As media members have advanced global warming hysteria by claiming the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide is going to destroy the planet, one seemingly obvious scientific constant has eluded them: plants love that which people like Nobel Laureate Al Gore want to eliminate.
Truth be told, without carbon dioxide, we'd all die, a scientific fact that has been inexplicably lost in this so-called debate.
Well, as amazing as it may seem, a group of German scientists have discovered what, with all due modesty, has been inherently obvious to yours truly for years.
Believe it or not, Agence France-Press reported Tuesday that crops love all this extra CO2 (emphasis added):
Increasing exposure to carbon dioxide appears to boost crop yields, Hans-Joachim Weigel of the Johann Heinrich von Thuenen Institute for rural areas, forestry and fisheries in the central city of Brunswick told AFP.
"Output increased by about 10 percent for barley, beets and wheat" when the plants were subjected to higher levels of carbon dioxide, Weigel said.
Hmmm. So, what happens when you do what Al Gore wants and reduce the amount of CO2 plants are subjected to?
Strangely, global warming obsessed media aren't interested in that answer.
Why might that be?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I gotta AGW question...If
July 8, 2008 - 20:07 ET by TruthMattersI gotta AGW question...If the polar ice caps are melting and sea level is rising, why are we having cruise ships in Alaska running aground? Wouldn't sea level rise be a good thing? Oil supertankers wouldn't have to worry about hitting reefs anymore.
I like the way you
July 8, 2008 - 20:14 ET by Clear thinkerI like the way you think!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
LOL...Excellent point
July 8, 2008 - 20:15 ET by bigtimerLOL...Excellent point TruthMatters...
Prince William Sound...a deep port bay, one of the deepest out of Seward Ak (or anywhere in the US I think, possibly elsewhere)....would have zilch for worries.
Great thinking for the future...
Of course the algore crowd would have some disastrous effect for that scenario though....
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
first off the polar ice caps aren't melting, another big lie
July 8, 2008 - 20:36 ET by lunaticcringeradiofrom neal boortz page today
Satellites have been tracking the concentration of ice in the Arctic and
Antarctic since 1980. And in the Arctic, from May of 1980 until May of 2008,
guess how much ice has melted away because of global warming ... none. Zero.
Nada. Zip. In May 1980 and May 2008, the total amount of ice concentration is
10.9 million square kilometers. Now let's go to the other side of the planet.
Not only is the Antarctic experiencing record ice, but since May 1980 the total
ice concentration is up 35%!
additionally this link
http://www.globalwar...
lunaticcringeradio
You know, I've always had
July 8, 2008 - 20:39 ET by motherbeltYou know, I've always had a problem with that "ice melting, oceans rising" thing.
I remember as a kid watching "Mr. Wizard and he would do a demonstration: he would fill a glass with ice, then add water, and the ice cubes were actually sticking up over the top of the glass a bit, and when they melted, the glass didn't overflow.
So how is it that when the ice melts the coastlines are all going to be under water? Doesn't ice replace it's own mass in water?
I'm serious...how does that work?
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
mb.... You gotta add more
July 8, 2008 - 20:45 ET by Clear thinkermb....
You gotta add more water when people have their backs turned.
At least that's what a liberal friend of mine said.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Ice contains air
July 8, 2008 - 20:49 ET by 10ksnookerHence it floats. When it melts it releases the air and generates less water volume than there was ice volume. Ice is really 'ice crystals' with lots of space between the crystals.
You can make real clear ice, which has a specific gravity close to water by carefully eliminating the bubbles, it's what they use for ice sculptures.
uMM NO , Most liquids when frozen get denser, and always sink.
July 8, 2008 - 22:17 ET by upcountrywaterWater is one of a few liquids that when frozen expands..That is why ice floats; it has less molecules per unit volume .
Entrained air has nothing to do with it.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
what????
July 8, 2008 - 23:09 ET by candanceClear ice is filtered water with no impurities.
And water expands as it freezes regardless of how much air it has access to.
*shakes head at having to explain third grade science*
candance, science and math are slipping away, it's opinion now
July 8, 2008 - 23:59 ET by upcountrywaterknowedge is evaporating ;30% HS drop out rate...
game boy "feels" can land a real plane.
be positive , yes he can.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
Part of the scam
July 8, 2008 - 20:53 ET by dboMB,
You're perfectly right when talking asbout Arctic ice. The theoretical worry is when ice melts that is currently sitting on a land mass-namely Greenland or Antartica. I say theoretical because >85% of the worlds ice is in Antartica and yet >80% of Antartica has never had a temperature above -30C. In the case of Greenland, even if significant global warming occured it would take over 10,000 years for its ice to melt.
motherbelt gets the you're smarter than al gore award
July 8, 2008 - 21:13 ET by lunaticcringeradiothe frozen ice at the poles in the oceans will not displace any sea levels than they are at present day because they have already displaced all the volume they can. when they melt they will merely release gases that are trapped in them. probably more co2 from dinosaur farts. actually that may be more methan, even worse than co2.
al gore hates trees and mr wizard.
you know that mr wizard was a 2nd lieutenant and flew 56 bombing mission in a b-24 over europe.
lunaticcringeradio
i hate to tell you motherbelt
July 8, 2008 - 21:21 ET by lunaticcringeradiothe i'm smarter than al gore award is easier to get than falling down on purpose.
oooooooooooooooooo newsbusters needs to pimp bumper stickers that say
"i'm smarter than al gore cause i know global warming is a lie."
lunaticcringeradio
motherbelt, I remember putting beers in the freezer...
July 8, 2008 - 21:33 ET by R D Helm...as a teen, forgetting about them, and later discovering the suds within had exceeded the volume of their containers, be them glass or (egad) cans. (Sad, that was. LOL)
Liguids expand in volume as they freeze and conversely contract as they melt.
That is why you have to put anti-freeze in your radiator. If you don't and the coolant freezes, it will expand and very possibly crack the engine block.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Mother
July 9, 2008 - 00:16 ET by DelsaI saw the same show and we did the experiment in class.
and the answer to your question is...It doesn't!
Work. That is.
never thought of that.
July 8, 2008 - 20:21 ET by crsheddnever thought of that. but then my college science was astronomy, you know, staring off into the stars type thing.
but, this is great news!
now if only we can move all the people away from plants. i don't think co2 emissions are good for people, probably in any dose. but, then, i never did have a human biology class, so i may be wrong.
cr
July 8, 2008 - 20:31 ET by Noel Sheppardcr,
Hmmm. You never had a human biology class. I must say I don't find that at all surprising as you clearly don't know how many human biological functions require carbon dioxide. In fact, you'd die tomorrow if you were deprived of this gas the folks you revere want to eliminate.
But, don't feel bad, because all the folks you revere are just as ignorant about biology as you.
Warmest regards! ns
okay, let me see if i got
July 8, 2008 - 21:12 ET by crsheddokay, let me see if i got this right.
increased co2 is good.
humans expel co2 from their bodies.
'...CO2 is an asphyxiant...'
( http://www.dupagehealth.org/health_alert/co2_alert.html )
so we all want more co2. i got it.
i'm sorry, i didn't mean to type that i wanted to eliminate co2....oooops, i didn't. maybe somebody just made that up.
duh!
July 8, 2008 - 21:30 ET by MightyMouthYou do realize that an atmosphere of pure oxygen would kill you too?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM
July 8, 2008 - 21:51 ET by Noel SheppardMM,
No. CR doesn't. Remember, he made it clear from the beginning that he has never taken a human biology course, right? :-) ns
Yes Noel..
July 8, 2008 - 22:00 ET by MightyMouth...The typical liberal stance of arguing from a position of weakness! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sorry Noel. There is a
July 8, 2008 - 23:05 ET by danboSorry Noel. There is a condition know as oxygen toxicity. The level is pretty high and usually it becomes a problem under pressure (boyle's law). I'm familiar with it because in diving it can come into play especially when using enriched air. If the oxygen level gets too high in the blood stream we have seizures and drown. (As I recall the max depth for breating 100% O2 is only about 20 feet. EAN32 is about 130) At those depts with those mixtures we're approaching a PO2 of 1.6. Considered dangerous.
Oxygen Toxicity can also cause problems for people under prolonged heightened exposure causing damage to the nervous system and lungs.
The problem with CO2 isn't that it kills us. If the CO2 blood level gets too high we just fall asleep. As in deep water blackout where we sleep till we run out of air and drown. If too much O2 is replaced by CO2 as in a mine cave in, you can die not from a too much CO2 but from not enough O2. However if we were able to pump O2 into the mine. The miners would survive the increased CO2, they'd just sleep through it.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo
July 8, 2008 - 23:28 ET by Noel Shepparddb,
I think you need to re-read my piece. I completely agree with you. ns
I may have miss read. I
July 8, 2008 - 23:48 ET by danboI may have miss read. I thought you were disagreeing with MM about O2 being potentially dangerous.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
dan
July 8, 2008 - 23:50 ET by Noel Shepparddan,
No worries. ns
SCUBA, it's too much nitrogen
July 9, 2008 - 00:15 ET by upcountrywaterNitrogen_narcosis
"rapture of the deep".
trolls have "rapture of the shallow".
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
Narcosis.
July 9, 2008 - 00:31 ET by danboThat might explain a few things.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
CO2 is a asphyxiant? Boy
July 8, 2008 - 23:11 ET by danboCO2 is a asphyxiant? Boy that's a stretch. If that's the case so is nitrogen. If the nitrogen replaced all the O2 we'd die also. And nitrogen is 78% of the air.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Nitrogen is an asphyxiant
July 9, 2008 - 01:56 ET by Cool ArrowI work with chambers of 99% Nitrogen environment. It is indeed an asphyxiant.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
We need so much oxygen to
July 9, 2008 - 08:20 ET by danboWe need so much oxygen to live. If we replace the oxygen with another gas, CO2, nitrogen, Argon, Helium, etc. There's no longer any O2 available. We die. The problem isn't so much the other gases it's the lack of O2.
The only exception I know of is Nitrious oxide N2O.
Which is a laughing matter.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
CO2 Propaganda - Get you facts straight!
July 9, 2008 - 01:53 ET by PopularTechIt is important to get your facts before you post propaganda. Obviously extreme high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would be a problem but there is no remote chance in hell of us getting anywhere close to these.
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere (NASA)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 280 to 380 ppm over the past 100 years (IPCC)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration (Source)
- Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible (Source)
- OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (Source)
"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology MIT
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Hmmm, yes you may be wrong
July 8, 2008 - 20:35 ET by ApacheHmmm, yes you may be wrong <g>. Move away from plants? Plants feed off CO2 and emit oxygen. We breath out CO2 so we can't exactly get away from it. But I wish Gore would hold it in.
Plants want carbon credits
July 8, 2008 - 20:24 ET by BarrackThe Plant Posse will be beating on Al Gore's door for his carbon credits.
He's never home though.
www.benbarrack.com
Feed the planet..
July 8, 2008 - 20:31 ET by Gary HallFeed the planet..
.. take a drive thru farm country this weekend.
(;~>
You mean
July 8, 2008 - 20:43 ET by 10ksnookerThe whole Earth is populated with carbon life forms? You going to write up a scientific paper on that and get it published?
Climateaudit.
July 8, 2008 - 20:46 ET by acadia1755I hope everyone is keeping an Eye on this little gem Steve M got going. I say he will be ,as usual , right on the money. This guy is way to smart for the likes of Realclimate and WMConnolley.
http://www.climateau...
http://www.friendsof...
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not
July 8, 2008 - 20:55 ET by acadia1755Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration
Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible
OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2))
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 280 to 380 ppm over the past 100 years. Tim Ball.
... And Al Bore says if we hit 400PPmM it will kill us?
Plants starves at 125PPM .. No Plants no Oxygen.
http://www.friendsof...
Wait a minute. Are you
July 8, 2008 - 20:58 ET by Clear thinkerWait a minute. Are you saying all plants should be dead by now?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
it doesn't matter anyway
July 8, 2008 - 21:24 ET by lunaticcringeradioremember al gore hockey stick chart, we are all suppose to be charcoal brickets by now. hhhhhhmmmmmm i wonder what ever happened to that hockey stick chart.
lunaticcringeradio
I think he means if the CO2
July 9, 2008 - 08:25 ET by AJSHOPEI think he means if the CO2 drops below 125ppm.
Noel, NB---,
July 8, 2008 - 20:48 ET by misterbillNoel, NB---,
You all seem to be forgetting that Al Gore invented Carbon dioxide.
lol misterbill!
July 8, 2008 - 21:15 ET by candanceYou need to add a spew alert to your post!
The response of plants to
July 8, 2008 - 22:43 ET by cleverpigThe response of plants to increased CO2 has been theorized for ages. This paper was presumably published because it proves the prediction true, not because anyone was shocked or surprised at the results!
There have been numerous experiments done to determine how plants respond to increased CO2, including one which covered a large swath of forest in a huge tarp and blew CO2 into it. Scientists are not actually idiots. They know that there are reasons to expect plants growth to increase when extra CO2 is provided. However, you still actually have to show that it happens, as some other compound could always be the rate-limiting factor in photosynthesis for any given crop or ecosystem.
I get that it is entertaining to imagine scientists wide-eyed and agog at something you learned in high school biology, but we all know that's not what's going on.
Incidentally, I'm not a physiologist, but are there any human biological functions that require CO2 beyond that which we produce internally through respiration? I don't know of any.
theorized???
July 8, 2008 - 23:18 ET by sarcasmoIt's amusing to see the rest of the media catch up, and don't ask me how I know this, but in the late '70s & early '80s, "High Times" magazine was selling CO2 enrichment kits to recreational indoor pot growers, along with the expected bright lights, hydroponic supplies, etc. The idea that plants tend to react positively to an enriched CO2 environment isn't exactly new, much less theoretical, decades later...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Hey sarcasmo, I was just
July 8, 2008 - 23:29 ET by flashkingHey sarcasmo, I was just thinking: If the enviro-nuts hate oil so much, and there is a finite supply of it why would they be opposed to us just burning it up as quick as we can?That way we wouldn't have "BIG OIL" anymore and all the worlds problems would be solved.
Sarc
July 8, 2008 - 23:31 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
I'll bite: tell us how you know this? And why are you so familiar with High Times? :-) ns
Let's just say I had fun in college
July 9, 2008 - 00:56 ET by sarcasmo"High Times" has over the decades occasionally "scooped" the MSM on stories (two examples are Noriega's obvious corruption back when the DEA was praising him & Contra-coke smuggling) and the MSM doesn't exactly appreciate it when that happens. In fact, MSM types often get infuriated & go into deep denial over such a scoop by High Times, which sometimes has the side-effect of protecting the US government from likewise being embarrassed. Of course, if the MSM could ever become a bit less careless in swallowing unlikely drugwar stories hook, line, & sinker, these embarrassments might not happen so-often...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Not something I would brag about
July 9, 2008 - 02:11 ET by PopularTechBeing weak minded in College is not something I would brag about. Your obsession with Pot makes it really hard for me to believe you don't currently smoke it. I will in the future get all my scientific information from "High Times" - not. The MSM is so crazy for not listening to loser Pot Heads - big story.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Not something I would whine about
July 9, 2008 - 05:48 ET by sarcasmoAnd you remain a liar, so don't dig that hole deeper on this subject. Making weak minded arguments and then remaking them when you have been shot down as a liar doesn't impress me. In this case, as with Noriega corruption & Contra cocaine, High Times was right, again.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
sarc: Don't get too upset at
July 9, 2008 - 08:17 ET by Killgravesarc:
Don't get too upset at the hater. There are some folks who can't get beyond the Mr. Macky mentality.
Pot is bad, mmmmkay?
Whining about the truth?
July 9, 2008 - 11:12 ET by PopularTechSo you really don't use it anymore but inject it into just about EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION. I apologize you are "recovered" pot head campaigner.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Nope.
July 9, 2008 - 12:16 ET by sarcasmoAs I've said, you have a history of lying on this issue. And I'll inject whatever I want into whatever conversation(s) I want as far as you're concerned, so quit whining about it, it's not gonna change even if you finally quit lying. You've finally, sort of, admitted to your lie, which is progress, but I doubt it's likely to stop. For that to happen, you'd have to go beyond ad hominem as a strategy & formulate actual arguments on the issue itself.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
don't worry Sarc
July 8, 2008 - 23:36 ET by candanceBelieve it or not, I know some stuff from The Anarchist Cookbook. These things have a way of happening.
*looks away and whistles*
The idea that plants tend
July 9, 2008 - 01:43 ET by cleverpigThe idea that plants tend to react positively to an enriched CO2
environment isn't exactly new, much less theoretical, decades later...
When I said theorized, I meant as pertains to global warming. i.e. not deliberately applied but as part of changes in the atmosphere. As I said, scientists tested the effects on chunks of forest many years ago.
really clever
July 8, 2008 - 23:22 ET by candanceThey knew it but they couldn't prove it? Is that why it was taught to me as fact in the fifth grade?
And is that why in all this talk of global warming and capturing CO2 emissions, this is the first time anyone has mentioned the fact that plants need CO2?
Face it clever, the cat's crawling out of the bag and you don't like it.
can
July 8, 2008 - 23:35 ET by Noel Sheppardcan,
Actually, CP must have missed ALL of her biology classes. After all, CO2 isn't only essential for respiration, but we also couldn't digest food without it.
Dontcha just love the diminished intellectual capacity of those so holier-than-thou? :-) ns
it's tiring Noel
July 8, 2008 - 23:39 ET by candanceNot only are we here to bust media bias, more and more lately we've had to bust complete and total hogwash asserted as fact. How can you come to a site like this, make stuff up as you go along, and not expect anyone to correct you? That kind of laziness is hard to comprehend.
can
July 8, 2008 - 23:47 ET by Noel Sheppardcan,
And doesn't she claim to be a Ph.D in something? I mean, imagine posting something this insipid: "The response of plants to increased CO2 has been theorized for age."
Yeah, it's called freaking photosynthesis, and it's hardly a theory. :-)
Of course, it is to morons like Gore and Hansen who clearly have never heard of it!!! ns
insipid for sure
July 8, 2008 - 23:55 ET by candanceThat ranks right up there with "we think the sky is blue" and "we have a theory that calories come from food."
You should start a running collection of the most absurd explanations we hear on NB. Photosynthesis was a theory until 2008 - that would definitely make the list.
Noel,
July 8, 2008 - 23:56 ET by R D HelmYeah, it's called freaking photosynthesis, and it's hardly a theory. :-)
Welcome to the age of the government-schooled dumbmAsses.
Brave new world, eh?
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
R D
July 9, 2008 - 00:35 ET by DelsaIt is a brave new world alright.
And you have to be brave to venture out into it.
DumbmAsses is being too kind.
Thank you LBJ et al.
Delsa,
July 9, 2008 - 01:03 ET by R D HelmDumbmAsses is being too kind.
LOL-True, but I have to be a little more careful here at NB than do some others.
Long story, that is. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
And doesn't she claim to be
July 9, 2008 - 02:23 ET by cleverpigAnd doesn't she claim to be a Ph.D in something? I mean, imagine
posting something this insipid: "The response of plants to increased
CO2 has been theorized for age."
Yeah, it's called freaking photosynthesis, and it's hardly a theory. :-)
Of course, it is to morons like Gore and Hansen who clearly have never heard of it!!! ns
God you guys are nasty!
I meant as pertains to global warming. Since I mentioned a study that was done many years ago, I obviously don't think that this is the first time anyone has ever tested the effects of CO2 on plants.
And I'm afraid it isn't quite as simple as "it's called photosynthesis stupid." If CO2 is not the rate-limiting factor for the crops sudied, increasing it won't increase yield, despite the fact that it is part of that nifty diagram of the Calvin cycle. For instance, phytoplankton growth in many parts of the ocean is limited by iron, which is also necessary for growth. You can pump all the CO2 in there you want, but if you want to see increased growth you need to remove the bottleneck of low available iron.
So just because CO2 is important to photosynthesis doesn't necessarily mean that crops that are important to us would respond to it the way we would predict. There could be other shortages preventing increased crop yield.
Plankton like CO2 too
July 9, 2008 - 11:16 ET by PopularTechSome Plankton Thrive With More CO2 (The New York Times)
There goes the bottleneck theory.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Not only plankton
July 9, 2008 - 11:23 ET by Cool ArrowBut do you have any documentation as to whether seaweed coverage has increased in recent years?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
I fail to see how my
July 9, 2008 - 22:30 ET by cleverpigI fail to see how my contention that certain parts of the ocean are affected by an iron bottleneck is disproved by your assertion that certain kinds of plankton increase their biomass in response to CO2.
Unless I said ALL of the ocean and your article showed ALL of the plankton, the two are entirely tangential to each other.
I read about the iron issue in some long-forgotten textbook, but here is a press release from Woods Hole detailing a recent experiment in fertilizing the ocean with iron in order to increase CO2 uptake.
Still want to fight me on this?
Plankton Natural Selection
July 9, 2008 - 22:54 ET by PopularTechThe Plankton that increases due to CO2 will overtake the ones that don't. You would call that evolution.
Ooops looks like the add iron to the ocean idea has been discredited:
Ocean Fertilization 'Fix' For Global Warming Discredited By New Research (Science Daily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
It's not a question of
July 10, 2008 - 00:40 ET by cleverpigIt's not a question of which plankton, it's a question of WHERE IN THE OCEAN. You are clearly just not understanding this concept at all.
And I didn't cite the woods hole research because I thought iron fertilization will solve global warming, I simply used it as a convenient example of the principle that phytoplankton growth is limited (IN SOME AREAS) by limited available iron.
And the only reason I mentioned any of this at all, is because some people think that plant growth is simply an issue of add more CO2, get more plant. There are, in fact, other things a plant needs and which can limit growth if not present. So a study designed to determine whether the growth of certain crops can be increased by the addition of CO2 isn't necessarily completely idiotic.
Want to try again?
Plankton like the CO2
July 10, 2008 - 01:27 ET by PopularTechThere are plankton that thrive because of CO2 and thus in a CO2 rich environment would overwhelm less evovling plankton. As in CO2 alone would increase the amount of plankton.
So is your claim that adding more CO2 will do nothing to plants?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Not only are we here to
July 9, 2008 - 02:29 ET by cleverpigNot only are we here to bust media bias, more and more lately we've had
to bust complete and total hogwash asserted as fact. How can you come
to a site like this, make stuff up as you go along, and not expect
anyone to correct you? That kind of laziness is hard to comprehend.
What have I made up?
CO2 is a product of
July 9, 2008 - 02:11 ET by cleverpigCO2 is a product of cellular respiration. I suppose you could say that makes it essential, but it is produced by the process, not an input.
What I specifically asked is whether we need any CO2 beyond that which our cells make while converting sugars into energy.
I'm assuming you say we need CO2 to digest our food because it is a component of bicarbonate. If there's some other role it plays, I'd love to learn about it. The question is, do we need to inhale CO2 to digest our food, or do we just use the waste CO2 floating around in our blood stream to make the bicarbonate that buffers our digestive system?
I don't think that's a stupid question, and I asked it because I am curious to know the answer. I acknowledge that I am not an expert in physiology, and I'm not trying to sound smart. In fact, since it is clear that asking questions of you is simply an invitation to sniping comments about my intelligence, the smart thing would apparently have been to keep my mouth shut!
come on clever
July 9, 2008 - 12:16 ET by candanceDon't act innocent now. Go back and read your original post for this article - you tried to lecture us on a subject you didn't understand. When you asked your question about the body needing CO2 it was obvious you meant it with a snarky tone.
In other words, you brought this on yourself. This is what happens when you start an argument without any ammo.
My snarky tone is entirely
July 9, 2008 - 22:49 ET by cleverpigMy snarky tone is entirely due to the ridiculous contention that agricultural scientists must be doing these studies because they don't understand photosynthesis, and are thus "shocked" to discover that plants like CO2. It is a deliberate attempt to portray people who are probably perfectly intelligent and knowledgable in their fields as idiots, for reasons that I honestly can't fathom-- especially as these results can be considered a victory for the anti-AGW side of the debate.
The question, which I prefaced clearly with an admission of my lack of expertise on the subject, was an honest one. I understand that my expectations of an honest answer were too high for most of you, but I am glad that at least a couple of people attempted to enlighten rather than insult me.
Since this question is so
July 10, 2008 - 09:28 ET by cleverpigSince this question is so indicative of my "diminshed intellectual capacity," I would like Noel to take the five minutes it would undoubtedly require to answer it.
Is the CO2 used for digestion atmospheric, or is it produced by our own bodies?
Noel? Don't you at least
July 11, 2008 - 22:25 ET by cleverpigNoel? Don't you at least want to take a guess? You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right, and then you can sound smart and REALLY put me in my place. ;)
The CO2 that is used in the
July 11, 2008 - 23:14 ET by HermanoThe CO2 that is used in the digestive system is "atmospheric." A similar adsorption as from cell to blood takes place to assist in neutralizing acids in the stomach. It seems to move from the blood stream to the stomach much like it would migrate from the blood stream to the lungs for expiration. It is not a "mineral" breakdown that produces the CO2. Bicarbonate is basic and is used artificially to reduce the acidity of the gastric juices. Hope that helps.
That does help,
July 11, 2008 - 23:22 ET by cleverpigThat does help, thanks.
So it comes from the blood stream, but in a gaseous form. That wasn't what I meant by "atmospheric" but you answered my question nonetheless.
Hermano
July 12, 2008 - 15:29 ET by Noel SheppardHermano,
You are correct, sir. CO2 is essential for us maintaining a proper pH balance in our blood stream as well as in the GI tract. This is crucial to digestion.
Furthermore, as you are likely aware, CO2 assists in creating a proper respiratory rate. Hyperventilation is caused by enhaling too much O2. This is why you breathe into a bag when this occurs so that you can inhale more CO2 and slow down your respiratory rate.
Once again, man ceases to exist on this planet without CO2. Period. ns
The urge to breath is
July 8, 2008 - 23:43 ET by danboThe urge to breath is triggered primarily by the CO2 level in the blood stream.
No CO2 in the blood, reduced urge to breath.
CO2 levels can also effect emotions and panic disorders. One treatment of panic disorders is to have the pt. breath into and out of a paper bag. This raises the CO2 level in the blood. Reducing the panic attack. Calming the patrient.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
stop danbo!!
July 8, 2008 - 23:49 ET by candanceStop with the obvious scientific proof!! That isn't helping clever one little bit!
Sure the paper bag technique has been proven to reduce nausea and stop hyperventilating...but that doesn't mean scientists have proven it yet!
All these facts are getting in the way of our important business of stopping global warming. >.<
cd...Yep.... even Lara
July 8, 2008 - 23:54 ET by bigtimercd...
Yep.... even Lara Logan must of used a paper bag or two when it came to Ware...
Those paper bags come in for so many uses so I hear....lol.
Just had to add a little humor here.
Sorry if it offended anybody...it is getting late for some, plus I know it is off topic...a bit.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
it's all good bt
July 9, 2008 - 00:00 ET by candanceI didn't understand the Lara Logan reference at all, so no offense here.
*shrugs in bewilderment*
Remember
July 9, 2008 - 00:30 ET by DelsaLara was sleeping her way to the ???
For that she'd use the bags.
Good humor and i knew what you were talking about..
deep breath...exhale....
Delsa... LOL...Thank
July 9, 2008 - 00:35 ET by bigtimerDelsa...
LOL...Thank you...
I am sorry kind of I put that there...just couldn't help myself...
MM where were you?
Btw...probably came from too many years of waitressing/bar-tending..it is an old joke.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
What can I say?
July 9, 2008 - 00:09 ET by danboWhat can I say? Guilty.
Clever asked if the body had any use of CO2. And tossed a few I thought of.
I'm letting mean old reality get in the way of proving AGW is real. We need to rid the world of evil CO2.
Clever needs to get the world to get rid of every molecule of CO2. And end life on this planet.
Never let facts get in the way of pseudo science.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Clever needs to get the
July 9, 2008 - 02:27 ET by cleverpigClever needs to get the world to get rid of every molecule of CO2. And end life on this planet.
Ah, nevermind. :(
Any time. "There is a
July 9, 2008 - 07:28 ET by danboAny time.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
The urge to breath is
July 9, 2008 - 02:25 ET by cleverpigThe urge to breath is triggered primarily by the CO2 level in the blood stream.
Thank you for answering my question without the need to talk about what an idiot I am for asking it. Much appreciated :)
dbo et al 2008
July 9, 2008 - 09:46 ET by dboCO2 levels can also effect emotions and panic disorders
That explains a lot. In fact, Vostok ice core data has shown a perfectly correlated line between CO2 emissions and panic disorder in AGW believers.
Not Theorized but Documented - Plants love CO2
July 9, 2008 - 02:02 ET by PopularTechCarbon Dioxide Helps Some Plants Survive Cold Weather, Cornell Researchers Find (Science Daily)
Carbon Dioxide Increase In Atmosphere Augments Tolerance Of Barley To Salinity (Science Daily)
Climate Changes Creating Green And Flowering Mountains (Science Daily)
Climate change will boost farm output (The Australian)
Delay In Autumn Color Caused By Increased Carbon Dioxide Not Global Warming (Science Daily)
- Forests Could Benefit When Fall Color Comes Late (Science Daily)
Duke Study Shows Carbon Dioxide Boosts Pine Tree Reproduction (Science Daily)
Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increases Soil Carbon (Science Daily)
Elevated Carbon Dioxide Changes Soil Microbe Mix Below Plants, May Help Plants Grow (Science Daily)
Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert (Science Daily)
High Carbon Dioxide Levels Spur Southern Pines To Grow More Needles (Science Daily)
High On Carbon Dioxide, Crops Of Tomorrow May Yield More Grain (Science Daily)
Increasing Carbon Dioxide Relieves Drought Stress In Corn, Researchers Say (Science Daily)
More Carbon Dioxide May Help Some Trees Weather Ice Storms (Science Daily)
New Satellite Study Shows Vegetation Increases In North America (Science Daily)
Open-Air Experiment Shows High CO2 Boosts Tree Growth (Science Daily)
Report: High Carbon Dioxide Boosts Duke Forest Growth By 25 Percent (Science Daily)
Some Plankton Thrive With More CO2 (The New York Times)
Study Shows Forests Thrive With Increased Carbon Dioxide Levels (Science Daily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
So you agree with me that
July 9, 2008 - 22:53 ET by cleverpigSo you agree with me that Noel almost certainly mischaracterized the scientists in this study as "shocked," given the amount of similar research that has preceded their work on these specific crops?
Fabulous :)
Noel's piece was right on the money as usual
July 9, 2008 - 22:59 ET by PopularTechThis news is shocking to the millions of scientifically illiterate AGW believers who think CO2 is pollution most likely due to confusion with CO.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
edit* Forget it, I don't
July 10, 2008 - 01:15 ET by cleverpigedit* Forget it, I don't know why I bother.
Wait do you not understand sarcasm?
July 10, 2008 - 01:19 ET by PopularTechApparently you do not understand sarcasm because if you were implying Noel was stating these findings as a never before seen discovery then you need to freshen up on your sarcasm.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
No. Noel was implying
July 10, 2008 - 01:43 ET by cleverpigNo.
Noel was implying that people making these discoveries think they are shocking. At least that's what I read when he mocks German scientists for "amazingly" figuring out something which, he says with all due modesty, is perfectly obvious to him.
I am saying that
1) nobody has "discovered" that plants like CO2 through this work. As I mentioned first and PopTech subsequently repeated ad nauseum, studies have been done on this before.
2) The results of this study are only obvious if you think that plant growth is limited only by the amount of CO2. In fact, it can be limited by many other things. I'm betting Noel understands photosynthesis well enough to know that water is one of those other factors. So are micronutrients, such as iron.
So, if you are interested in the effects of increased CO2, as many people are, you would theorize that increased crop yield would be one positive consequence. Despite the fact that candance has never heard anyone talk aout this before, I have. However, until you actually study the crops in question, you don't know that increased crop yield will result because other things could be limiting the growth of our crops. You also don't know whether it will cause other, unforseen changes, such as changes in the quality of the food produced.
So you test it by simulating projected concentrations, then announce to the world that yes, increased CO2 will increase crop yields.
At that point you are roundly mocked by the non-scientific community for answering a question that they already knew the answer to, and you potentially question your decision to devote your life to science for the betterment of mankind, since apparently they aren't going to appreciate even the good news you bring them :P
CO2 Receptors
July 9, 2008 - 03:37 ET by Seabeach4348There are CO2 receptors in the brain which sense the amount of CO2 in the blood. They regulate things like breathing rate, depth and (not 100% certain here) even heart rate. As the level of CO2 increases and the level of O2 decreases, such as during physical activity, we compensate for this by automatically increasing our breaths-per-minute to expel excess CO2 and take in more O2. I don't know if CO2 truly an aphyxiant in very large concentration and/or the absence of available oxygen because the brain would shut down for lack of O2. And as we all know the brain can only take approx 4 minutes (probably less) of oxygen starvation before death of neurons and permanent brain damage takes place usually followed by death. Liberals probably experimented with plastic bags over their heads at one time, and that's why they can't think straight.
Large concentrations of CO2 would cause the blood to become slightly acidic (acidosis) and that probably doesn't feel very good if the person hasn't yet gone unconscious.
What's interesting is that without a certain amount of CO2, our breathing rate would be all screwed up. Therefore, in reality we actually need a small amount of CO2 to maintain "normal" respiration.
Other than that, I can't remember anything more of where CO2 is necessary for normal body functions.
Right on Noel. I just got
July 8, 2008 - 23:01 ET by flashkingRight on Noel. I just got registered to post comments and I'm real excited to be entering such a delicious debate.
Thanks for all your good work.
Welcome aboard
July 9, 2008 - 00:05 ET by RESTLESS 1Welcome aboard Flash.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
My kind of experiment!!!
July 9, 2008 - 00:01 ET by RESTLESS 1I hear their next hypothesis is "High levels of alcohol linked to inebriation in humans". Now that is one experiment I want to be a part of!! :)
Of course, with my luck, I would be in the control group. :(
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Noel has been reading my posts
July 9, 2008 - 01:07 ET by JWFI said on 16Jun and 10Jun that "plants love us" We take carbon out of the ground, mix it with Oxygen, and pump it into the atmosphere as CO2.
Starvation level for plants is 300ppm . We are only 69ppm above that level. Despite burning wood and fossil fuels for thousands of years, we have not built up huge levels of CO2 in the atmosphere because the biomass of the planets absorbs and converts the carbon right back.
Oil is still the best energy going. In the ideal combustion engine, we take hydrocarbons (HC), combine them with Oxygen (O2) and produce water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). We do not have the perfect engine yet. But we are as close to it as any time in history.
We need to hammer that point home and finally bust this 20 year old global warming myth once and for all.
so what?
July 9, 2008 - 04:11 ET by OrroYes plants love CO2, so what? Does that mean we should burn coal with complete abandon, drive as much as possible and do what ever else can to saturate the atmosphere with CO2? Of course not.
Increased CO2 will boost crop yields IF crops have adequate water, suitable temperatures, appropriate soil and a host of other requirements.
The same requirements they will not get if global warming and the associated problems spiral out of control.
Orro http://www.dragonlas...
Actually you're the one
July 9, 2008 - 05:05 ET by Jack BauerActually you're the one "spiralling out of control."
You and all the other hysterical watermelon Warm Earthers. You want to cut down on your CO2 buttprint? Stop breathing.
We don't read much do we?
July 9, 2008 - 05:05 ET by JWFDid you not read the article and the post directly above yours?
We have been burning carbon based fuel with complete abandon for THOUSANDS of years. The result has been a co2 level only slightly above the starvation threshold for plants.
Reading your post, one wonders exactly how we manage to feed 6 billion people on this planet without the magic mix of co2, water, warm air, and moist yummy soil. You did forget the number one cause of global warming though, the sun. It is how the temperature will go from 60 degrees at 4am, to 80 degrees at 3pm. 20 degrees in 11 hours, my GAWD! call Al Gore now!
"Weigel said the studies
July 9, 2008 - 07:18 ET by chessplayer"Weigel said the studies have indicated that while greater CO2 exposure appears to spur growth, it can also undermine the quality of the produce."
The pinprick in the "more co2 is good for plants" balloon.
oh good, another one that can't read and never went to school
July 9, 2008 - 11:12 ET by JWFSo I am the only one that sat in 7th grade science class when the teacher showed us a tree that went from 10 lbs at 1 year to 45 pounds how many years later and asked us where all that weight came from. Then let us flip and flop for what seemed like forever. Oh wait, there was 29 other students in that class. And some of them actually posted above. But no, forget what you learned in school and all the stuff you read for all those years later. Forget the studies and articles and your own common sense based on all the experience and learning to date.
Forget Noel's article and the original German study.
NO. Nevermind all of that because yes, the watermelons might be bigger because of increased CO2, they also might be more "seedy".
For the love of Betsy, what does it take to knock the blinders off these people.?
Yea, my 45 years of education, experience and common sense mean nothing now cuz the "balloon has been pinpricked" by a quote from a german scientist that undermines his own reasearch.
So chess, Weigel sayes
July 9, 2008 - 11:16 ET by bassndudeSo chess, Weigel sayes watermelons may be bigger, but less watery? What kind of nonsense is that? Sounds like Weigel is saying we will raise hollow food.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Flame on!
July 9, 2008 - 12:10 ET by JWFI claim the watermelons will be more "seedy"
You claim they will be more "chewy".
Let's see some sources for all the chewy watermelons mister!
I have fossilized seedy watermelon from the great carbonoassic period to back up my claim!
Global Warming Spiraling out of Control?
July 9, 2008 - 10:51 ET by PopularTechGlobal Warming Spiraling out of Control? Please explain using the scientific method how this is going to happen, then explain how CO2 will cause it and finally how man-made CO2 will drive it.
When you are done with that, again using the scientific method demonstrate how the atmosphere will get "saturated" with CO2 and at what levels does the "saturation" start.
High CO2 levels have actually been shown to relieve drought stress in crops:
Increasing Carbon Dioxide Relieves Drought Stress In Corn, Researchers Say (Science Daily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Nice try, PopTech, but the
July 9, 2008 - 11:43 ET by HermanoNice try, PopTech, but the Scientific Method means nothing any more. That was actually step one in the GW process. With that pesky process out of the way, they were able to promote GW by matching (supposed) data to a hypothesis. It pains me sometimes to call myself a scientist. The other day someone asked me what I do for a living and I told them I was a slumlord.
LOL... Did you smile when
July 9, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Clear thinkerLOL...
Did you smile when you said slumlord?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
I wanted to say panhandler,
July 9, 2008 - 12:39 ET by HermanoI wanted to say panhandler, but I am used to a certain level of standing in the community.
PT...
July 9, 2008 - 11:56 ET by Clear thinkerUsing todays standards for scientific method, I'm gonna give it a shot.
First the CO2 stuff get's really really high. Then the stuff comes up with a secret plan. Late one afternoon the stuff martials it's forces and waits until night fall. As soon as it get's dark, the stuff comes down to earth and takes over the mind of corn. The following morning we are all killed by Corn Monsters!
How'd I do?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Oh no! The corn monsters
July 9, 2008 - 12:38 ET by HermanoOh no! The corn monsters are coming! The first thing we need to do is melt all the ice on earth so the extra water can absorb all the extra CO2. Then we refreeze it with our "laser beam" so we can capture the CO2 and turn the corn monsters back into corn so we can feed the cows... Oh crap, then the cows will start farting and the ice will melt again and we will get corn monsters again!!! Aaauuugh!
Now you see the
July 9, 2008 - 12:43 ET by Clear thinkerNow you see the problem....
We are doomed!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
So I'll
July 9, 2008 - 09:13 ET by juspassinthrukeep talking to my indoor plants. They thrive on my expelled co2.
Not only that but plants
July 9, 2008 - 09:37 ET by esahcNot only that but plants need Carbon Dioxide to live. This is what the public Screw-ool system gives us.
CO2 101
July 9, 2008 - 11:06 ET by bradbenj5952Let's see if I have this correct. Humans and animals breath in O2 and exhale CO2? So far, so good. Plants "breath in" CO2 and exhale O2? Phew! Now my head is about to explode, but let's soldier on. When CO2 PPM in the atmosphere increases, a plant's sequestration of CO2 increases, in other words, they bulk up, thus regulating the air's CO2 content? The ocean is a massive carbon sink that absorbs CO2 during cold periods and starts to release it as the Sun warms the earth. So during the warming periods there is more CO2 being released, and that on a lagging timeframe, to feed plants so that plants can feed you and I and all the little animals, fishes, and creeping things. Wow, praise be to our Creator who knows so much more than we can possibly understand!!!
Al, did you hear that?
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Noel - interesting take on
July 9, 2008 - 12:29 ET by TheGingermanNoel - interesting take on this article, which is clearly ridiculous. Do you ever get concerned that you might be hanging your only shingle on a topic that you will ultimately be proven to be wrong about?
What happens in 5 - 10 years when climate change science finally shows us what every rational human being already knows. Human beings negatively affect the enviornment? What will you do then?
I'm not into Global Warming, but I am willing to acknowledge the myriad of examples that demonstrate the negative impact that human beings have had on our environment. All one needs to do is look at what we did to our waterways, our forests, and our animals. It's clear as day. To know that our way of living in the past has destroyed our natural environment in tangible ways, then to deny the possibility that we could have the same negative impact on our climate is absurd. Absolutely absurd.
This is one issue that the the Conservatives have got completely wrong. I'm not for Americans paying the price for climate change while other countries like China pay nothing, but it's outrageous to pretend that humans haven't negatively impacted the climate.
As a news writer/editorial writer, I'd be a bit nervous if I were you about completely destroying your future career. You're a great writer and I love reading your articles, but I'm fairly certain one day your voice will disappear due to the fact that you're making anti-climate change your single defining issue. You're taking a major risk on something I'm fairly certain you'll ultimately be shown to be wrong about.
It's your choice, but I'd be wary if I were you. Perhaps diversify your writing topics a bit to insulate you from future discrediting.
Let's try this again. There
July 9, 2008 - 12:48 ET by HermanoLet's try this again. There is this thing called the Scientific Method. We used to use it years ago to determine how things work. Noel's drive on this is because AGW does NOT have its root in the Scientific Method. Someone took anecdotal information and created AGW. They did not form a theory then design experiments that could either prove or disprove the theory. They formed a theory then proved it by selecting data or massaging it in such a way as to prove the theory. That is not how we do science. If the AGW crowd wants to start that process, I am sure everyone here would be very happy.
Hermano - Your post would
July 9, 2008 - 12:52 ET by TheGingermanHermano - Your post would be relevant if you're weren't completely wrong. AGW is backed by the scientific method. They DID form a theory and THEN design experiments to test its validity.
Of course if you ignore the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in favor of the unfounded statements of some attention-hungry guy in the Czech Republic, then I could see how you feel the way you do.
Really, Ginger? Is that
July 9, 2008 - 12:57 ET by bassndudeReally, Ginger? Is that right?? Then explain to us why Hansen, in proving his theroy, felt compelled to falsify his data to get those results from his designed experiments.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Well Ginger...that is
July 9, 2008 - 13:22 ET by bassndudeWell Ginger...that is exactly the answer I expected.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
AGW backed by the Scientific Method?
July 9, 2008 - 12:58 ET by PopularTechPlease explain it to me using the scientific method and your "experiments" need to be empirical not virtual.
It is more like they came to a conclusion and then desperately tried to make it work.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Your ignorance is quite
July 9, 2008 - 13:09 ET by Jack BauerYour ignorance is quite amusing. You have NO idea about the scientific method of refutation and falsification.
Peer review that, Barney Rubble.
Jack, Explain. Or is ad
July 9, 2008 - 13:12 ET by TheGingermanJack,
Explain. Or is ad hominem your only style?
The Scientific Method
July 9, 2008 - 13:09 ET by HermanoThe Scientific Method requires that if the data do not fit, then you need to modify or abandon your theory. There are hundreds more studies that contradict the claims. How can they all be right? The real issue regarding AGW is that no one is truly following the Scientific Method. Researchers get grant money to prove a theory. The way it works in this day and age is you can only continue to get grant money if your hypotheses are supportable, so no one produces data that are contrary to their theories. I see this in my job every single day. It is a rare (and usually unsuccessful) researcher who follows the Scientific Method properly these days. The words "Publish or Perish" are fresh in my mind from a researcher I worked with in the 80's. His promised result did not come to fruition and his research ended along with his career. He followed the Scientific Method. In the late 80's Pons and Fleischman did not. They got caught because someone tried to replicate their experiment. The complexity of our climate makes it difficult for someone to repeat experiments. You can still be peer reviewed, but that is not the same as repeating an experiment.
Hermano, I don't believe a
July 9, 2008 - 13:16 ET by TheGingermanHermano, I don't believe a word you say. I work in Nuclear Medicine and I see proper employment of the scientific method every day.
You question as to how they can all be right shows an utter misunderstanding of the scientific method.
While grant money is a driving force, I find it to be completely disingenuous to work under the assumption that all researchers are in it for the sole purpose of economic gain. It's a false argument whose only worth is to discredit those with whom you disagree on a blanket basis.
...and I see proper
July 9, 2008 - 13:58 ET by PeskyDane...and I see proper employment of the scientific method every day.
OK, then you are in agreement with many on this site - AGW does not employ the scientific method.
As my old research
July 9, 2008 - 16:11 ET by danboAs my old research perfesser used to say. There are 2 primary errors. 1) We can reject a true hypothesis. And 2) We can accept a false hypothesis. When data or observations do not support or contradict the hypothesis. We must question the hypothesis.
However recently rather than looking at the hypothesis we either change (adjust) the data or ignore it.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I know full well that it is
July 9, 2008 - 17:28 ET by HermanoI know full well that it is possible to design an experiment to support your hypothesis. Even if I am able to create data that supports my hypothesis, it does not necessarily mean the experiment is valid. For example, if you propose that the Earth is flat and you design an experiment so that you are only looking at the floor of your lab - a 10x10' space -then you place a ball in several places within the lab. You observe that the ball does not move from the place you put it, so you have successfully supported the claim that the Earth is flat. If it were round, then the ball would obviously move because it is on a curved surface. You can even take your experiment to another lab in the next building and create more data to support your hypothesis. In order to prove the theory wrong you need to find another test method. Another researcher may find that his lab has a curved floor and could come to the conclusion that the Earth is round. But the methodology is flawed. We all know the Earth is round.
I do not believe that all researchers cherry pick their data for this purpose just like I do not believe that all politicians are only in it for the money. There are always exceptions when dealing with people. Science is different. I can prove that gravity works - every time. If I follow the Scientific Method, I can prove or disprove a hypothesis, but not both. If I change my methodology to support my theory, then I am not following the Scientific Method. This is what Al Gore has done. His famous "Hockey Stick" graph is proof of that. The CO2 increases consistantly lag behind temperature increases, but he said they preceded the temperature increase. This falsification of data has given the scientific community a black eye. If there is a hypothesis on Global Warming that is supportable by data and can pass the Scientific Method, then I will be the first on board. So far, there is only one hypothesis that I can believe in because it has been supported by data and no one has been able to refute it - The Sun causes Gloabl Warming.
Hey gingerman, perhaps you
July 9, 2008 - 15:22 ET by bradbenj5952Hey gingerman, perhaps you should watch http://www.brightcov..., and please, please, please, watch the whole thing. Some of the scientists who contributed to this documentary were involved in the studies Al Gore, you and others like to cite. There a many scientists around the world that disagree, MANY. You are getting your information through a very narrow pipe.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Humans negatively effect the Environment? Really?
July 9, 2008 - 12:52 ET by PopularTechYour "feelings" do not make scientific reality.
Looks like the Trees are doing ok...
Myth: We Are Destroying Our Forests (ABC News)
- U.S. Forest land area increased from 747 million acres in 1997 to 749 in 2002 (U.S. Forest Service)
- Since the 1950s, timber growth has consistently exceeded harvest (U.S. Forest Service)
- Net Forest loss continues to decline globally and has been reversed in Asia (UN Food and Agriculture Organization)
- Net Deforestation in Brazil has fallen by two-thirds over the last four years (UN Food and Agriculture Organization)
Looks like the air is doing ok...
Air Quality in America (PDF) (AEI)
- The United States has sharply reduced air pollution levels, despite large increases in nominally "polluting" activities (Source)
- Areas in the United States with the highest pollution levels have improved the most (Source)
- Air quality in the United States will continue to improve (Source)
- Regulators and environmental activists exaggerate air pollution levels and obscure positive trends in the United States (Source)
- Air pollution affects far fewer people, far less often, and with far less severity than is commonly believed. (Source)
But please keep spreading your propaganda as your "feelings" are what is important not scientific reality.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopTech, You're a
July 9, 2008 - 12:56 ET by TheGingermanPopTech,
You're a deceiver and nothing more.
Again you rely on nothing more than fantastic headlines to try to prove a point b/c you know nobody wants to read your tripe.
To deny that we have negatively impacted our air, water, and animal life is hilarious and extremely disturbing.
I suppose if I were to tell you the Exxon Valdez spill was a disaster, you would post a link telling me how seagulls like to eat oil.
To call reality propaganda, is a true sign of psychological illness. You should help yourself before trying to help the rest of us.
Hey Noel! Are we allowed to
July 9, 2008 - 12:59 ET by bassndudeHey Noel! Are we allowed to say "You Moron!"?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Really? I am a deceiver
July 9, 2008 - 13:00 ET by PopularTechSo air quality has not really improved and we do not have more acreage of forests then we did before? I thought you told me that we were destroying the forests and the air? Either you are lying or just ignorant.
Please don't read my facts as your delusional reality suits your "feelings" very well.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Your first statement backs
July 9, 2008 - 13:07 ET by TheGingermanYour first statement backs up my original assertion.
How have we increased our forest acreage? Did it have something to do with the fact that we first acknowledged we were harming our forests?
You are hilarious. Really. Hands down one of the most entertaining, albeit annoying, posters on this site.
I admire you ability to cut and paste without a shred of personal comment, but frankly I find you to be tiresome, self-contradicting, and painful - esp. when you don't read the articles you link to.
It's funny to me to think that people like you think you're actually making a difference by posting garbage on a website.
So the U.S. Forest Service is not deceiving you now?
July 9, 2008 - 13:15 ET by PopularTechSo you admit that the U.S. Forest Service is not deceiving you now and the trees are ok? Or was that me deceiving you because I posted a link to the U.S. Forest Service?
Lets see we use paper and wood products that come from trees, in order for companies to sell us these products they must grow new trees - amazing trees are a renewable resource.
We were not "harming" our forests, you seem to be confused with third world countries where environmental groups have pressured them not to use modern farming methods such as genetically engineered crops and thus they have to cut down more forests to make more farm land to feed themselves.
It is funny that you think I don't.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop - Timeline's move left
July 9, 2008 - 13:18 ET by TheGingermanPop - Timeline's move left to right. Think about it.
I have to sign off now b/c i have to prepare for a presentation at Trinity College in Dublin tomorrow but I will reply to insanity if I have time later this week.
Your current argument supports my current argument. You do realize that, correct?
My argument supports yours?
July 9, 2008 - 13:21 ET by PopularTechMy argument that we are not destroying our forests supports yours that we are? Oh we will miss your insanity until then. I hope the planet survives until you return.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Dublin sure is a long walk,
July 9, 2008 - 13:26 ET by SemperrightDublin sure is a long walk, try not to breath too hard and put out that nasty CO2
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Long walk from where? I'm
July 9, 2008 - 13:43 ET by TheGingermanLong walk from where? I'm currently in Galway visiting friends and family.
I'm taking a train in the morning.
But you're correct, it would be a hell of a walk. I'm not fired up about AGW just simply pointing out that if we've clearly negatively affected the environment in other ways, I can't figure out why people think it's ridiculous to think that we might be negatively impacting the climate in a similar way.
Call it lies and a lack of evidence
July 9, 2008 - 20:35 ET by PopularTechYou spout off a bunch of lies above and then fail to produce any evidence for your "feelings". I wonder why we don't buy the hysteria? Maybe because we demand actual evidence and don't fall for your emotional filled rhetoric like the brainless zombies who you talk to do.
So far you have struck out after trying to peddle your propaganda. When in reality we actually have more trees and cleaner air. The environment is getting better! Imagine that.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
It's not "ridiculous"
July 9, 2008 - 13:49 ET by sarcasmoBut what you've said is not proof, either. Other/past human-caused pollution is totally irrelevant to the issue of AGW.
The scientific method used to be focused on truth & proof, not politics. Then government money invaded, and "science" became "how can I keep getting this grant, facts be damned, so I can keep this university job?" Some of us have issues with that.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Trains make CO2
July 9, 2008 - 13:58 ET by SemperrightI'm not fired up about AGW just simply pointing out that if we've clearly negatively affected the environment in other ways, I can't figure out why people think it's ridiculous to think that we might be negatively impacting the climate in a similar way.
The problem is scale. You show problems (Polution, deforestation,etc.) PT and others say OK we did it and we are or have fixed it. But these problems and solutions are microscopic when played out on the global scale. If all of humanity as a whole wakes up tomorrow and says, "Burr sure is chilly, lets get some global warming going" we could not effect one bit of change in 100 years. It's just too damn big.
I crunched the numbers once for fun (I'm a engineer dork like that) To double the CO2 level of the planet, you would have to convert 100% of all industries in the world over to just making CO2 for something like 6000 years.
Relax
people good,
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Do you have the vaugest
July 9, 2008 - 13:17 ET by Jack BauerDo you have the vaugest idea when the de-forestation of the planet began?
For instance, in Great Britain?
Around 7000 BC (in the Neolithic period) saw massive deforestation. Neolithic man used fire to clear the land. That period is called PRE-HISTORY.
You see FORESTS and farming do not mix.
You are one crazy, uniformed mother. And you HATE people. Only someone who hated people could think like you.
The Saraha Desert used to
July 9, 2008 - 13:20 ET by bassndudeThe Saraha Desert used to be lush with lots of water. Now thats climate change!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Jack - I find it baffling
July 9, 2008 - 13:24 ET by TheGingermanJack - I find it baffling that you would assume an acknoledgment of the damage that human industry has caused to the environment somehow equals a hatred of humans.
You're clearly riled up and not thinking rationally. I'm a supporter of a symbiotic enivronmental relationship which is fostered through research and increased technology.
Forests and farming do not mix, you are correct, but I fail to see how that somehow implies that we aren't damaging the environment. I would encourage you to take a deep breath, wipe the spittle from your keyboard, compose yourself, and then reply.
...symbiotic enivronmental
July 9, 2008 - 13:47 ET by PeskyDane...symbiotic enivronmental relationship...
Hmm... sort of like plants giving off oxygen and humans and animals giving off co2... hmm... the more co2, the more food for plants... the more plants, the more oxygen for us... hmm...
More Trees and Cleaner Air - Oh the Environmental Horrors!
July 9, 2008 - 13:55 ET by PopularTechModern industry is fantastic! It has helped me live longer, easier and gives me the ability to enjoy nature. Modern industry are my heroes!
I fail to see how more trees and cleaner air is destroying the environment too. But then again I never let my "feelings" get in the way of my facts.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Average life expectancy
July 10, 2008 - 05:12 ET by Jack BauerAverage life expectancy pre-industry 37 years.
Average US life expectancy 2008: 79.
You want people to die for your idiotic wetdream about the "environment."
You're a people hater.
Gingerman - If you have a
July 9, 2008 - 13:26 ET by PeskyDaneGingerman -
If you have a deeply held belief in AGW, then fine. But the reforestation of the lower 48 states in the 20th century is something which is well recorded and observed. Come on, now.
You sound like the person in
July 9, 2008 - 13:05 ET by Jack BauerYou sound like the person in dire need of a mental health professional. Man, you're nuts.
You're right Jack. Humans
July 9, 2008 - 13:09 ET by TheGingermanYou're right Jack. Humans Haven't negatively impacted their environment at all.
I completely imagined extinction of species caused by humans, pollutants dumped into waterways, and deforestation.
Those are all figments of my imagination. It never happened except in my mind. All of those don't fish due to pollution signs aren't really there.
I'm nuts? Yes, Nuts about reality.
You're right Jack. Humans
July 9, 2008 - 13:14 ET by SemperrightYou're right Jack. Humans Haven't negatively impacted their environment at all.
Impacting your environment and impacting THE Environment are two hugely different things.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Are you in favor of saving
July 9, 2008 - 13:17 ET by bassndudeAre you in favor of saving a snail, instead of building a hydroelectric dam for power for 100,000 people, to improve their quality of life and reduce their dependence on "fossel" fuels?
Correct answer is, "Sorry snail. Your history."
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Extinct Species? Really?
July 9, 2008 - 13:19 ET by PopularTechBullshit! - Endangered Species (Video) (29min)
Extinction Turns Out to Be a Slow, Slow Process (The New York Times)
Global warming NOT killing frogs (just like we told you) (World Climate Report)
Nature Undisturbed - The Myth Behind the Endangered Species Act (PERC)
The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth's Biosphere? (PDF) (Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography)
Where are all the Extinct Species? (PDF) (The Marshall Institute)
Not Extinct - Angola Giant Sable: Rare African antelope 'rediscovered' (BBC)
Not Extinct - Bavarian Short-eared Mouse: Back from the dead, not seen for 40 years (The Guardian, UK)
Not Extinct - Beck's Petrel: Flies Back From Presumed Extinction (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Cobble Elimia, Nodulose Coosa and Cahaba Pebble Snails: Thought extinct found in Alabama (Associated Press)
Not Extinct - Cape Lion: 'Extinct' lions surface in Siberia (BBC)
Not Extinct - Capricorn Beetle: 'Extinct' beetle comes out of the woodwork (The Daily Telegraph)
Not Extinct - Canterbury Knobbed Weevils: 'Extinct' bug found alive and well in high-country reserve (The New Zealand Herald)
Not Extinct - Colombian Painted Frog: Believed Extinct Found Alive (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Cozumel Thrasher: 'Extinct' Bird Rediscovered In Mexico (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Cuban Solenodon: Mammal thought extinct found in Cuba (The Age, Australia)
Not Extinct - Dwarf Cloud Rat: Rediscovered After 112 Years (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Giant Palouse Earthworm: Idaho Researcher Finds Rare Earthworm (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Gilbert's Potoroo: Thought extinct for over 100 years, found in Western Australia (Associated Press)
Not Extinct - Glass Sponges: Once thought extinct, now found nearby (UWeek)
Not Extinct - Greater Bamboo Lemur: Held Extinct Found on Madagascar (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Greater Mouse-eared Bat: 'Extinct' - bounces back (BBC)
Not Extinct - Harlequin Frog: Rediscovered In Remote Region Of Colombia (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Indian Owl: Considered Extinct, Is Captured on Film by Americans (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Not extinct (CNN)
Not Extinct - Javan Elephant: Presumed Extinct, May Have Been Found Again - In Borneo (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Javan Rhinoceros: Thought Extinct, a Few Are Seen in Vietnam (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Kouprey Oxen: 'Extinct' oxen are seen (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - La Palma Giant Lizard: Scientists find 'extinct' giant lizards (BBC)
Not Extinct - Leatherback Turtles: Not extinct in Malaysia (The Hindu)
Not Extinct - Laotian Rock Rat: Retired professor tracks down rodent thought to be extinct (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
Not Extinct - Long-beaked Echidna: New hope over 'extinct' echidna (BBC)
Not Extinct - Michigan Cougars: Not Extinct, Animal Droppings Indicate (Live Science)
Not Extinct - Mount Diablo Buckwheat Wildflower: Thought Extinct Rediscovered in California (NPR)
Not Extinct - New York Moose: Once Extinct in the state, return to New York (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Opal Allotoca: 'Extinct' Fish Found (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly: Flutters Back to Life (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Pygmy Hippos: Caught on film (BBC)
Not Extinct - Rat-squirrel: Not extinct after all (USA Today)
Not Extinct - Red Colobus Monkey: Thought Extinct Still Exists (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Robust Redhorse Sucker Fish: Thought Extinct Found Again in Georgia (The Georgia Aquarium)
Not Extinct - Ryukyu Spiny Rat: Not Extinct (Japan Probe)
Not Extinct - Siamese Crocodile: Once Thought Extinct, Is Photographed In Thailand (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Sheepnose Mussel: Thought extinct surfaces in Mississippi (Delta Farm Press)
Not Extinct - Short-necked Oil Beetle: Re-emerges after 60 years (BBC)
Not Extinct - Storm Petrel: Flies back from extinction after 150 years (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Not Extinct - Sumatran Ground Cuckoo: Lost Cuckoo Breaks Its Silence (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Swinhoe's Soft-Shell Turtle: Discovered Living In Wild In Northern Vietnam (Science Daily)
Not Extinct - Tibet Red Deer: Hunch Leads to Discovery of Herd Thought to Be Extinct (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - U.S. Jaguar: Gone for Decades, Jaguars Steal Back to the Southwest (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Warbler: Fiji's 'extinct' bird flies anew (BBC)
Not Extinct - Woolly Flying Squirrel: Long Thought Extinct, Shows Up in Pakistan (The New York Times)
Not Extinct - Yangtze (Baiji) River Dolphin: Previously Thought Extinct Spotted In The Yangtze River (Science Daily)
We already covered deforestation as your imagination seems to very active.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You are a people hater in
July 9, 2008 - 13:31 ET by Jack BauerYou are a people hater in need of mental health. What you call "negative" is a chimera in your mind.
99% of all species that ever lived went extinct before the emergence of homo sapien sapien around 100,000 years ago.
I never said mankind didn't affect the "environment."
Of course, we have changed the environment, in the sense that we have developed the land from its natural state to one which sustained farming, and city dwelling.
We then further changed from labor intensive farming to machanized farming. And from a non-industrial to an industrial society.
It's you that asign a negative "value" to that change. I refute that. I call it humanity.
You are deluded. And I repeat, you clearly value some misguided idea about what the "envirnoment" should be (presumably pre-modern man) over PEOPLE alive now.
I find that revolting.
Nuts? I don't know about
July 9, 2008 - 23:25 ET by NL207Nuts? I don't know about that. Ignorant? Darn straight!
How can you possibly have a informed opinion about anything if you are misinformed.
Plankton and other
July 9, 2008 - 13:12 ET by HermanoPlankton and other microorganisms do like oil, which is why the fishing industry around that are exploded in the years after the accident. More food for the fish.
Ha. That's priceless.
July 9, 2008 - 13:19 ET by TheGingermanHa. That's priceless.
Facts often are.
July 9, 2008 - 14:22 ET by HermanoFacts often are.
What happens in 5 - 10
July 9, 2008 - 13:03 ET by Jack BauerKill yourself. It's the only way to be sure you don't "negatively" affect the "environment."
I've started a "Death Offset" scheme.
Evertime somebody like yourself cannot live with the idea that they personally affect the "environment," others can take comfort that your sacrifice has not been in vain.
LOL Jack! How do we get
July 9, 2008 - 13:06 ET by bassndudeLOL Jack! How do we get others on the roll? Can we add whoever we wish? Or is there a requirement that they enlist themselves? Do you take recommendations?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Send them here to "Save the Planet"
July 9, 2008 - 13:09 ET by PopularTechThe Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (Website)
The rest of us will just die from the evil CO2 naturally.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
bass -- all of the above
July 9, 2008 - 13:34 ET by Jack Bauerbass -- all of the above would work.
I personally could sleep well at night knowing someone would make the ultimate sacrifice for the environment, so I may live.
Jack, I would like to put
July 9, 2008 - 14:17 ET by bassndudeJack, I would like to put Gore and Hansen on the list. Can you get them a date so that they may prove their concern?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Sorry Jack,
July 9, 2008 - 13:07 ET by SemperrightA rotting corps emits nasty gas, a buried corps will be come oil some day, cremation makes CO2, so what do we do?
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
semp -- only one
July 9, 2008 - 13:36 ET by Jack Bauersemp -- only one solution...
SOYLENT GREEN is people.
Recycle them. And by recycle I mean: Eat.
Jack, So Jeffry Dahmer
July 9, 2008 - 13:39 ET by SemperrightJack,
So Jeffry Dahmer wasn't so bad, he was saving the environment.
"I go cookoo for neighbor puffs"
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
20 years
July 9, 2008 - 13:08 ET by JWFUmmm, dude? Global Warming is 20 years old.
Nothing has changed in 20 years. Check that, it has actually gotten cooler.
sigh
July 9, 2008 - 13:11 ET by candanceWhat happens in 5 - 10 years when climate change science finally shows us what every rational human being already knows.
You mean like England being underwater by 2000? Or Katrina-like hurricanes hitting America every summer? Or the convenient disappearance of the hockey stick graph?
Which is it now, global warming or climate change? Acid rain or baby ice age or el nino? Settling on a vague term like climate change lets you define it however you like doesn't it?
Whatever happened to using NASA data to prove the earth is warming? Oops, NASA started showing otherwise so now we just scoot that under the rug.
We talk a lot about global warming because we're trying to stop the government from using it as an excuse to control us. We don't want to be told where to drive our cars, what kind of light bulbs we're allowed to buy, how far out in the suburbs we can live, or how many bottles of water we can consume. Unless we bust this myth such control will quickly become a reality.
What happens in 5 - 10
July 9, 2008 - 13:36 ET by PeskyDaneWhat happens in 5 - 10 years when climate change science finally shows us...
This is one of the reasons why druids have credibility issues - like the Watchtower Society (apologies to any JWs on this site) you keep moving "the date" up when your deadline passes. You really need to explore what scientists are actually saying, not how their research is interpreted by marxists.
TGM
July 9, 2008 - 17:51 ET by Noel SheppardTGM,
Your concern for my career is touching, but exaggerated.
I'm fairly certain one day your voice will disappear due to the fact that you're making anti-climate change your single defining issue.
Single defining issue? And you claim:
You're a great writer and I love reading your articles.
How can this be? After all, of my last 100 articles here, only 15 dealt with AGW, meaning that 85 percent didn't.
Are you consistently missing 85 percent of my articles, or is something else in play? In fact, isn't it really YOU that has AGW on the brain?
A scan of my articles that you have posted comments to since you became a member shows that you almost exclusively respond to pieces about AGW. Here are the articles of mine you've commented on:
As such, including this piece, you have commented on six of my articles since becoming a member, and five of them dealt with AGW. This means that although I spend 85 percent of my time writing about things other than AGW, you spend 83 percent of your time at my blog reading the articles about that topic. Or, at the very least, it seems that only the pieces I devote to this issue arouse you enough to comment on.
Physician, heal thyself. ns
P.S. Care to dispute my take -- the one you felt was "clearly ridiculous" -- that plants love CO2, and man couldn't live without it? Or is that really beside the point?
P.P.S. As always, thank you for playing my game. Don Pardo will now tell you about the marvelous parting gifts. Take it away Don...
I had no idea! The Rocky
July 9, 2008 - 17:45 ET by wiwfI had no idea!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy