• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global warming my ass.

vegas giants said:
Great. Let's see your evidence
Click to expand...

CO2 on us submarines - Google Search

Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003).
Click to expand...

3 Carbon Dioxide | Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants: Volume 1 | The National Academies Press

CO2 is a simple asphyxiant and lethal asphyxiations have been reported at concentrations as low as 110,000 ppm (Hamilton and Hardy 1974). Loss of consciousness can occur within a minute of exposure at 300,000 ppm and within 5-10 minutes (min) of exposure at 100,000 ppm (HSDB 2004). The effects of concentrations of CO2 between 7,000 and 300,000 ppm in humans and animals are discussed below and include
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
"Greener planet" is not inherently beneficial to human beings. Our food crops gain more mass with more CO2... and become less nutritious.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They will be just as nutritious if the soil has suficent minerals in it.

Us humans can put fertiliser on the land and make sure we get good food. We could also, should we wish to. grow crops which would be selected for increased quality of nutrition.

change_in_leaf_area.jpg
 
Tim the plumber said:
CO2 on us submarines - Google Search



3 Carbon Dioxide | Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants: Volume 1 | The National Academies Press
Click to expand...

Effects of Low-Level Inhalation Exposure to Carbon Dioxide in Indoor Environments: A Short Review on Human Health and Psychomotor Performance - PubMed

Scientific literature and documents pertaining to the effects of inhalation exposure to carbon dioxide (CO2) on human health and psychomotor performance were reviewed. Linear physiological changes in circulatory, cardiovascular, and autonomic systems on exposure to CO2 at concentrations ranging from 500 to 5000 ppm were evident. Human experimental studies have suggested that short-term CO2 exposure beginning at 1000 ppm affects cognitive performances including decision making and problem resolution. Changes in autonomic systems due to low-level exposure to CO2 may involve these effects. Further research on the long-term effects of low-level CO2 exposure on the autonomic system is required. Numerous epidemiological studies indicate an association between low-level exposure to CO2 beginning at 700 ppm and building-related symptoms. Respiratory symptoms have been indicated in children exposed to indoor CO2 concentrations higher than 1000 ppm. However, other indoor comorbid pollutants are possibly involved in such effects. In the context of significant linear increase of globally ambient CO2 concentration caused by anthropogenic activities and sources, reducing indoor CO2 levels by ventilation with ambient air represents an increase in energy consumption in an air-conditioned building. For the efficient energy control of CO2 intruding a building from ambient air, the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration needs to be urgently suppressed.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
"Greener planet" is not inherently beneficial to human beings. Our food crops gain more mass with more CO2... and become less nutritious.
Click to expand...

Just like a prohibitionist condemning demon rum, you can't admit to any good from increased CO2. That's how you tip your hand as theological rather than scientific.
 
Jack Hays said:
Just like a prohibitionist condemning demon rum, you can't admit to any good from increased CO2. That's how you tip your hand as theological rather than scientific.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what a terrible person I am, being more interested in feeding human beings than I am in the welfare of trees.

So how much more starvation do you want to create in order to fuel this tree growth?
 
Deuce said:
Whens the last time you ate a leaf?

As CO2 levels climb, millions at risk of nutritional deficiencies

We already put fertilizer on food crops.
Click to expand...

CO2 is more than mere fertilizer, it is an integral component in the the basic
photosynthesis process that you learned about in your sixth grade science
class. Carbon dioxide plus water and sunlight produce the basic sugar that
green plants then transform it into among other things, the food you eat.
Every carbon atom in your body with out exception was once present as
CO2 in the atmosphere. It is an absolute necessity that it be there. More,
much more than is currently in the air, is better.
 
Climate science is dogma, a religion. In climate science today, there are questions that cannot be asked, and answers that cannot be questioned, just like religion. No matter the evidence, it always points in the same direction, even when it's the opposite of expectations.

This cult must die or we'll have a global conflict on our hands that makes the vitriol between Repubs and Dems look like a picnic. People will not stand for global "solutions" such as sun shields in space or gases in the atmosphere from people who constantly lie or cannot get anything right, it's insane to think they'll be able to predict the effect of something like adding certain anti GHG into the atmosphere or predict how easily reversible space mirrors' effect would be if it goes wrong and it's runaway cooling.

Forcing climate solutions that many in the science field the world over will disagree with is a global war event, there is no way around it, it will galvanize those scientists that are afraid to speak out now or who are actively silenced or demonized even though their credentials are through the roof.
 
Deuce said:
Yeah, what a terrible person I am, being more interested in feeding human beings than I am in the welfare of trees.

So how much more starvation do you want to create in order to fuel this tree growth?
Click to expand...
Please, The study in question is saying that faster growing crops will not have enough time to metabolize,
the same level of protein, Zinc and Iron, as today's slower growing crops.
Impact of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions on global human nutrition | Nature Climate Change
Many food crops grown under 550 ppm have protein, iron and zinc contents that are reduced by 3–17% compared with current conditions.
Click to expand...
Many places in question already have Legumes of some sort in the diet, plenty of Iron, Zinc and Protein there.
We also would have to consider that faster growing crops would have bigger harvests, and perhaps two cycles a season.
All plants, even the ones we eat, benefit from added CO2, not just trees!
 
Trypt said:
Climate science is dogma, a religion. In climate science today, there are questions that cannot be asked, and answers that cannot be questioned, just like religion. No matter the evidence, it always points in the same direction, even when it's the opposite of expectations.

This cult must die or we'll have a global conflict on our hands that makes the vitriol between Repubs and Dems look like a picnic. People will not stand for global "solutions" such as sun shields in space or gases in the atmosphere from people who constantly lie or cannot get anything right, it's insane to think they'll be able to predict the effect of something like adding certain anti GHG into the atmosphere or predict how easily reversible space mirrors' effect would be if it goes wrong and it's runaway cooling.

Forcing climate solutions that many in the science field the world over will disagree with is a global war event, there is no way around it, it will galvanize those scientists that are afraid to speak out now or who are actively silenced or demonized even though their credentials are through the roof.
Click to expand...

Climate change science dogma is taught by nasa which is run by a trump appointee


All hail pope trump. Lol
 
Steve Case said:
CO2 is more than mere fertilizer, it is an integral component in the the basic
photosynthesis process that you learned about in your sixth grade science
class. Carbon dioxide plus water and sunlight produce the basic sugar that
green plants then transform it into among other things, the food you eat.
Every carbon atom in your body with out exception was once present as
CO2 in the atmosphere. It is an absolute necessity that it be there. More,
much more than is currently in the air, is better.
Click to expand...

That link directly suggests "more is better" is not necessarily true.

As does the link I posted about long-term exposure.

Did you read either of them or would that risk exposing you to information you don't like?
 
Deuce said:
Yeah, what a terrible person I am, being more interested in feeding human beings than I am in the welfare of trees.

So how much more starvation do you want to create in order to fuel this tree growth?
Click to expand...

The greening makes food crops more lush as well. The focus on trees is merely a product of your own blinkered vision.
 
Steve Case said:
CO2 is more than mere fertilizer, it is an integral component in the the basic
photosynthesis process that you learned about in your sixth grade science
class. Carbon dioxide plus water and sunlight produce the basic sugar that
green plants then transform it into among other things, the food you eat.
Every carbon atom in your body with out exception was once present as
CO2 in the atmosphere. It is an absolute necessity that it be there. More,
much more than is currently in the air, is better.
Click to expand...

Nope. Nature is a delicate balance. Some sugar is critical for the proper functioning of your body. But is more better?

More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
 
Jack Hays said:
The greening makes food crops more lush as well. The focus on trees is merely a product of your own blinkered vision.
Click to expand...

I see you ignored the link I posted. Again.
 
We have had no significant warming for over 15 years, yet AOC and the fanatics keep telling us, we need to wreck the economy with the GND to "save the planet"

Most people stopped listening to the nonsense years ago

Greenpeace Founding Member: 'The Whole Climate Crisis Is Not Only Fake News, It's Fake Science'
Greenpeace Founding Member: 'There Is No Climate Crisis' | RealClearPolitics

“BIG NEWS – Verified by NOAA – poor weather station siting leads to artificial long term warming”

BIG NEWS – Verified by NOAA – poor weather station siting leads to artificial long term warming | Watts Up With That?

the IPCC folks tell us we MUST lower world CO2 output by 50% by 2030. Previously the same idiots had said 85% by the year 2000

The real Question is what can the US, which produces 16% of world CO2 , do with or without the EU, to lower world CO2 with China and India etc. increasing output? the answer is NOTHING , and the Obama EPA Chief admitted just that.\



And it just got worse
“China Ramps Up Coal Power Again, Despite Pressure to Cut Emissions”
“China is set to add new coal-fired power plants equivalent to the European Union's entire capacity in a bid to boost its slowing economy, despite global pressure on the world's biggest energy consumer to rein in carbon”
China Ramps Up Coal Power Again, Despite Pressure to Cut Emissions | InsideClimate News
China boosts coal mining capacity despite climate pledges - Reuters
“China coal power building boom sparks climate warning”
China coal power building boom sparks climate warning - BBC News

“EPA Chief Admits Obama Regs Have No Measurable Climate Impact: ‘One one-hundredth of a degree?’ EPA Chief McCarthy defends regs as ‘enormously beneficial’ – Symbolic impact”
“Watch Obama EPA chief Gina McCarthy Testify to Congress: 'The value of this rule is not measured in that way. “

“CHAIRMAN SMITH: “Do you disagree with my one one-hundredth of a degree figure? Do you disagree with the one one-hundredth of a degree?”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “I’m not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action, but what I’m saying is that if we don’t take action domestically we will never get started and we’ll never…”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07...egs-as-enormously-beneficial-symbolic-impact/

Here is a real Climatologist on the AGW subject.


“Uncertain' Science: Judith Curry's Take On Climate Change”
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/213894792/uncertain-science-judith-currys-take-on-climate-change

“85 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity”


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015EA000154
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000203
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content...-control-climate-Kauppinen-and-Malmi-2019.jpg
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta
http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/
 
As for nutrition:

The Fight Against Global Greening - Part 2

The Fight Against Global Greening - Part 1 ... “‘Global Greening’ Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It’s ... are not familiar with The Fight Against Global Greening - Part 1, you can either read it in its entirety

[FONT=&quot]". . . For a full and exhaustive treatment of this issue, see Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains: The context of reports of apparent historical declines [pdf] by Robin J. Marles (Health Canada).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The issue is nutshelled in this quote from the Marles study:[/FONT]
“Contemporaneous analyses of modern versus old crop varieties grown side-by-side, and archived samples, show lower mineral concentrations in varieties bred for higher yields where increased carbohydrate is not accompanied by proportional increases in minerals – a “dilution effect”.”
​
[FONT=&quot]When modern crops produce more grain or fruit, through plant breeding, better agricultural methods, modern fertilizers and CO2 fertilization, the increased “food” doesn’t contain an equal, proportional, increase in minerals, vitamins, proteins and carbohydrates. Present day biology is not sure why this is.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Bottom Line important for us from this paper is:[/FONT]
“The benefits of increased yield to supply food for expanding populations outweigh small nutrient dilution effects addressed by eating the recommended daily servings of vegetables, fruits and whole grains.”
​
[FONT=&quot]Nutritional deficiencies don’t result from eating foods that “lack nutrients” — nutritional deficiencies result from poverty and the inability of people to have enough of the necessary foods to make up an adequate diet.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Nutritional deficiencies stem from not having enough to eat. Period. . . . "[/FONT]
 
Deuce said:
Ok. So you think we evolved 30 million years ago.
Click to expand...

Or ancestors were around as primates then. Our lungs have adapted to those conditions.

I know you can't make any point without looking (a word I am not allowed to say) but to use a straw man argument the "What your saying is.." is a bit of a classic.
 
Deuce said:
Effects of Low-Level Inhalation Exposure to Carbon Dioxide in Indoor Environments: A Short Review on Human Health and Psychomotor Performance - PubMed
Click to expand...

Scientific literature and documents pertaining to the effects of inhalation exposure to carbon dioxide (CO2) on human health and psychomotor performance were reviewed. Linear physiological changes in circulatory, cardiovascular, and autonomic systems on exposure to CO2 at concentrations ranging from 500 to 5000 ppm were evident. Human experimental studies have suggested that short-term CO2 exposure beginning at 1000 ppm affects cognitive performances including decision making and problem resolution. Changes in autonomic systems due to low-level exposure to CO2 may involve these effects. Further research on the long-term effects of low-level CO2 exposure on the autonomic system is required. Numerous epidemiological studies indicate an association between low-level exposure to CO2 beginning at 700 ppm and building-related symptoms. Respiratory symptoms have been indicated in children exposed to indoor CO2 concentrations higher than 1000 ppm. However, other indoor comorbid pollutants are possibly involved in such effects. In the context of significant linear increase of globally ambient CO2 concentration caused by anthropogenic activities and sources, reducing indoor CO2 levels by ventilation with ambient air represents an increase in energy consumption in an air-conditioned building. For the efficient energy control of CO2 intruding a building from ambient air, the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration needs to be urgently suppressed.
Click to expand...


Submarine crew are reported to be the major source of CO2 on board submarines (Crawl 2003). Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003).
Click to expand...

Scientists say vs the bleeding obvious that submarine crews cope fine.

Which is evidence and which is something else?
 
Deuce said:
Yeah, what a terrible person I am, being more interested in feeding human beings than I am in the welfare of trees.

So how much more starvation do you want to create in order to fuel this tree growth?
Click to expand...

The Green cause is starving the world today. This is currently mostly been done via biofuel. 20 million per year.

The use of solar power will take vast amounts of land out of food production and into failing to make electricity.

The restriction of use of fossil fuel is and will reduce the ability for us to use fertilizers.

Your cause is to reduce via whatever means humanity in all ways. Just plain evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom