Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 7:28:05 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2016 04:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

And the solution is always "we gotta stop producing CO2" when the world
is on the edge of starvation and more CO2 helps plants grow better...

Yet another example of ideas based on complete rubbish (take a look a
the number of staple crops which have reduced yields when the amount
of CO2 increases).

Assertion only. Just rubbish unless you post links to evidence.

Your views on AGW, which show extreme bias and a lack of information,
completely destroy your credibility as a commentator on any science at
all.

Really? All you have is personal attack ... AGAIN?

Believing the world is flat is not a good way to represent yourself.

Wow! And straw man argument, too. Your "evidence" is nothing but rubbish.

On Thu, 19 May 2016 06:54:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 7:28:05 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2016 04:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

And the solution is always "we gotta stop producing CO2" when the world
is on the edge of starvation and more CO2 helps plants grow better...

Yet another example of ideas based on complete rubbish (take a look a
the number of staple crops which have reduced yields when the amount
of CO2 increases).

Assertion only. Just rubbish unless you post links to evidence.

If you bother with a literature search, you'll find plenty of
peer-reviewed papers that describe the impact of increased CO2 on a
variety of crops. In general, leaf crops do better, grain crops do
worse (probably because they put more energy into leaves than seeds).
Unfortunately, human food security is primarily dependent on seed
crops.

Your views on AGW, which show extreme bias and a lack of information,
completely destroy your credibility as a commentator on any science at
all.

Really? All you have is personal attack ... AGAIN?

It is not a "personal attack" to point out that somebody believes
non-scientific rubbish.

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 8:17:01 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2016 06:54:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 7:28:05 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2016 04:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

And the solution is always "we gotta stop producing CO2" when the world
is on the edge of starvation and more CO2 helps plants grow better...

Yet another example of ideas based on complete rubbish (take a look a
the number of staple crops which have reduced yields when the amount
of CO2 increases).

Assertion only. Just rubbish unless you post links to evidence.

If you bother with a literature search, you'll find plenty of
peer-reviewed papers that describe the impact of increased CO2 on a
variety of crops. In general, leaf crops do better, grain crops do
worse (probably because they put more energy into leaves than seeds).
Unfortunately, human food security is primarily dependent on seed
crops.

Since you posted assertion rather than evidence, I must conclude that you
couldn't find any support for your assertion. Right off the bat I found
one that refutes you:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htm

"A new study suggests that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere could be a boon for agricultural crops, as this greenhouse
gas helps crop plants grow and reproduce more."

Actually, there are indications that high CO2 levels reduce nutrition in
crops. So things aren't so cut-and-dried as you like to claim :-)
And certainly scientists can develop crop variations that are nutritious
in higher co2 environments.

Your views on AGW, which show extreme bias and a lack of information,
completely destroy your credibility as a commentator on any science at
all.

Really? All you have is personal attack ... AGAIN?

It is not a "personal attack" to point out that somebody believes
non-scientific rubbish.

Yes, it is. You know NOTHING about me so your suppositions are nothing but
dishonesty and slander. You excuse your noxious behavior by pretending
there can be no opposition to your belief system. That's arrogant rubbish.

Your put-downs and denigrations prove that your argument is actually weak.
And your dishonesty is obvious when you denigrate alternative solutions
to the GW problem.

The notion of 'climate change' is founded on the most rickety of foundations in that short term weather modeling shades off into climate modeling never mind the daft notion that humans by doing or not doing somethings can control the planet's temperature.

Planetary climate is a subdivision of the study of planetary motions hence it doesn't begin with heat/cold or distance from the Sun but rather how temperatures respond across latitudes as the planet orbits the Sun, not just our planet but all planets.

People with a facile approach to climate are caught up in accusations and counter-accusations and while it may entertain those who haven't made it to adulthood it doesn't represent a level where climate is actually being discussed.

No point is making a fuss over climate when observers fail to handle the cause in temperature fluctuations daily and annually, locally and in a hemispherical way as the Earth's dual rotation influence weather throughout the year at different latitudes.

On Thu, 19 May 2016 11:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Since you posted assertion rather than evidence, I must conclude that you
couldn't find any support for your assertion. Right off the bat I found
one that refutes you:

I'm not interested in seriously engaging a science denier. You're the
one making the extraordinary claims. Go read the evidence yourself;
the burden is on you. Of course, it is consistent with your illness
that you'll do no such thing.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 11:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Since you posted assertion rather than evidence, I must conclude that you
couldn't find any support for your assertion. Right off the bat I found
one that refutes you:

I'm not interested in seriously engaging a science denier. You're the
one making the extraordinary claims. Go read the evidence yourself;
the burden is on you. Of course, it is consistent with your illness
that you'll do no such thing.


Look you can't go around accusing everybody of being mentally ill. He's
wrong but not mentally ill.

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:36:02 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 11:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Since you posted assertion rather than evidence, I must conclude that you
couldn't find any support for your assertion. Right off the bat I found
one that refutes you:

I'm not interested in seriously engaging a science denier. You're the
one making the extraordinary claims. Go read the evidence yourself;
the burden is on you. Of course, it is consistent with your illness
that you'll do no such thing.

Not interested in "engaged discussion," peterson?

Only interested in "empty insults," peterson?

The burden is on Harnagel? Seems to me that if you think rising CO2 levels are such a big problem then you should be living in a mud hut. Then you might have a moral position from which to criticize others WRT global warming.

On Thu, 19 May 2016 22:48:17 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 11:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Since you posted assertion rather than evidence, I must conclude that you
couldn't find any support for your assertion. Right off the bat I found
one that refutes you:

I'm not interested in seriously engaging a science denier. You're the
one making the extraordinary claims. Go read the evidence yourself;
the burden is on you. Of course, it is consistent with your illness
that you'll do no such thing.


Look you can't go around accusing everybody of being mentally ill. He's
wrong but not mentally ill.

He's a science denier. Although not yet in the DSM, that actually is
being increasingly recognized as a mental disorder. If you're
interested, google it. The findings are pretty interesting. The
disorder is related to belief in conspiracies.

(Snell is a different story. You can look up the public records in
Gwinnett county and learn about his legal problems and court-mandated
rehab.)

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 4:36:02 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2016 11:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Since you posted assertion rather than evidence, I must conclude that you
couldn't find any support for your assertion. Right off the bat I found
o ne that refutes you:

I'm not interested in seriously engaging a science denier.

First of all, I'm definitely NOT a "science denier." You are being dishonest
again. Second, that's a very weak rejoinder, characteristic of one who
has more belief than evidence.

You're the one making the extraordinary claims.

Nope. You and your Chicken Littles are the ones trying to stampede people
into doing something stupid.

Go read the evidence yourself;

I have. Several times, and I've learned something every time I did. When
the Chicken Littles scream and belittle those who disagree with them about
something that's 50 to 100 years away, it's obvious their agenda is corrupt.


the burden is on you.

Actually, it's on neither of us because we're not making the decisions.
But I have actually proposed a workable alternative that makes sense no
matter whether AGW is correct or not. You and your ilk wouldn't even
consider it, a clear sign that you and they are not honest about the subject.

Of course, it is consistent with your illness that you'll do no such thing.

Another lying ad hominem, proving that you are basically dishonest.

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:36:02 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 11:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Since you posted assertion rather than evidence, I must conclude that you
couldn't find any support for your assertion. Right off the bat I found
one that refutes you:

I'm not interested in seriously engaging a science denier. You're the
one making the extraordinary claims. Go read the evidence yourself;
the burden is on you. Of course, it is consistent with your illness
that you'll do no such thing.

These guys are pathetic in that they have no imagination. The world could certainly do without fossil fuels. Burning them pollutes the atmosphere and water on Earth.

For transportation we could go all-electric with continuous recharging for long trips via induction coils buried in roadways. Smart meters on the vehicle would collect charging fees and even tolls on interstate highways. There is enough wind and solar power available to meet the needs of the nation's electric needs some 20 times over. Add to that high tech nuclear plants and you'll have more than enough energy without burning one hydrocarbon molecule. Other countries are beginning to move in that direction, meanwhile we lose technical advantage and future dominance in the energy field.

We have wars in the Middle east because we exchange our money for oil, which they convert to weapons. I would not send one stinking dime to any Sheik or Mullah which they use to fund their crazy ideology, foment wars, and rape their own people. For too long they've sat fat dumb and happy atop a huge underground source of black liquid that ends up in the atmosphere while we send our treasure over there to fund their lifestyle and their murderous ideology.

If we do a Manhattan style all-out program to convert our energy needs to renewables, it would create tons of jobs and get us off our collective heinies and really accomplish something.