Here's some pictures you'll never see in the mainstream media........

[Anonymous No.8521108]

This is what Earth looks like in Winter, i.e. right now. Notice anything? Now why do you suppose you never see this view from space, when they're talking about "climate change".......because it doesn't fit the narrative. Here's the thing no Environut has ever been able to explain to me.
The co2 in the Earths atmosphere is currently sitting at about 400ppm. Plant life on our little ball here dies at levels slightly below 200ppm co2. Plant life thrives best at levels of 1000ppm+ co2. That is why ALL indoor greenhouses artificially raise the level of co2 to at least 1000ppm co2 to encourage better plant growth. This is a fucking fact, look it up.
Now.......why would plant life on Earth evolve to grow best at co2 levels of 1000+ppm, if that wasn't more in line with the long term history of Earths atmosphere? It wouldn't.
If anything we currently have a dangerously LOW level of co2 in the atmosphere. Plant life is currently 200ppm away from dying, and at least 600ppm away from optimal conditions.

Ok Environuts.......please explain to me why the plants are lying?.........waiting

[Anonymous No.8521110]

The other side too.........

[Anonymous No.8521129]

>>8521108
I'm with you on doubting anthropogenic climate change but that argument isn't valid.

Just because plants grow best under a 1000ppm CO2 atmosphere doesn't mean they evolved from one. Like how humans irrefutably grow best by injecting steroids, but that doesn't mean it's good for us. Plants probably just never had an evolutionary pressure that gave them a limit on the amount of CO2 they can manage.

[Anonymous No.8521146]

>>8521108
> "climate change"
> doesn't fit the narrative
> Environut
> This is a fucking fact, look it up.

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8521150]

>>8521129
Also, nobody ever said climate change would be bad for plant life. It's only bad for humans because of rising see levels and more severe tropical storms, that's why it's worth trying to stop.

[Anonymous No.8521173]

>>8521150
Trying to stop what? Nature?
>>8521146
You're right, I did come from >>>>>>/pol/
I came here, because I hoped to find some stronger minds........

[Anonymous No.8521176]

There's already too many climate threads. Stick to one already you insuffrable /pol/ morons.

[Anonymous No.8521239]

>>8521176
Good answer........go back to watching Big Bang Theory for all your scientific knowledge.
Fuck I thought /pol/ was dumb, but you guys take the cake, and then spill it all over yourselves.....
I'm sorry my original question is beyond you, but don't feel bad. I've been asking it for years, and have yet to get a good answer.

Because there is no good answer, just deflections..............

[Anonymous No.8521271]

>>8521173
>Trying to stop what? Nature?
The climate right now is pretty nice and is conducive to our survival and comfort. I'd rather not have my descendants live in The Legend of Zelda: WindWaker scenario.

Unless you're completely against the concept of terraforming, I see no reason to not try to keep the earth comfortable for humans and keep the current species of animals and plants we live with alive. The fear of runaway climate change seems to be something we should be cognizant of too, and if we can reduce that risk by reducing our co2 emissions, I'm all for it.

[Anonymous No.8521272]

>>8521108
> spherical earth
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8521355]

>>8521239
Because you didn't propose a good question dipshit.

You evidently feel the need to disregard everything bad about concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere growing at an absurd rate, and cherrypick the fact that plants use carbon to survive, thus if there's more carbon, they are better equipped to survive. Also, lets not forget those numbers you pulled were completely out of your ass. Properly cite your shit if you're going to come here and beg us for a debate. Everything a quick search gave makes that 1000 PPM number sound pretty eccentric.

The issue is not the concentration itself, the issue is how fastly this concentration is increasing growing. Without proportionate carbon sinks to levy this increase, the scale tips, and the system becomes chaotic.

Further, if increases in atmospheric carbon concentration are suppose to allow plants to thrive, why have 40% of phytoplankton died in the past century?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html

Last bit: towards the OP of this thread. Yes those are pictures we'll see, because they're made publically available. There isn't some establishment conspiracy corrupting all of this data, you're just a fucking sperglord who considers anything you disagree with to be untrustworthy.

[Anonymous No.8521379]

>>8521355
I mean, even on /pol/ they debate with (sometimes questionable) sources.

[Anonymous No.8521421]

>>8521355

"Further, if increases in atmospheric carbon concentration are suppose to allow plants to thrive, why have 40% of phytoplankton died in the past century?"
Idk.......maybe because of all the garbage people keep throwing in the Oceans? Maybe?

..........begging you, really, and the question I proposed wasn't a good one? I tried to keep it at a grade five level so you'd be sure to understand it. I'll shoot lower next time.

"Last bit" It has nothing to do with what I disagree with, It has to do with basic biology and chemistry. If this shit is out of your wheel house, just say so. No need for the long windedness..............

I'll pose the question again for someone who graduated fifth grade, there has to be at least one or two around here.

Why are the plants lying?

[Anonymous No.8521440]

>>8521421
>Why are the plants lying?
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.8521455]

>>8521440
It means nothing, because the plants aren't lying.

People are.

[Anonymous No.8521464]

Goes to /sci/ once, gets shit on for poorly worded question, fallacious arguments, and questionable facts without citations.
Thanks for the laughs OP, now go back to /pol/ and don't drag your tail on the ground on the way out.

[Anonymous No.8521494]

>>8521108

[Anonymous No.8521499]

>>8521464
deflect, deflect, change subject.....still no answer.

Worded for a fifth grader............deflect, deflect, insult (that was creative), insult again, change subject........still no answer.

I expected more here. Disappointing.

[Anonymous No.8521525]

>>8521108
Go back to /pol/

you post-fact nonsense is no good here. Present research from a credible source if you want to taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.8521529]

>>8521525
I see English isn't your first language.........

deflect, deflect, deflect, change subject........yawn

[Anonymous No.8521555]

>>8521108
If you bring credible sources, then we can evaluate it. Where did you get these numbers?

[Anonymous No.8521562]

>>8521529
> doesn't know how to use ellipses.........................................................

[Anonymous No.8521565]

>>8521555
Carbon dioxide enrichment
The possibility of using carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouse cultivation to enhance plant growth has been known for nearly 100 years.[17][18][19]After the development of equipment for the controlled serial enrichment of carbon dioxide, the technique was established on a broad scale in the Netherlands.[20] Secondary metabolites, e.g., cardiac glycosides in Digitalis lanata, are produced in higher amounts by greenhouse cultivation at enhanced temperature and at enhanced carbon dioxide concentration.[21] Commercial greenhouses are now frequently located near appropriate industrial facilities for mutual benefit. For example, Cornerways Nursery in the UK is strategically placed near a major sugar refinery,[22] consuming both waste heat and CO2 from the refinery which would otherwise be vented to atmosphere. The refinery reduces its carbon emissions, whilst the nursery enjoys boosted tomato yields and does not need to provide its own greenhouse heating.

Enrichment only becomes effective where, by Liebig's law, carbon dioxide has become the limiting factor. In a controlled greenhouse, irrigation may be trivial, and soils may be fertile by default.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
http://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide
https://www.hydrofarm.com/resources/articles/co2_enrichment.php

http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant_growth.html
Enough sources? Nice digits btw........again, please kindly answer the question if you can.
Why are the plants lying?

[Anonymous No.8521570]

>>8521562
Actual does...

Chooses to do things differently.....................

[Anonymous No.8521581]

wouldn't it be more logical to say that plant life evolved to need the average ppm of C02 which at one time was 200 then it quickly grew to 400?

[Anonymous No.8521590]

>>8521581
Maybe. I've been trying to get an intelligent answer all night. You're the first, and you did it with a question.
Maybe there is still hope. Cheers!

[Anonymous No.8521612]

>>8521590
Just got here for the night. I could give a flying fuck less about this entire debate but it profits me to at least have knowledge of both sides.

I don't think that global warming is that big a deal for me and my children's immediate future though until something ground breaking comes out on either end I wont take a side.

Though thinking on my "question".. It would be more likely that plants evolved to need the average co2 that was around them

Kind of like when humans can tell when there is less oxygen in the air (or when they are exercising and there bodies try and take in more)

[Anonymous No.8521663]

>>8521108
>why do you suppose you never see this view from space,

Actually I've wondered why polar satellite photos and time-lapse videos are so rare. There should be an ongoing stream of them to monitor ice change.

[Anonymous No.8521668]

>>8521663
Right? Exactly.

[Anonymous No.8521766]

>>8521108
Op please fuck off back to /pol/.
The plants are growing better because of osmotic pressure.
A higher concentration of CO2 might be beneficial for plant growth but overall climate change would still hurt plant life.

Why don't you go set your house on fire?
After all it will keep your house warm and it's way cheaper than turning on the heater.

[Anonymous No.8521795]

>>8521129
>never had an evolutionary pressure
C4 plants possibly had

[Anonymous No.8521819]

>>8521239
psssh… nothin personnel… kid…

[Anonymous No.8521825]

>>8521499
No one will bother trying to convince an ignorant fool that has been brainwashed by a board full of trolls and stormfags. Maybe stop browsing /pol/ for a month and you'll realize how much of a sperglord you were being soon enough.

[Anonymous No.8521847]

>>8521129
I love how OP ignored the first response then continually claimed no one was refuting him. I sincerely hope he's trolling and not an actual moron.

[Anonymous No.8521863]

>>8521108
>To all you global warming deniers:
>Stop saying there's no evidence for anthropocentric climate change. This took like five minutes to find, and it's all recent evidence and in the best scientific journals.
>>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270
>>http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full
>>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719
>>science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671
>>science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/465
>>science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1517
>>http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
>>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html
>>http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1784.html
>>http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/full/nclimate1963.html
>>http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2397.html
>>http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3110.html
>>http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
>>http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
>>http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
>>http://www.pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

[Anonymous No.8521864]

>>8521108
The Canadian Ministry of Agriculture recommends supplementation of 1000 ppm to reach 1400 ppm during the day. More has little effect on growth, more than 1800 ppm has a negative effect. I stop at 800 ppm because I don't get it for free. Workplace safety regulations limit is 5000 ppm. To put it into perspective: 100 ppm means 1 CO2 molecule out of 10,000 air molecules. This is the difference in global CO2 concentration between 1900 and 2015.

Fortunately no one will ever substantially reduce CO2 output as long as it is related to GDP and feeding the rising global population. CO2 is the 'Gas of Life' and naturally, plants love it.

[Anonymous No.8521867]

>>8521108
Op, this picture is because earth's rotational axis is 23 degrees off center. The north is currently experiencing "winter".

The very gradual process of global warming isn't going to make snow go away any time soon.

[Anonymous No.8521884]

>>8521108
Plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere and incorporate the carbon into themselves, that is how they grow, so it makes sense that they would grow better with an atmosphere that has more CO2. Also, plants can't just evolve to grow the fastest with an atmosphere that has a less than optimal amount of CO2, that is like designing a car that can go a million miles by burning a single gallon of fuel. Plants instead evolved to make the best out of the atmosphere we have, and a byproduct of that evolution is that you can overdrive them by adding more CO2 to air.

[Anonymous No.8521887]

>>8521108
>>8521110
What you're describing is actually called "weather", more precisely "Winter"

Something the French didn't have these last yars, normally all of Northern France should be covered with snow too in a normal winter.

>Plant life is currently 200ppm away from dying, and at least 600ppm away from optimal conditions.
Not everyone is a /pol/tards, so it doesn't concern all of us.

[Anonymous No.8521902]

Yeah but would you want to fucking live in a greenhouse OP?

[Anonymous No.8521907]

>Pose a question
>/sci/ shoots it down as it always does (literally the norm. 80% of all question threads die aftet 100 posts arguing about the question in the first place and how to pose a better question)
>Question was posed like shit
>Get mad that /sci/ doesn't agree with your political narrative on climate
>doesn't understand the difference between weather and Climate
>Keeps using nonsensical rhetorical made up idioms in an effort to prove some sort of high ground point
>Don't get concise answer immediately because/sci/ is arguing over what the question means in the first place because no one can ever pose a question properly (even you, retard)
>get mad
>LMAO EVEN LE POL USES MORE BETTUR SOURCES POL IS MUCH SMARTER AND IS MUCH BETTER DEBATE AND UNDRTSTAND MY QESTCHIN

Then go ask /pol/, you mongo. I'm not even going to make an effort to answer this threads OP to any capacity because again: learn how to ask a question before you ask it, then don't be mad when the sciencr board emulates exactly what a lot of actual scientists do in the acedemic arena; spend most of their time debatibg the assumptions made about the thesis and what the thesis and study meant in the first place rather than the methods and results (usually debated on later when everyone gets on the same page)

Climate change threads need to be banned since they are always the same thing no matter what. Every single time.

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8521909]

>>8521108
>This is what Earth looks like in Winter
>Winter on Erath
Nigga please.
This alone negates anything you will ever post on /sci/

[Anonymous No.8521952]

deflect, deflect, insult more, deflect, change subject.......still no answer.

Still disappointed.

[Anonymous No.8521975]

>>8521907
The funny thing is that the second poster pretty much answered OP's main question and he just chose to ignore it and instead argue with the posters that were shitting on him.

[Anonymous No.8521982]

I wonder if people are paid to defend this shitfest that is climate change, and in particular global warming. Grow up.

[Anonymous No.8521995]

>>8521975
The funny thing is, no he didn't. A better analogy would be comparing co2 with plants to food for humans, not steroids. The steroid analogy would be more accurate if the "second poster" was talking about chemical fertilizers or fucking pesticides, which he wasn't.
I should have known that trying to debate botany with a bunch of math geeks wasn't going to go well, my bad.
Perhaps /sci/ should change its name to /math/, then you wouldn't have to worry about being challenged on things that you obviously can't comprehend...........One more link for you, not like it matters.

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/

[Anonymous No.8521997]

>>8521982
They obviously are.....at least 97% of them.

[Anonymous No.8522005]

>>8521108
>Denier meme #1: it's cold today therefore AGW is false!
AGW says that winters on average are getting warmer, not that winters don't exist. Moron.

>Denier meme #2: CO2, it's what plants crave!
This ignores that CO2 is only the limiting factor for growth in a completely artificial greenhouse environment where all other factors like soil nutrients, water, and temperature are also controlled. In reality, the vast majority of agriculture occurs outside in the climate, where things like drought and other negative affects of AGW have a much bigger effect than increased CO2.

[Anonymous No.8522008]

>>8521995
>http://www.plantsneedco2.org
What the fuck is this shit.

>>8521997
And I suppose you have evidence for this massive global conspiracy?
Or do you just believe it because it's convenient to your political views?

[Anonymous No.8522012]

>>8521995
Yes there are clearly no negative side effects to eating more and more food, you're absolutely correct, that is a better analogy :^)

[Anonymous No.8522014]

>>8522005

This ignores that CO2 is only the limiting factor for growth in a completely artificial greenhouse environment where all other factors like soil nutrients, water, and temperature are also controlled. In reality, the vast majority of agriculture occurs outside in the climate, where things like drought and other negative affects of AGW have a much bigger effect than increased CO2.

Wow, and you fuckers dare tell me I don't know the difference between weather and "climate change"
Do you people even read what spews off of your keyboards? You should sometime, just for giggles......

[Anonymous No.8522017]

>>8522012
Yes there are clearly no negative side effects to eating more and more food, you're absolutely correct, that is a better analogy :^)

There is clearly a side effect for not getting enough food, disease and death.

[Anonymous No.8522053]

>>8521129
Your analogy doesn't work either.
Humans don't irrefutably grow best with HGH because as you said it makes us unhealthy.
Size for us isn't related to healthiness, but size and yield for plants is; as it directly correlates with ability to thrive.

[Anonymous No.8522212]

What's good for wild plants isn't necessarily good for industrial agriculture.

[Anonymous No.8522271]

>>8521995
Yeah, I was definitely talking about his steroid analogy and not the
>Just because plants grow best under a 1000ppm CO2 atmosphere doesn't mean they evolved from one.
and the
>Plants probably just never had an evolutionary pressure that gave them a limit on the amount of CO2 they can manage.
part.

>second poster in quotes
Are you implying I'm him? Because I am not.

[Anonymous No.8522328]

>>8522014
Is there an argument in that post or are you just having a temper tantrum?

[Anonymous No.8522347]

>>8522017
CO2 is not a limiting factor for agriculture so this is just idiotic warmongering.

[Anonymous No.8522378]

Scientists never said the earth's climate never changed in the past, they claim it never changed as fast as it is changing right now.
Scientists fear it's changing too fast for life (or evolution) to adabt wich could cause mass extinction of certain life forms wich would break the food chain and lead to more mass extinction.
We are pretty confident plants feels pretty good about it, but the animals not so much.

[Anonymous No.8522424]

>>8521529
Do you have a fetish for those "...................." or something?
Whats next? Are you gonna start writing in all caps? WHY IS NOBODY LISTENING TO MY.....RETARDED...CHRISTOPHER WALKEN SPEACH!!!................

[Anonymous No.8522438]

>>8522008
Its always the jews, anon. Or the Illuminati. Or the Clintons. You can point to the fact that 97-98% of climate scientists around the world agree on something, and there will always be some edgy retards going on about a world-wide interconnected conspiracy. Even the polar ice is in on it. Polar bears? In on it. Those people who started documenting mean average temperatures back in the 1800's? In on it. Also, they seem to time-travel. No matter how hard you try, there will always be that one person who saw a badly edited Youtube-clip that somehow showed him THE TRUUUUFTH or some shit. And no amount of reason or arguing is gonna help you convince him otherwise.
The same can be said for Flat-Earthers, AntiVaxxers and Moon-hoaxers.

[Anonymous No.8522439]

>>8521108
If CO2 levels are optimal for growth, plants will grow, causing CO2 levels to drop, leading to CO2 levels that aren't optimal for growth.

And humans "grow" best on 3k+ calorie diets, especially considering muscular hypertrophy etc., but we still manage to live and reproduce at 1.5k-2k just fine. Optimal levels of growth doesn't mean standard or even minimum levels of growth.

[Anonymous No.8522483]

>>8521108
Water is healthy too but I can still drown you in it.

And just because something is good for plants doesn't mean it's good for humans.

[Anonymous No.8522494]

>>8521239
Why the fuck.......do people type........like this? .... Jesus fuck, you're retarded

[Anonymous No.8522514]

Hey op, plants don't need just co2 to thrive, they need water and nitrogen. And although the air is made up of 73% nitrogen, it's not in the form plants need to grow. So with increasingly severe droughts around the equator coming in the future, as well as no extra nitrogen, those plants will not grow.
Qed bitch

[Anonymous No.8522542]

>>8521108
>faggoty stupid talk from brainlet

please kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.8522550]

>>8522053
Plants grown in higher CO2 concentrations are also less nutritious. If you equate nutrition with plant health then at higher CO2 concentrations they're unhealthy.

[Anonymous No.8522562]

>>8522438
>You can point to the fact that 97-98% of climate scientists around the world agree on something
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that a quick trip to the unemployment line if they don't? It's an obvious conflict of interest.

>Flat-Earthers, AntiVaxxers and Moon-hoaxers
Nice strawman! There is a whole lot more money and power tied up in the AGW meme by several orders of magnitude except for perhaps the big pharma flu vaccine biz but even still. Controlling the remaining hydro carbons and who gets them through a meme is a blatant and literal power grab if there ever was one considering we live in the oil age. It was never anything but political, the only science present is political and social science.

[Anonymous No.8522580]

>>8522562
Just no

[Anonymous No.8522615]

>>8522580
You greatly underestimate the worth of the "green energy" economy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels

[Anonymous No.8522628]

>why would plant life on Earth evolve to grow best at co2 levels of 1000+ppm, if that wasn't more in line with the long term history of Earths atmosphere?

Why do you have a dick if it is never going to be used?

[Anonymous No.8522639]

>>8521795
Strange, the C4 390 ppm sample looks smaller than 300 and 400 ppm.

[Anonymous No.8522643]

>/pol/ thinks we care what it thinks
Most smart people simply ignore stupid people.

[Anonymous No.8522648]

>>8522580
Ref. pic. Research money has usually been sparse. It is however in CO2 quota trade that the money is, enough to get the Vampire Squid deeply involved: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/creating-a-034-wall-street-034-for-carbon/

[Anonymous No.8522665]

>>8522378
>>8522439

Not only that, but people tend to ignore the increasing CO2 emissions will mean a warmer climate. Which would lead to more wildfires occurring all around which means less plants.

[Anonymous No.8522673]

>>8522615
>>8522648
>The scientists are corrupt because they need to maintain their grant money

Provides simple graph explaining why that's not really feasible

>Raaaah, the green energy sector makes lots of money!

No one was talking about the green energy sector becoming more and more profitable (which is a good thing btw), I'm just pointing out that the scientists collaborating and falsifying research is a stupid argument, lrn2readingcomprehension

[Anonymous No.8522718]

>>8522580
That's a horrible meme enabling infographic.
The AGW propaganda budget is enormous, the difference between big oil and the AGW meme enablers is the former actually produces a tangible product, the later is just a parasitic new age religion, produces nothing of value, spreads fear and loathing and demands to be paid for it all through a parasitic energy taxation system to engorge itself. This type of parasite if enabled will eventually kills its host which is modern society itself.

>>8522615
>Government subsidies have helped wind and solar get a foothold in global power markets, but economies of scale are the true driver of falling prices: The cost of solar power has fallen to 1/150th of its level in the 1970s, while the total amount of installed solar has soared 115,000-fold
That's because the highly polluting manufacturing process is done in China or India. Solar and wind can ever only supplement an electrical grid, only in certain areas and do not address transportation.

>The reason solar-power generation will increasingly dominate: It’s a technology, not a fuel. Hmmm, OK! Good luck replacing energy with technology!
Doomberg looks to be pumping alt fuel in the article and that's their business I suppose but looks suspicious. It cherry picks its data, goes on about coal use decline and doesn't mention rise in natural gas use and like so much energy ignorance today, confuses energy for technology. The former is just that - an energy source, the later an energy sink. EROEI is far more important but not mentioned.

Bottom line is fossil fuels will be spent until EROEI is less than 1 and probably even beyond that. By enabling the AGW meme you are merely affixing an enormous parasite to the entire process.

[Anonymous No.8522740]

>>8522580
I'm not a global warming denier, but the same argument could be used to show that GMOs are dangerous, which they are not.

[Anonymous No.8522788]

>>8522718
If their propaganda budget is so high, maybe you should switch sides and start shilling for them instead of fossil fuel companies.

Guess what, fossil fuels have been heavily subsidized for a century in the us, you think all that infrastructure just happened because of little business men and investors? No, it came out of the taxpayers pocket.

And you don't need an electrical grid to supply isolated communities with solar power because battery storing tech is becoming more and more viable each day.

Get with the fucking times

>>8522740
How so?
As I understand it, the scientific community has a general consensus that gmo's are safe, and it's a good portion of the public crying conspiracy among scientists while the organic food industry shills against gmos

[Anonymous No.8522801]

>>8522788
>As I understand it, the scientific community has a general consensus that gmo's are safe, and it's a good portion of the public crying conspiracy among scientists while the organic food industry shills against gmos
Thats the way it goes where i live, at least.
The only ones yelling are the Organic and Eco-nutters who seem to think anything beyond growing things in their own shit would be playing God, and that Montesanto or whatever is after them for knowing "the truth" or some shit.

[Anonymous No.8522804]

>>8522788
Except for the scientific consensus part, the whole GMO thing is local activists trying to ruin the economy vs. big evil companies like monsanto trying to hide the fact that GMOs are bad.

[Anonymous No.8522805]

>>8521108
Yeah bro, found this little nugget the other day

[Anonymous No.8522809]

>>8522801
>>8522804
I think we can agree that gmo's are safe, agw is real, and that the public needs to be more scientifically literate, because the morons of the left crying government conspiracy to subvert our minds with kemicullz and the morons of the left crying about muh guvernment intervention taking muh monee and guns is ruining this planet.

[Anonymous No.8522814]

>>8522673
Your argument is that the oil sector budget is greatly superior to the green energy sector, heavily implying it's impossible for it to make significant bribes.

As I've shown you it's false, the green lobby is an order of magnitude more influential than the oil lobby.
Any intelectually honest person would conclude that it's in the best interest of this lobby to use the same old tactics that other lobbies use, like the tabaco lobby, who has published for decades "research" proving tabaco is safe or even beneficial for your health by bribing scientists to only publish part of their data.

[Anonymous No.8522816]

>>8522788
>How so?
>As I understand it, the scientific community has a general consensus that gmo's are safe, and it's a good portion of the public crying conspiracy among scientists while the organic food industry shills against gmos

Why the fuck is there so much corn syrup in everything though? I'm not against the use of it but rather the quantities of it in products. Unless things have always been this sweet even in the early 1900s?

[Anonymous No.8522825]

>>8522805
Since the water level has gone down since 1984 then global warming must be fake. Water is disappearing..

[Anonymous No.8522828]

>>8522809
Thats the good thing about today.
You dont need education to make wild accusations, now that we have twitter and Youtube. Nothing is "too stupid" to blog about.
And no matter how much effort someone puts into proper research and information, there will always be a bunch going "nu-uh, i dont believe your facts because it has difficult words and makes me question things".

[Anonymous No.8522834]

>>8522814
So we are back to
>the green conspiracy pays to manipulate data about ice melt, rising sea temperature, Co2-data in oceans/air, mean average temp documentations over 150 years, ice core sampling and basic 8th grade chemistry.

Right

[Anonymous No.8522857]

>>8522814
That's because a lot of countries are investing in looking for other sources of energy.

The US is pretty much the only ones that don't want to.

And what's wrong with not wanting to rely on fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.8522867]

>>8522857
>And what's wrong with not wanting to rely on fossil fuels.
It means that you are part of the world-wide Jew/Clinton Foundation conspiracy to push the Global Warming Anti Jesus Propaganda down the throat of innocent people.

[Anonymous No.8522874]

>>8522834
>Scientists can't be bribed!
>You can't have enough power to manipulate published data.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2013/oct/21/medical-research-health
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/920/art%253A10.1186%252F1617-9625-2-4-163.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1186%2F1617-9625-2-4-163&token2=exp=1481149436~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F920%2Fart%25253A10.1186%25252F1617-9625-2-4-163.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1186%252F1617-9625-2-4-163*~hmac=980894ec92c0a6c1da6ba3303a653feb326bfaf86cc748cdc47a1a81cccaca9e

[Anonymous No.8522881]

>>8522874
>98% of scientists that agree on AGW are being bribed.

Wew lad.

[Anonymous No.8522882]

>>8522874
>Tobacco
That draws the parallel of tobacco - fossil shills if anything

[Anonymous No.8522884]

>>8522857
>And what's wrong with not wanting to rely on fossil fuels.

1) OPEC

2) Environment

3) Long term sustainability

[Anonymous No.8522886]

I thought the issue with global warming was the energy being kept as heat in the atmosphere, causing ecological disaster due to global temperature increase? Why are we discussing the affect it has on plants? That's not the issue, the issue is the increase in heat causing acute, irreversible changes to ecological balance. A small experiment in a greenhouse does not reflect the tremendous amount of ecological variety on earth.

[Anonymous No.8522889]

>>8522874
>a few cases of fraud somehow equates to 98% of climate scientists from all over the world and countless different nationalities/universities are somehow falsifying all their data for half a century

Oh i'm sorry, Seems i underestimated the Illuminati.

[Anonymous No.8522902]

>>8522886
Yeah, I don't get how people ignore that aspect.

>muh plants!

let's ignore the fact that drought and wildfires will be more common.

[Anonymous No.8522990]

>>8521108
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/352/6293/1517.full.pdf

TRUMPFAGS GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD AWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.8523039]

>>8521863
ay some of those links are dead bruv

[Anonymous No.8523050]

>>8522816
Because corn agriculture in the US is heavily subsidized, because of the farm lobby, so corn syrup is cheaper than imported sugar. There's nothing wrong with corn syrup though.

[Anonymous No.8523054]

>>8521110
>>8521108
Wow, Earth gets cold during winter, and water falls as frozen precipitate, who would have thought!

Oh, and before you start claiming that the ice-sheets in Greenland / artic are perfectly stable due to this picture, understand that there is a NET LOSS globally of sea ice every single year, I'm not talking about seasonal sea ice, which builds up every winter due to the low temperatures of the arctic, I'm talking about the sea ice that has existed in the arctic without melting for thousands of years, which is rapidly decreasing every single year.

This is in contrast to the Southern hemisphere, where the ice sheets have actually expanded in the past decades, however there is a net loss of sea ice globally due to how rapidly the polar ice sheet is melting.

[Anonymous No.8523064]

Your entire argument that more CO2 = more plants thrive doesn't account for a number of things:

First off, CO2 isn't the only nutrient that plants need to thrive. You have to take into account water, soil quality and soil nutrients.

Climate change effects soil quality, it effects water scarcity, and it effects nutrient quality of soils. While its true that plants that already have an abundance of water and other nutrients can thrive when they are grown in an environment with more CO2, this does not mean that more CO2 is better for every plant in every environment worldwide. You simply are not taking into account the fact that climate change will cause loss of plant life in many regions of the world, due to drought, water scarcity and soil erosion.

[Anonymous No.8523219]

>>8521129
>>8521108
Fpbp. OP that's not how evolution works. Your entire point is trash.

[Anonymous No.8523350]

>>8522562
>Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that a quick trip to the unemployment line if they don't? It's an obvious conflict of interest.
That's not obvious at all. If you want to claim that, you're actually going to need to demonstrate it.

>>8522615
>You greatly underestimate the worth of the "green energy" economy.
It's worth shit-all next to oil coal and gas.

>Bloomberg
No.

>>8522718
The paper the graph comes from isn't terribly well regarded. IIRC, most of the stuff I've read puts PV at 11 or more..

>parasitic new age religion
Just stop. You sound like an idiot, and no-one is going to be convinced but "I don't like it so it's a religion" part502.

>Solar and wind can ever only supplement an electrical grid
"Only ever" is an exceptionally strong claim.
Also, going to the maxim,um amount of solar and wind power the grid can currently support would be a massive improvement from where we are.

>Bottom line is fossil fuels will be spent until EROEI is less than 1 and probably even beyond that.
Just throwing your hands in the air and calling it inevitable strikes me as pretty dumb.

>By enabling the AGW meme you are merely affixing an enormous parasite to the entire process.
You seem to have an incredibly flexible idea of "truth".

>>8522886
>Why are we discussing the affect it has on plants?
Because that matters to anyone who has to eat?

[Anonymous No.8523352]

Now breitbart is bring the /pol/fags here. Fuck

[Anonymous No.8523358]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa
>Trump to name Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma attorney general suing EPA on climate change, to head the EPA
I've never felt this level of rage before.

[Anonymous No.8523363]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa
>Trump to name Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma attorney general suing EPA on climate change, to head the EPA
I've never felt this level of rage before.

[Anonymous No.8523393]

>>8523350
go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.8523449]

>>8523350
>>8523393
apologies, please stay

[Anonymous No.8523482]

I can only hope that these grow much faster,
I've planted about 40 Sequoias and 165 Redwoods around my property.

[Anonymous No.8523483]

>ITT: Cucks

The fact that you fags can't understand the truth just baffles me, especially when you're supposed to be the ones with the intelligence. Your brainwashed leftist idiocy is the true reason why Trump won.

[Anonymous No.8523489]

>>8523483
you though

you have to go back

[Anonymous No.8523493]

>>8523482
unless you've planted the bodies of trump supporters underneath, you've done less than nothing

[Anonymous No.8523494]

>>8521108
>Plant life is currently 200ppm away from dying, and at least 600ppm away from optimal conditions.

>optimal = halfway between the minimum and maximum

holy shit hahaha

[Anonymous No.8523500]

>>8522902
Also, expect more mosquitos and botflies.