Is Climate Change A Superstition, Scam, Or A Hoax???

Agreed.

My 'parameters' are simple, and all are from published, experimentally repeatable actual physical measurements of Carbon Dioxide in air.

1. Below approx. 250 ppm plants starve, regardless of sunlight and water.

2. At current levels of approx. 400 ppm, an increase in plant growth has been observed in just the last couple of decades.

3. Commercial greenhouses routinely flood their atmospheres with 1500 ppm to promote growth.

4. Submarine crews routinely live with concentrations of 3,000 to 9,000 ppm with no ill effects.

5. Without CO2, plants CANNOT release Oxygen for other life forms to breathe.

The alarmist hysteria is (yet another) scam for control.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

Re:]
And who decides what those 'parameters shall be? Sounds like yet another political round robin just waiting to rear it's ugly head to me; unfortunately.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

Agreed.

My 'parameters' are simple, and all are from published, experimentally repeatable actual physical measurements of Carbon Dioxide in air...

---

yeah, I agree, it's the anti-human vegetarians making their move. Obviously we should all live in cans, like submarines, where the temperature can be better controlled. Because I know the environment on submarines beats what we get outdoors, right? And if it's good for the plants, then too damn bad for the corals and other acid-sensitive aquatic life forms. They're not plants, even if they look kinda like them. It does seem like 'good for plants' should be enough criteria in general, though.

I've always planned to retire into a greenhouse anyway. Though submarines never really did appeal to me.

I merely described a range of CO2 concentration that Nature seems to find acceptable for life. It appears that that range is greater than that claimed to be "acceptable" by the alarmist hysterics.

Can't help but notice that those who claim to know that there are too many humans never volunteer to personally check out to reduce that number.

You have the acidity thing backward. Warm water holds less dissolved CO2 (Carbonic Acid) than cold water.

I too have no desire to live in a sub, though my brother did for several years. The point being that higher concentrations are demonstrably not as toxic as some would claim.

I will continue to trust Nature's system of decentralized self-organisation over (some) humans' mistaken belief in centralized control.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

yeah, I agree, it's the anti-human vegetarians making their move...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

I merely described a range of CO2 concentration that Nature seems to find acceptable for life...

---

just to be picky, the maximum saturation levels for C02 aren't relevant. We're not close to reaching that, even in cold water (I hope!) That's part of my complaint about some of the facts brought to this issue; this is representative of one that's true as far as it goes but doesn't add insight to the situation.

I think the characterisation of 'alarmist hysterics' and expressed concern over centralized control gives more insight into how you (and lots of others) weigh the available information. The issue of whether or not we're in a position where we could and should address human's contribution to climate is heavily impacted by the imagined tactics that such action would imply. If it requires coordinated, thus government, action, its potential unintended consequences seem unacceptable. So it's not really a debate about whether the theory of AGW itself is plausible enough to take action - it's short-circuited because any imagined action would empower government over the individual.

Personally, though you want to trust Nature's system of decentralized self-organization, I think what we get instead is humanity's system of semi-decentralized self-organization. I don't share the fear several here express that there are behind-the-scenes conspiracies that allow Monsanto et al to act as a pseudo-government - instead I fear that the destruction they caused is a consequence of their individual actions. I'll live with the threat of NWO because coordinated action is the only way to deal with things like AGW. Nature itself hasn't shown a history of protecting the best interests of any one of its species. It seems perfectly willing to let major change happen pretty much for any random reason.

Re:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

You have the acidity thing backward. Warm water holds less dissolved CO2 (Carbonic Acid) than cold water.

---

The ocean acidification that is directly related to CO2 content (Carbonic Acid) in the oceans has been damaging the coral reefs and shellfish, some of these areas are in areas that are in warmer ocean waters so I have trouble seeing the 'scientific' logic behind that statement based on this discussion.:hmmm:

Monsanto's Ties to Government

NAME	MONSANTO JOB	GOVERNMENT JOB	ADMIN
Toby Moffett	Monsanto Consultant	US Congessman	D-CT
Dennis DeConcini	Monsanto Legal Counsel	US Senator	D-AZ
Margaret Miller	Chemical Lab Supervisor	Dep. Dir. FDA, HFS	Bush Sr, Clinton
Marcia Hale	Director, Int'l Govt. Affairs	White House Senior Staff	Clinton
Mickey Kantor	Board Member	Sec. of Commerce	Clinton
Virginia Weldon	VP, Public Policy	WH-Appt to CSA, Gore's SDR	Clinton
Josh King	Director, Int'l Govt. Affairs	White House Communications	Clinton
David Beler	VP, Gov't & Public Affairs	Gore's Chief Dom. Polcy Advisor	Clinton
Carol Tucker-Foreman	Monsanto Lobbyist	WH-Appointed Consumer Adv	Clinton
Linda Fisher	VP, Gov't & Public Affairs	Deputy Admin EPA	Clinton, Bush
Lidia Watrud	Manager, New Technologies	USDA, EPA	Clinton, Bush, Obama
Michael Taylor	VP, Public Policy	Dep. Commiss. FDA	Obama
Hilary Clinton	Rose Law Firm, Monsanto Counsel	US Senator, Secretary of State	D-NY Obama
Roger Beachy	Director, Monsanto Danforth Center	Director USDA NIFA	Obama
Islam Siddiqui	Monsanto Lobbyist	Ag Negotiator Trade Rep	Obama

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

just to be picky, the maximum saturation levels for C02 aren't relevant. We're not close to reaching that, even in cold water (I hope!) That's part of my complaint about some of the facts brought to this issue; this is representative of one that's true as far as it goes but doesn't add insight to the situation.

I think the characterisation of 'alarmist hysterics' and expressed concern over centralized control gives more insight into how you (and lots of others) weigh the available information. The issue of whether or not we're in a position where we could and should address human's contribution to climate is heavily impacted by the imagined tactics that such action would imply. If it requires coordinated, thus government, action, its potential unintended consequences seem unacceptable. So it's not really a debate about whether the theory of AGW itself is plausible enough to take action - it's short-circuited because any imagined action would empower government over the individual.

Personally, though you want to trust Nature's system of decentralized self-organization, I think what we get instead is humanity's system of semi-decentralized self-organization. I don't share the fear several here express that there are behind-the-scenes conspiracies that allow Monsanto et al to act as a pseudo-government - instead I fear that the destruction they caused is a consequence of their individual actions. I'll live with the threat of NWO because coordinated action is the only way to deal with things like AGW. Nature itself hasn't shown a history of protecting the best interests of any one of its species. It seems perfectly willing to let major change happen pretty much for any random reason.

---

Sure, the level of incestuousness in academia, corporations and governments around the world is higher than the proverbial hillbilly haven, but that's not the same as assuming they're all waiting for mutual buy-in before any of them act.
They're all a bunch of independent operators with vastly overlapping interests. They'll screw each other, though, when it's in their interest to do so - maybe not as readily as they'd do it to you and me, but enough to demonstrate they're not multiple faces on one cohesive entity. You can explain all their behavior without relying on explicit conspiracy just by acknowledging their obvious common interests. Occam's Razor applies - why introduce factors that aren't necessary?

We have little or no influence on the corporate actors; in theory we do over our government. Ignoring our only tool seems foolish at best. Distrusting it completely is equivalent to pre-emptive surrender.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Monsanto's Ties to Government ...

---

I'm just reading this so I haven't formed an opinion yet ... it's a Senate report entitled "How a Club of Billionaires and their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama's EPA"

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...6-be947c523439

Quote:

---

I've always planned to retire into a greenhouse anyway. Though submarines never really did appeal to me.

---

And the rent on a one-bedroom pad in a sub is worse than in San Francisco. Though probably cheaper in Kansas.
-Conrad

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

just to be picky, the maximum saturation levels for C02 aren't relevant.

---

A maximum saturation level for C02 will be very relevant. The pertinent fact is that it is an unknown. This is a major portion of the argument against AGW alarmism. Those who claim to know, don't really.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I think the characterisation of 'alarmist hysterics' and expressed concern over centralized control gives more insight into how you (and lots of others) weigh the available information.

---

The same could be said for the attempt to replace the characterisation of 'skeptic' with 'denier'.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

The issue of whether or not we're in a position where we could and should address human's contribution to climate is heavily impacted by the imagined tactics that such action would imply. If it requires coordinated, thus government, action, its potential unintended consequences seem unacceptable. So it's not really a debate about whether the theory of AGW itself is plausible enough to take action - it's short-circuited because any imagined action would empower government over the individual.

---

Coordinated, thus government...?? That does NOT equate! Individuals can and do coordinate activities without centralized government coercion. And it is the actual 'unintended' consequences of that coercion which are unacceptable.

AGW is not a theory; it is an hypothesis. No experiments have been performed, and actions planned around fear are based on utterly inadequate (if not dead wrong) beliefs. Actual action to further empower government over the individual should be short circuited!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

Personally, though you want to trust Nature's system of decentralized self-organization, I think what we get instead is humanity's system of semi-decentralized self-organization. I don't share the fear several here express that there are behind-the-scenes conspiracies that allow Monsanto et al to act as a pseudo-government - instead I fear that the destruction they caused is a consequence of their individual actions. I'll live with the threat of NWO because coordinated action is the only way to deal with things like AGW.

---

I didn't say that I want to trust Nature's system of decentralized self-organization, I said I will continue to trust Nature's system of decentralized self-organisation over (some) humans' mistaken belief in centralized control. In my experience, Nature doesn't lie. Politicians do. Who do you trust?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

Nature itself hasn't shown a history of protecting the best interests of any one of its species. It seems perfectly willing to let major change happen pretty much for any random reason.

---

Yes. Agreed. Isn't Life fascinating? Wonder full? Incomprehensibly Awesome?
Give thanks to the Mystery of Universe. Enjoy. Adapt or follow the dinosaurs, because our belief in 'control' is pure fantasy.

James Corbett publishes "The Cobett Report". It is very good, always well researched, and I recommend it ...

Here are two videos which discuss the climate change issue ... the first one discusses the affects of geoengineering on climate change ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpz6W980n4I

the second one is entitled "A Message to the Environmental Movement"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI

and if that's not enough for you, here is a very well documented report from Global Research, another solid source of information ...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ul...-use-2/5306386