H.L. Mencken

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

"Find out just what any people will quitely submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." -Frederick Douglass.

So, welcome to the brave new liberal/socialist/fascist world...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

This is a peer-reviewed paper which has not been published yet by the American Institute of Biological Sciences but which will appear in their March 2013 edition of the journal Bioscience.

If it is not published yet it is not peer reviewed.

What is your problem with the paper. People trying to make the air we breath cleaner... Big deal..

We have to start taking better care of our planet. If we don't there will be consequences. Many people think they are doing good for the planet by remodeling the house to make it Eco-friendly or buying a more efficient car. That is just supporting the Economy, both things cause more destruction to the planet than they would ever save. Turn off the airconditioner when your not home or turn down the heat three degrees in the winter. Drive your old car but don't go jumping around as much. Spend your vacation locally at a campground instead of flying on a jet and going on a cruise. Support your local farmers. That is ECO friendly. That also saves money.

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

The carbon tax is really about making yet another speculative market aimed at creating funny money being passed from poor hands to rich ones, based on "points". These points will get rewarded based on how awesome you are and how awesome your friends are. To the rest of the population, the points allotted to normal people wont cover an average household, so the excess carbon production will be taxed. That is why all the smart meters are being forced down our collective throats. We will need to live in little rooms where our carbon points will yield less debt generation. No cars, no high technology, no nothing. We will be peasants in fear of the end of the month when taxes are due. Oh yeah, tax cycles will be more frequent and more insane.
..........

Really funny.

So I just stumbled on this thread.

I'm reading a story now where resources are metered and taxed to in effect "save the planet". It's a short science fiction story from 1990 that was included in a book with a long list of others. It's named The Cairene Purse. I don't remember the last time I read a story that had this. So it's another synchronicity that I read your comment. This has happened to me before on ATS. Lately i've been reading a lot of old science fiction stories. It's always interesting when something I'm reading about appears on ATS from nowhere. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This climate change issue is very widespread so it's not too strange that this coincidence occurs.

I do think that a stricter tax or regulation will be imposed. At this moment, there's just too much momentum in hte AGW movement. All this momentum will have to express itself.

A pentagon paper (or a series of them) has been written. So this matter has already injected itself into the halls of the military industrial complex. It's just a matter of time before it's forced on us. With the billions and trillions of dollars invested into fossil fuels, it's going to be a riot watching how they plan to regulate all of this. It's an impossible task, IMHO. They'll have to twist some rules. And by this I mean twist them so tight that they break and then the whole system comes into question. If you're going to break rules, who's to say which ones you should break? It's something scary.

Originally posted by purplemer

If it is not published yet it is not peer reviewed.

What is your problem with the paper. People trying to make the air we breath cleaner... Big deal..

First of all, several scientists wrote this paper, and it is being printed with the consent of the American Institute of Biological Sciences.

Second of all, atmospheric CO2 is not really a pollutant even when the EPA has labeled it so. But if we are to follow the line of thought of the EPA then water vapor is also a pollutant, since they thought about labeling water vapor a pollutant just like they did to CO2.

The Earth has had more atmospheric CO2 than exists now yet contrary to popular BELIEF the Earth was greener, and there were bigger and stronger animals than exist now.

CO2 is plant food. Since when is plant food a "pollutant"?...

Was the Earth during the times when it was GREENER, thanks to atmospheric CO2, polluted?... It was not...

I have demonstrated these facts many times.

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...

reply to post by purplemer


But hey, it seems that you want to go along with the elitists FORCED environmental proposals which do NOTHING to the environment, but in fact their plans which include sequestration of atmospheric CO2 will certainly cause plant growth to stunt, which will mean LESS food for people and animals as well... But hey, this goes along with their "population control/depopulation" plans...

So you go ahead and keep cheering the elites plans, the truth shows that this subject is nothing but a religion to those who are of similar mind in this topic just as you are

reply to post by rickymouse


One thing is to take care of the environment, and another altogether is to use the environment as an excuse to implement draconian laws that will only make the rich richer, and more powerful meanwhile causing more worldwide starvation with the atmospheric CO2 sequestration plans that are being implemented "to save the planet"...

Taking care of the environment doesn't mean having to give away our individual freedoms, and trust me, the planet has gone through a lot worse than mankind and it survive.

Becoming slaves of the states/government and the elites is not going to save the world...

What makes you think you can save something that has lived, survived and thrived for far longer than you, and all of mankind has?

Nature has survived worst things than mankind can throw at it. I am not saying this is an excuse to dump toxic chemicals in rivers, lakes and oceans... But you can be certain that if the Earth needs saving, there is nothing mankind can do to help it, it can do it very well on it's own.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by rickymouse

 

One thing is to take care of the environment, and another altogether is to use the environment as an excuse to implement draconian laws that will only make the rich richer, and more powerful meanwhile causing more worldwide starvation with the atmospheric CO2 sequestration plans that are being implemented "to save the planet"...

Taking care of the environment doesn't mean having to give away our individual freedoms, and trust me, the planet has gone through a lot worse than mankind and it survive.

Becoming slaves of the states/government and the elites is not going to save the world...

What makes you think you can save something that has lived, survived and thrived for far longer than you, and all of mankind has?

Nature has survived worst things than mankind can throw at it. I am not saying this is an excuse to dump toxic chemicals in rivers, lakes and oceans... But you can be certain that if the Earth needs saving, there is nothing mankind can do to help it, it can do it very well on it's own.

edit on 23-2-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Well, if people don't effectively stem their pollution and quit their buying things that they do not need to help lessen our impact on this planet, I am apt to support a high pollution tax so people can't afford to buy so much. This will lessen our destruction of the environment worldwide. I am also in favor of a worldwide governance of pollution, basically a czar. I see countries polluting the environment of other countries and causing them harm. The United States people want cheap things they really need and don't care if another country pollutes the area around the other side of the globe as long as they get cheap stuff. We exported our conservation instead of fixing our system and along with that exported our real jobs. If something isn't done, the USA will collapse within the next five years because of their deceitful ways in the past.

Sorry if my opinions don't match yours but my observations are based on logical observations of real people and the environment. I have personally seen the problems in people from the effects of mining natural minerals from the earth and changing concentrations in the environment. People don't open their eyes if it interferes with their lifestyle and complain when they see a biodegradable apple core thrown from a car window.

Originally posted by rickymouse

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by rickymouse

 

One thing is to take care of the environment, and another altogether is to use the environment as an excuse to implement draconian laws that will only make the rich richer, and more powerful meanwhile causing more worldwide starvation with the atmospheric CO2 sequestration plans that are being implemented "to save the planet"...

Taking care of the environment doesn't mean having to give away our individual freedoms, and trust me, the planet has gone through a lot worse than mankind and it survive.

Becoming slaves of the states/government and the elites is not going to save the world...

What makes you think you can save something that has lived, survived and thrived for far longer than you, and all of mankind has?

Nature has survived worst things than mankind can throw at it. I am not saying this is an excuse to dump toxic chemicals in rivers, lakes and oceans... But you can be certain that if the Earth needs saving, there is nothing mankind can do to help it, it can do it very well on it's own.

edit on 23-2-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Well, if people don't effectively stem their pollution and quit their buying things that they do not need to help lessen our impact on this planet, I am apt to support a high pollution tax so people can't afford to buy so much. This will lessen our destruction of the environment worldwide. I am also in favor of a worldwide governance of pollution, basically a czar. I see countries polluting the environment of other countries and causing them harm. The United States people want cheap things they really need and don't care if another country pollutes the area around the other side of the globe as long as they get cheap stuff. We exported our conservation instead of fixing our system and along with that exported our real jobs. If something isn't done, the USA will collapse within the next five years because of their deceitful ways in the past.

Sorry if my opinions don't match yours but my observations are based on logical observations of real people and the environment. I have personally seen the problems in people from the effects of mining natural minerals from the earth and changing concentrations in the environment. People don't open their eyes if it interferes with their lifestyle and complain when they see a biodegradable apple core thrown from a car window.

I'd hate to see a pollution tax, but we're already paying it through federally mandated controls using terminology other than tax. Some of those have been very beneficial (controls on sulphur in fossil fuels and acid rain), but some very expensive controls have never proven to have any benefit (NOx). Declaration of CO2 as a toxic gas by the EPA will be devastating if carbon controls and taxation are implemented. Where my biggest issue is, is who will pay? It will ultimately fall in the hands of those who can least afford to pay it. And a lot of our excessive use of energy is driven either by necessity (to be able to have a job) or by politics (failure of rail system and success of trucking industry). And if a carbon tax is implemented, where will the tax go? Obviously into the big government coffer. It's a ruse, just like taxes on tobacco and booze. The government doesn't want to crush those industries because they represent more revenue for their unconstitutional excessive spending programs and evil overseas ventures to wrangle control of foreign economies. It's all about the distribution of money, not whether or not the effects are beneficial.

reply to post by lynxpilot


Everything you said there is true. The reasoning behind a carbon tax is to stem purchasing of items deemed as poluting the environment. If less people can afford them, less people will buy the items. The trouble with increasing inflation occurring is a shootoff of this policy as less sales create less jobs and the companies are forced to raise prices to cover expenses of their factories and to maintain profits. It is not the answer as related to our present economy. We need to focus on researching some of the old energy generation technology that existed but the patents were bought up by big businesses. It is time to start using some of this stuff that I know is real and works. A local man sold a patent for a carburation system that made cars get a hundred miles to a gallon back in the fifties I have heard, taking the money and retiring, thinking his invention would hit the market and he would gain fame. It was buried. His home was cleaned out after he died, I wonder if someone has his stuff.

Oil companies did this a lot back through history to maintain their control of things. This was dangerous to their future so it was considered acceptable. Why not release it now though. Can you imagine how many jobs would be lost if this old knowledge was released though? Good paying jobs.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

You may be right in some way. No doubt there're things we don't know. Scientists get hot headed sometimes. However, did you know that the last time our planet had similar Co2 levels was millions of years ago? A recent study says 15 million years ago. Back then sea levels were 100 feet higher and there was little ice on Antarctica and temperatures were several degrees higher.

Of course, to say that time periods where Co2 levels in the past correlate with today also means that other conditions in the world will also be equal is a stretch. Correlation is not causation. To say that higher Co2 levels means a warmer planet is something many AGW skeptics debate. They might debate other things as well. And in your case, you say that more Co2 means stronger plants.

Thing is, anytime we change the Co2 level as rapidly as we have, we're taking on a risk. We're thrusting Co2 levels to a level they were at millions of years ago and don't expect consequences? How can there be no consequences? This is an experiment, whether you want to admit it or not.

What's happening right now is an experiment. There're so many things we're changing. In the end, you may be right that more Co2 will make plants stronger, but as far as I'm concerned, you may be wrong. And there might be many things you're skipping past that will spell doom for this world. I'm sorry, I do not have the same level of confidence that you do in our ambitions on this planet.

We can already make this planet a wasteland with nuclear weapons. To say that we cannot change our world because it's so much bigger and older is not supportable. We most certainly can, if desired. I don't think we will, but if we truly wanted to, we could give this planet a heart attack. I imagine life might regrow after our choice to destroy it, after some many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousand of years or more, but I might be overestimating its abilities.

I support reducing our emissions, but I don't support forcing it. I believe freedom is the best answer. People thrive best when they feel free. Innovation prefers a diverse lesser controlled environment. However, if undeniable evidence is put before me that says we will irrevocably destroy our ability to live here then I would be forced to invoke national security as a reason to prohibit our emissions. I would consider it an act of war and would be forced to use unpopular policies.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

You may be right in some way. No doubt there're things we don't know. Scientists get hot headed sometimes. However, did you know that the last time our planet had similar Co2 levels was millions of years ago? A recent study says 15 million years ago. Back then sea levels were 100 feet higher and there was little ice on Antarctica and temperatures were several degrees higher.

Of course, to say that time periods where Co2 levels in the past correlate with today also means that other conditions in the world will also be equal is a stretch. Correlation is not causation. To say that higher Co2 levels means a warmer planet is something many AGW skeptics debate. They might debate other things as well. And in your case, you say that more Co2 means stronger plants.

Thing is, anytime we change the Co2 level as rapidly as we have, we're taking on a risk. We're thrusting Co2 levels to a level they were at millions of years ago and don't expect consequences? How can there be no consequences? This is an experiment, whether you want to admit it or not.

edit on 23-2-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

Humans could not live in that environment fifteen million years ago. I tend to believe we have a reason for being here and that reason is to help the world and not to chaotically destroy it or jeopardize the ability of us to live on it without stress. The ratrace is unnecessary, keeping up with the Jones's has taken over people's reasoning. Having everything you want causes a need for more. The treats we had years ago have become everyday needs but the needs are not real. We have gotten spoiled. What is wrong with creating and attending a local social function with people of your community? Why do we need to go on a cruise when we can get food poisoning locally? Why not spend your time at a bbq at the local beach than sitting at an airport and in a jet to spend time with people you may never see again. I liked flying in a jet, I learned it was fun in one trip, it got boring after that. Why not support your community instead of exporting your money to a distant community or country. Take care of your own by supporting your own.

Originally posted by rickymouse
...
Sorry if my opinions don't match yours but my observations are based on logical observations of real people and the environment. I have personally seen the problems in people from the effects of mining natural minerals from the earth and changing concentrations in the environment. People don't open their eyes if it interferes with their lifestyle and complain when they see a biodegradable apple core thrown from a car window.

You are giving more than just your opinion, you want people to be forced to accept your views, and this is a big problem with a lot of people today who think they are right when in fact they are basing their opinions on false information and biased views.

So far what the carbon credits scheme has done is for millionaires to become multimillionaires to billionaires, such as Al Gore. Companies form dummy companies under another name, this company will have an x amount of carbon credits it can use, and since it is a fake company the owners will just transfer their carbon credits to their real company....

Yeah, this has been helping the environment a lot right?...