Remember me
▼ Content

But Global Warming is Good for Us, isn't it?


But Global Warming is Good for Us, isn't it?19-02-2016 03:54
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyQAmJpxsfY
19-02-2016 04:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
A few notes about your video:

All plants that use photosynthesis (basically, all plants) DO use carbon dioxide to fixate the sugars they need. Carbon dioxide is essential to the health of a plant.

Your claim to changing precip patterns doesn't hold up the the NOAA weather station data, which shows no change outside of normal variation since 1890. (hint: the drought in California is not unusual. What IS unusual is their misuse of water combined with drought.)

Love your picture of Kudzu as a 'weed'. It was specifically imported by man as a fast growing groundcover to handle the aftermath of another drought in the southeastern states (again, not unusual). It just got out of control from that, having been removed from it''s usual predators and limits. (I don't know of any faster growing plant!)

Oceans are not becoming acidified. You should learn the meaning of 'acidified'. (BTW, the increasing pH you mention in your video causing shell damage is becoming more alkaline. I will consider that a sloppy wording on your part at this time).

If krill is becoming stressed, then why is the whale population (which eats them) INCREASING?

Soils in Canada are as rich as that of the United States. The shorter growing season you mention is solved by the global warming you claim.

The Northwest Passage has been open before. The tundra is still there.

There is no comprehensive glacier database in existence anywhere in the world. Your claim of 90% is pure BS. It is not possible to claim any percentage.

You claims of various percentages of plants and animals going extinct is similar BS. We don't even know how many species there are, much less how many are moving towards extinction. Where did you get your numbers?

Moving private industry jobs to government programs is not healthy for the economy. Closing coal mines in favor of government sponsored wind farms and solar power is not good for the economy.

Your graph of increased storm activity is total BS. There is no comprehensive database of storm activity. For hurricane activity, there is no correlation of hurricanes and CO2 content since 1942, when we first began obtaining detailed data for hurricanes.

There is more oxygen in the atmosphere than 400ppm. Claiming we have less O2 in the air because of rising CO2 is a meh.

Your conclusion, that there is more harm in CO2 than benefit, is rife with falsehoods, manipulated and fabricated data, a misunderstanding of how plants work, and a misunderstanding of how economies work.

This is the first I've watched one of your videos. Is this normally the kind of tripe you produce?
Edited on 19-02-2016 04:55
19-02-2016 05:09
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:
A few notes about your video:

?


I don't have time to answer all your points this evening especially as none of them have references. But they are all wrong or at least very misleading.

I can source all my statements. Lets see your sources.
19-02-2016 06:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A few notes about your video:

?


I don't have time to answer all your points this evening especially as none of them have references. But they are all wrong or at least very misleading.

I can source all my statements. Lets see your sources.


I don't play link games. I do not provide links. I expect you to do your own research. I will not do that footwork for you.

Concerning the workings of plants, may I suggest a good book on biology? Specifically plant biology? A good book in chemistry might help as well.

Concerning the data of NOAA, may I suggest the individual logs kept by hundreds of NOAA stations around the lower 48 of the United States, which I have already provided on this forum numerous times, and not the central NOAA site or GISS?

Concerning economics, may I suggest the writings of somebody other than Marx on the subject?

Concerning Canada soils, may I suggest the Canadian Soil Information Service?

Concerning the Northwest Passage, may I suggest a trip to Bygdøy, Norway, where you can see the first ship to successfully navigate it? They have a wonderful museum there that has managed to complete restore the ship. You can also visit the museum in Vancouver, B.C. that has a wonderful display on the first Canadian ship to make the crossing.

Concerning hurricane records, may I suggest the National Hurricane Prediction Center?

Concerning your fabricated data, may I suggest you provide a source of your numbers and the instrumentation and methods used to gather them? Numbers without this information are effectively random numbers. Anyone can quote a number.

I raise your bluff. Call, raise, or fold.


The Parrot Killer
19-02-2016 12:04
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:

...

I can source all my statements. Lets see your sources.


I don't play link games. I do not provide links. I expect you to do your own research. I will not do that footwork for you. ...

.


I thought you had nothing, this proves it.
19-02-2016 13:49
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
DRKTS wrote:I thought you had nothing, this proves it.
That is his and IBduMb's modus operandi.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
19-02-2016 16:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
DRKTS wrote: Please watch my latest video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyQAmJpxsfY

OK, but you didn't do a very good job of addressing the few glaring errors I noted in your previous video.

Into the Night wrote: A few notes about your video:

Great write-up. Thanks. I'll keep these points in mind as I watch the video.

DRKTS wrote: I don't have time to answer all your points this evening especially as none of them have references.

What is it with warmizombies believing that a URL is what creates truth? You are in the wrong. All people are free to observe errors and to point them out. Since its your video, you are required to address every single one of your errors, independent of who observes it and whether or not any URL is provided you.

See your next point:

DRKTS wrote:I can source all my statements. Lets see your sources.

As it should be. You are the one who made the video. The sources that you insist you have are from where you are to draw your answers/responses to all observations and critiques of your video. You had better hope that your sources do not include Wikipedia.

You don't get to shift your burden of proof onto those who are making the observations of your video. I fully realize that, as a warmizombie, you have been taught that attempting to shift the burden of proof is acceptable, even admirable. You are mistaken, however. You really should stop doing that. It is an invalid rhetorical tactic.

I'm about to watch your video. It can't help but think how much more productive it would be if I would have had your appropriate responses to Into the Night's comments.

DRKTS wrote: But they are all wrong or at least very misleading.

Well, I just finished watching the video and here are the facts of the matter:

1. Everything observed/noted by Into the Night is accurate. Things don't look good for your video, especially in light of the fact that you don't seem to have any response.

2. Recalling that you have a penchant for fear-mongering, I was a bit turned off by your opening, i.e. asking us to focus on some historical misinformation about smoking being good for one's health. Since your video's title is "BUT CO2 IS GOOD FOR YOU" I couldn't help but wonder if this was going to be just another unsupported conclusion I was being asked to BELIEVE based on the fact that there have been other mistakes in the past. Into the Night's comments came to mind, as did your lack of response. I still had not finished the first minute of the video and I was already dubious.

3. In line with point 2 above, you then immediately transitioned to (sigh) fossil fuel companies. I wish you had more appropriately titled this video "Welcome to today's gathering of the local chapter of the Marxist Society."

4. While characterizing fossil fuel companies as an insidious misinformation illuminati, you required of me (the viewer) to BELIEVE in some undefined and unfalsifiable "climate" deity, that CO2 somehow changes "climate" in some undefined and unfalsifiable way, that fossil fuel companies somehow knew this (confirming your religion to be true) and that they spread unspecified "disinformation" to undermine the dogma "The Science."

Since you also have a penchant for making videos that rely solely on prior BELIEF in unsupported conclusions, I had to wonder if I should bother watching the rest of the video. After all, I didn't already BELIEVE your religion so would everything else require complete, unquestioning faith as well? I hadn't even arrived at the 1:30 mark.

5. You then transition to showing clips of people expressing disbelief in your religion. That's fair, isn't it? I'm one of those who isn't a Global Warming believer, primarily because I am an atheist and religion isn't my thing. I stick with science.

The problem is that you then claim that people like me, who understand the myriad of violations of physics involved in Global Warming dogma, have no examples of science that run counter to Global Warming dogma. You essentially pretend to speak for me and others in the "science community" and you completely misrepresent while doing so.

This is a very big problem that I don't believe your video can overcome.

6. Your "Send in the Clowns" slide confirmed for me that you have no intention of supporting your case, that you simply plan to attempt to discredit those who might very well have completely valid arguments. You don't mention what their all their arguments are nor do you explain why their arguments amount to "disinformation."

Coincidentally, I am familiar with some of the completely valid arguments of some of those you pictured. Those arguments immediately came to my mind but of course you didn't provide any rebuttal.

7. You tried to make the "CO2 is a pollutant" argument. As obviously bogus as this argument is, it has nonetheless been debated and debunked long since. The fact that you would stilltry to present it, without any new supporting data, tells me this video is targeted for the scientifically illiterate, as one would imagine.

8. You showed that many plants benefit from additional CO2. You then tried to make this a "negative" by (correctly) asserting that there are some plants that do not really benefit much from additional CO2. You lost me on that one.

You then tried to create another CO2 "negative" by describing how there are other factors that influence a plant's health, e.g. soil, water, sunlight, etc.. You lost me on this one as well.

9. Your following assertions depend entirely on my (the viewer's) prior BELIEF that Global Warming is occurring and that we are experiencing warmer and warmer temperatures even though the earth is probably cooling right now due to reduced solar activity, a point you refuse to discuss. I'll skip to the next subject.

10. Does Global Warming increase precipitation or does it decrease precipitation?
*OR* does "climate" decide in each case what would be simply bad for humanity is a "case by case" sort of basis, deciding whether to inflict drought or floods in an effort to punish humanity rather than increase precipitation in arid regions and decrease flooding as a beneficial god would do?

What is "climate's" basis for making decisions with regard to precipitation? What you describe is preposterous fear-mongering. You confirm that your video is aimed at the severely gullible. I am certainly not your target audience.

11. So Global Warming is killing off the pollinators? You've got to be kidding me! The last I checked, pollinators were doing fine and I still don't BELIEVE in Global Warming. Were you going to, at some point, offer up a reason to believe there is Global Warming? Wait! You then claim that CO2 is killing the pollinators. I thought it was Global Warming that was killing them. OK, this goes back to one needing to believe CO2 causes Global Warming. Got it. Actually, I don't get it.

12. Around the 6:30 mark I realized that this story seems familiar, but where? In the Bible! Yes, you are telling us that CO2 is bringing about the plagues of Egypt. I'll keep watching and see if you get to the point where you cry "Let my people go!"

13. Ocean acidification. The standard fear mongering aimed at gullible people with no chemistry acumen. You add a new twist, however, by preaching that CO2 brings the plagues of Egypt to the ocean. "Let my coral go!" I have to hand it to you. You are managing to cover the big-ticket items in short time.

14. Aaaah, no Marxist video would be complete without an anti-military message. Well done! "Swords into plowshares!"

15. Does the list of all the growing glaciers throw a wrench in the Global Warming intake? Does the ice accumulation of the Greenland Ice Sheet and Antarctica steal some of the thunder?

16. Extinctions. How do your percentages of "those at risk" (whatever that is supposed to mean) compare to the percentages, say, 10,000 years ago? Just to put things into perspective, how many species have become extinct throughout the history of life on the planet?

17. The Economy. You run through a few standard examples of failed Marxist arguments that eventually turned to Global Warming and its associated fear-mongering to provide proper "motivation" for people to BELIEVE their WACKY ideas.

Watch me present no links for any of my issues with your video. If you are happy with your video as it is then that's all that matters.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2016 18:32
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

..... You lost me on that one ....


.


Apparently it is very easy to lose you
19-02-2016 18:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

..... You lost me on that one ....


.


Apparently it is very easy to lose you

...when it's you gibbering.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2016 21:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:

...

I can source all my statements. Lets see your sources.


I don't play link games. I do not provide links. I expect you to do your own research. I will not do that footwork for you. ...

.


I thought you had nothing, this proves it.


Ok, since you refuse to even start your own research in these areas I suggested, I must conclude that you are only making these videos out of a religious background. You didn't even address the sources I gave you.


The Parrot Killer
19-02-2016 21:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Earthling wrote:
DRKTS wrote:I thought you had nothing, this proves it.
That is his and IBduMb's modus operandi.


YOUR modus operandi is simply to insult people lately. You contribute nothing.


The Parrot Killer
19-02-2016 22:47
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:
Ok, since you refuse to even start your own research in these areas I suggested, I must conclude that you are only making these videos out of a religious background. You didn't even address the sources I gave you.

.


Who said I don't do research in this area? I have been doing research into the climate since 2002 (professionally). I am just submitting another paper to BAMS (Bulletins of the American Meteorological Society - the world's leading climate journal) on the effects of space weather on the Earth and rest of the solar system.
19-02-2016 23:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ok, since you refuse to even start your own research in these areas I suggested, I must conclude that you are only making these videos out of a religious background. You didn't even address the sources I gave you.

.


Who said I don't do research in this area? I have been doing research into the climate since 2002 (professionally). I am just submitting another paper to BAMS (Bulletins of the American Meteorological Society - the world's leading climate journal) on the effects of space weather on the Earth and rest of the solar system.

Read my post again. I am not talking about researching your Religion, however 'professional' you may call it.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate But Global Warming is Good for Us, isn't it?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
This doesn't sound good...129-05-2019 06:22
Carbon tax killed auto industry in Ontario. Good thing for China. So who paid them?120-04-2019 00:00
What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?218-04-2019 20:57
Wind Turbines Look good but not worth it!231-03-2019 19:09
Something To Make itn feel Good2226-07-2018 20:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact