Look what I just received in my work mailbox -- from the Heartland Institute

Yep, seeing is believing:


What say you? AGW nuts who gathered those data?

 

I finished watching it moments ago.

Summary
Warming is a fact
Humans have a minor impact
Conclusion
It is not alarming. The models are wrong
The best model shows the slightest impact.
Why? It matches closest the actual test results.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/Ridley-GWPFlecture.pdf

 

so youre saying there is an upper limit to the amount of co2 intake?

 

Before we get started, let's thank OP for this stellar example of just how atrophied the LW reasoning capacity is... and from an "academic" no less, people who get paid to "teach" young people. No wonder we are becoming an Idiocracy.

1. Note first that all the appeals against the publication in the OP are emotional, not reasoned, 0 facts. Note especially that the OP purposefully -chooses- these empty emotional appeals over rational arguments related to anything ACTUALLY CONTAINED IN the publication in question. OP seems to think he is in an echo chamber where merely mentioning this organization and this publication is the equivalent of citing to Mein Kampf. He isn't, and it isn't.

2. OP makes a thread on this publication, yet doesn't link to it? Doesn't quote anything in it? Read... for... yourselves... I intend to read this this evening; it can probably be skimmed in 15 minutes or less to get the gist of its points... there may even be summaries. OP didn't read a word of it, that's fairly obvious (but made a THREAD on it? bizarro world of the leftist mind? yes indeedy). So we are in the typically absurd position experienced with leftists where they attack something they very obviously haven't researched based on feelz alone and then expect they have made some kind of point. They haven't. This occurs daily here on PF. Here's a link for any reasonable adults out there.

https://www.heartland.org/publicati.../why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming

3. WHO CARES WHETHER SOMEONE MAILS THIS OUT OR HOW OR TO WHOM? DID YOU THINK THAT WAS SOME KIND OF POINT? Vegas odds say this ended up in OP's mail placed there by a trolling student or faculty member after one too many indoctrination sessions in what is supposed to be an introductory Chemistry class. Oh, you -believed- the dreck about (para) "avoiding getting reported to the Dean for indoctrinating students?" Haha on you if you did, have you READ OP's threads and posts? A walking LW platitude/advertisement repeater if ever there was one.

4. Tip for OP and at least one other aping the sentiment in this thread. A group that PURPOSEFULLY TITLES ITSELF as against a government group is not... by definition... and as a matter of fact, not opinion... a "propagandist." Propagandists, you see, don't BOTHER with books that explain their policy positions. THEY FABRICATE FACTOIDS OUT OF THIN AIR AND THEN REPEAT THEM LIKE ADVERTISEMENTS UNTIL THEY ARE ACCEPTED AS FACTS BY THE FEEBLE-MINDED OR SELF-INTERESTED RATIONALIZERS.

"Some scientists disagree with government-based and funded CC theory on the following grounds..." NOT "propaganda."
"The ice caps are melting" (out of context to imply this "melting" is permanent to dumb/uneducated... zombified leftist... people) IS "propaganda."

"The male suicide rate is 3x the female in the US" NOT "propaganda."
"Patriarchy!" IS "propaganda."

"Anyone who doesn't agree with government-based and funded CC theory is 'anti-science' " (or a flat earther) IS propaganda, and IS fallacious on its face to boot, and anyone MINDLESSLY DOCTRINAIRE enough to forward such a bigoted, irrational, feelzy statement (in the place of argument) among literate adults deserves to have nothing they ever say... ever... taken seriously.

5. So, was this going to be a discussion of the particular publication someone put in OP's mailbox? OF COURSE NOT. It was NEVER intended to be that, just another exercise in "feelzy" deck-stacking and emotional appeals about CC generally from the addled left.

Hey, OP, go audit a Logic 100 class at the junior college where you teach. You DESPERATELY need it.

 

Yes. That's the basis of enzymology. The enzyme binding the CO2 get saturated. It means that at one point, the CO2 molecules run out of available binding sites on the enzyme (i.e. all enzymes have CO2 bound, always). Once saturation occurs, it doesn't matter whether the [CO2] is raised further, no more uptake can occur.

A prime example of this feature is O2 transport by hemoglobin in the blood. hemoglobin is basically saturated by O2 (all binding site occupied), at least in a healthy person. You may have had your O2 saturation measured in the doctor's office, through a pulse oximeter. If saturation is 98+%, you are fine. Thus, supplemental oxygen has very little benefit to a healthy person, since more O2 doesn't lead to more oxygenation in the tissues, since hemoglobin is already saturated.

BTW: The graph I showed is from the following site:

http://plantphys.info/plant_physiology/photoeco.shtml

Has very little to do with global warming, but everything with plant physiology.

 

The message from the Alarmists is to do not sleep well. Live in FEAR. FEAR man. FEAR carbon Dioxide.

Now that you are mind numbing afraid, blame man. And make him pay for his sins. Deprive him of compact energy. Drive him to chase the wind. Find the Sun and use it.

But FEAR

 

Here is a good site for you to check into.

 

Are you a biologist?

 

And how is it that you know this but climatologists don't?

So your hypothesis is that global warming is caused by human activity. But just a different kind of human activity (deforestation, building cities, building roads, etc) , am I right?

 

I have tried time and again to tell you where you are failing with science but all I get as replies are allegations that it is all politically driven

I do hope for your sake you LISTEN to those who have a greater understanding of science and learn that you tube is useless for science based questions

 

If it is deforestation they can blame it all on third world countries so deforestation does have some traction with the right

 

My specialty is biophysical chemistry, but trained in physical chemistry. There is a lot of biology in biophysical chemistry. I have also in the past worked at a medical school and have taught physiology and cell biology. So, I have come across a lot of different science disciplines in my life.

Currently work on molecular mechanism of protein function and assay and drug development.

 

Meanwhile a cyclone with 263 kilometre winds just slammed the Queensland coast, our coral reefs are dying and we have just had rolling heat waves

As one of the main contributors to climate change - thanks America for holding up political action on this

 

Yes. I can see that coming. But maybe if they accept the most basic of the basic premises (the consensus position), they might be open to talking about what to do about it. Or, at least, not make it worse.

 

and what have I told you about watching you tube?

You want science - you will not find it with some bloke who may or may not be who he says he is blathering on about something he may or may not know anything about

 

"Tiny amounts of CO2"

Well think of a mirror. The silvering at the back need only be micrometers thick while the glass is as thick as you like and it will STILL reflect light

CO2 is like the silver on the back of the mirror

 

trouble is much of the resistance is based on politics and in america politics colours world view. It is called cognitive bias - they only read what validates thier beliefs which is why it feels like bashing your head against a wall to have to explain over and over that basic laws of physics apply and no amount of political posturing is going to change that

 

The way to challenge an accepted theory is by presenting one that accounts for all the facts and in a better way. If you have this, you're free to submit to a peer-reviewed journal.

 

Sure. Keep blaming Democrats for the idiocy of your fellow religionists. Muslims and social conservatives have more in common than not.

 

Horrible comparison We've had Ice ages and snow ball events with higher CO2 levels than we've got now.

 

There is no theory including AGW that accounts for all the facts. We don't even know what all of the facts are, and a lot of what we suppose we know is guess work.

 

There is zero comparison with Muslims and we LDS

Women dress as they please. Men wear suits a lot. We don't rave and shout. We live very modestly and dancing is fine. We live like most Americans live. I would say we are distinguished by love of family.

 

I wish the AGW theory stood up to scientific inquiry. Your side would fare much better were the science linked to the facts.

We are not deniers. We are like Dr. Ridley.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/Ridley-GWPFlecture.pdf

 

Which is very new and therefore in certain respect rather esoteric. We've had good instrumentation covering most of the world for less than sixty years and covering is a relative term.

Further self correction is good but peer review actually plays a fairly small roll in that. Most corrections to accepted theory not because of peer review, but because some researcher following up years later can't make the numbers add up when he goes chasing something down the rabbit hole. By the way who's right about the dinosaur extinction event or are we still stuck with two egos arguing? By the way those are just two that I could remember off the top of my head there are a lot more and the medical commuity is very nearly drowning in stuff that's borderline fraudulent.

 

Here is a scientist that is an expert and shoves the consensus angle.

Me, I agree with him. So much so I want you to look at his brief video.