Earth is greener than ever

[Stretch]

Earth is greener than ever, Rain Forest is greener, grasslands are more plentiful thanks to more CO2 in the atmosphere. So there's more vegetation for consumption and areas for cattle to graze which equals more food. But, all that good news is not profitable for government paid "scientists" who are actually denying science.
But but but but but whyyyyyy are hurricanes causing so much ore damage???
There's more stuff to damage, that's why.

[Stretch]

[TrippyHippy]

Obviously carbon dioxide concentrations in the air is beneficial at face value for plants.....nobody is denying that. One of the first things taught in biology class is that plants breathe in carbon dioxide and put out oxygen. Congrats for understanding elementary biology I guess. The effects of higher concentrations of CO2 in the air is no doubt in a problem in other ways though.

What they probably didn't teach you in your 2nd grade biology class is that..yes plants breathe in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but they also have other effects on the planet, such as changing the amount of evaporation from the land surface. Ever heard of evapotranspiration? Plants actually give off water through tiny little pores in their leaves which cool the plants on a hot day. This evapotranspiration also acts as a sort of natural air conditioner for it's surroundings. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air shrinks these pores, which in turn decreases the plant's cooling capabilities on itself and it's surrounding environment. This is well-documented scientific fact known for decades. Let me know if you need me to hand-feed you the knowledge of the impact of this decreased cooling capability as well.

On another note...I know I'm probably going to regret asking, but I have to know as I hear it quite a bit from the opposing side on this. How exactly is it "profitable" for scientists to push climate change science? Seems to me, logically, it'd be the other way around as some of the largest industries in the country stand to lose big bucks from this science.

[cancel2 2022]

FB_IMG_1540199531695.jpg

[Lightbringer]

On another note...I know I'm probably going to regret asking, but I have to know as I hear it quite a bit from the opposing side on this. How exactly is it "profitable" for scientists to push climate change science? Seems to me, logically, it'd be the other way around as some of the largest industries in the country stand to lose big bucks from this science.

I can't speak for Stretch but a global carbon tax, depending on how it's administered, could heavily favor large corporations by making entry to the market or even the cost of doing business for smaller companies already in business cost prohibitive.

[cancel2 2022]

I can't speak for Stretch but a global carbon tax, depending on how it's administered, could heavily favor large corporations by making entry to the market or even the cost of doing business for smaller companies already in business cost prohibitive.

.
He needs to ask why the Great Vampire Squid is so interested in cap and trade.

[Bigdog]

Obviously carbon dioxide concentrations in the air is beneficial at face value for plants.....nobody is denying that. One of the first things taught in biology class is that plants breathe in carbon dioxide and put out oxygen. Congrats for understanding elementary biology I guess. The effects of higher concentrations of CO2 in the air is no doubt in a problem in other ways though.

What they probably didn't teach you in your 2nd grade biology class is that..yes plants breathe in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but they also have other effects on the planet, such as changing the amount of evaporation from the land surface. Ever heard of evapotranspiration? Plants actually give off water through tiny little pores in their leaves which cool the plants on a hot day. This evapotranspiration also acts as a sort of natural air conditioner for it's surroundings. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air shrinks these pores, which in turn decreases the plant's cooling capabilities on itself and it's surrounding environment. This is well-documented scientific fact known for decades. Let me know if you need me to hand-feed you the knowledge of the impact of this decreased cooling capability as well.

On another note...I know I'm probably going to regret asking, but I have to know as I hear it quite a bit from the opposing side on this. How exactly is it "profitable" for scientists to push climate change science? Seems to me, logically, it'd be the other way around as some of the largest industries in the country stand to lose big bucks from this science.

Dr. Patrick Michaels is a renowned climatologist. Watch the interview if you truly want answers to your questions.

[Stretch]

Obviously carbon dioxide concentrations in the air is beneficial at face value for plants.....nobody is denying that. One of the first things taught in biology class is that plants breathe in carbon dioxide and put out oxygen. Congrats for understanding elementary biology I guess. The effects of higher concentrations of CO2 in the air is no doubt in a problem in other ways though.

What they probably didn't teach you in your 2nd grade biology class is that..yes plants breathe in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but they also have other effects on the planet, such as changing the amount of evaporation from the land surface. Ever heard of evapotranspiration? Plants actually give off water through tiny little pores in their leaves which cool the plants on a hot day. This evapotranspiration also acts as a sort of natural air conditioner for it's surroundings. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air shrinks these pores, which in turn decreases the plant's cooling capabilities on itself and it's surrounding environment. This is well-documented scientific fact known for decades. Let me know if you need me to hand-feed you the knowledge of the impact of this decreased cooling capability as well.

On another note...I know I'm probably going to regret asking, but I have to know as I hear it quite a bit from the opposing side on this. How exactly is it "profitable" for scientists to push climate change science? Seems to me, logically, it'd be the other way around as some of the largest industries in the country stand to lose big bucks from this science.

Please watch the video.
All started around 1970. It's profitable for "some" of these guys. They spout the Left wing group think and get rewarded with funds and grants, make a nice living and vote Democrat.

[PostmodernProphet]

How exactly is it "profitable" for scientists to push climate change science?

grant money.....

[Irish Exit]

Problem is your map shows a lot of green where a lot of white should be. I don't really believe in the A part of AGW but pollution is always bad. Bad bad bad bad bad.

[TrippyHippy]

I can't speak for Stretch but a global carbon tax, depending on how it's administered, could heavily favor large corporations by making entry to the market or even the cost of doing business for smaller companies already in business cost prohibitive.

That's fair. Assuming, though, the solution is a global carbon tax rather than changing our sources of energy entirely. I trend toward the latter for the reason you stated and because a carbon tax would do little or nothing to actually fix the problem anyway. The government making money off of pollution would not reduce pollution.

[TrippyHippy]

grant money.....

Those grants pale in comparison to the money the oil and coal industries funnel into climate change doubt.

[Lightbringer]

That's fair. Assuming, though, the solution is a global carbon tax rather than changing our sources of energy entirely. I trend toward the latter for the reason you stated and because a carbon tax would do little or nothing to actually fix the problem anyway. The government making money off of pollution would not reduce pollution.

I agree with you, a tax wouldn't solve anything.

I admit I tend to look at the money and from what I gather you studied different disciplines. Time will tell us more.

Oh, and, I have to get back into character now: Fuck off cracka! GuilleX has spoken!

[Ralph]

Earth is greener than ever, Rain Forest is greener, grasslands are more plentiful thanks to more CO2 in the atmosphere. So there's more vegetation for consumption and areas for cattle to graze which equals more food. But, all that good news is not profitable for government paid "scientists" who are actually denying science.
But but but but but whyyyyyy are hurricanes causing so much ore damage???
There's more stuff to damage, that's why.

Its not like the POPULATION of the earth has increased (along with the infrastructure and housing) to around 8 Billion, with millions upon millions moving to the coast lines in order to keep up with the Jones's. This is where the left wing fails big time in attempting to present the false premise that earth's weather is getting more severe....logic, reason, and common sense mixes with the progressive mindset like oil mixes with water.

[cancel2 2022]

Those grants pale in comparison to the money the oil and coal industries funnel into climate change doubt.

Obama was spending many billions per year on mostly useless research.