Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 Ben Garrison on climate change and Greta
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 02/04/2020 :  17:56:58  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
He's a fool about one, and just effing creepy about the other.

The cartoon I'm ranting about is here, on a site that's not sympathetic to the man.


Let's just look at one argument here, and ignore the fact that:
--this fool Garrison doesn't know the effing difference between "weather" and "climate".

--he seems, like many conservative commentators, to be afraid of a young teenager

--he drew a cartoon of her being spanked, which is just fucking creepy all on it's own

Anyway, the argument in question:

"CO2 is good for the planet"...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

"Scientists have observed the CO2 fertilization effect in natural ecosystems, including in a series of trials conducted over the past couple decades in outdoor forest plots. In those experiments artificially doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels increased trees’ productivity by around 23 percent, according to Norby, who was involved in the trials. For one of the experiments, however, that effect significantly diminished over time due to a nitrogen limitation. That suggests “we cannot assume the CO2 fertilization effect will persist indefinitely,” Norby says.

In addition to ignoring the long-term outlook, he says, many skeptics also fail to mention the potentially most harmful outcome of rising atmospheric CO2 on vegetation: climate change itself. Its negative consequences—such as drought and heat stress—would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO2 might offer plant life."

This is why you need policy makers who know what the *fuck* they're talking about, instead of ignorant twits who just parrot one liner talking points.
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.06 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000