In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

[apvbguy]

all of y'all who are hung up on CO2 should read this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know that many of y'all have high degrees and are wicked smart but I wouldn't ignore the credentials of the guys who wrote this article that debunks a lot of the hysteria

MOD NOTE: Posts moved here from Tesla Model S

[timhebb]

all of y'all who are hung up on CO2 should read this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know that many of y'all have high degrees and are wicked smart but I wouldn't ignore the credentials of the guys who wrote this article that debunks a lot of the hysteria

Guess this shows the morph is complete ... the WSJ has officially become The Onion.

[LTLFTcomposite]

...I wouldn't ignore the credentials of the guys who wrote this article that debunks a lot of the hysteria

Yeah, well this guy is an astronaut, if it really gets to be a problem he can just leave.

[apvbguy]

all of y'all who are hung up on CO2 should read this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know that many of y'all have high degrees and are wicked smart but I wouldn't ignore the credentials of the guys who wrote this article that debunks a lot of the hysteria

Guess this shows the morph is complete ... the WSJ has officially become The Onion.

what part of the piece do you object to?

[apvbguy]

...I wouldn't ignore the credentials of the guys who wrote this article that debunks a lot of the hysteria

Yeah, well this guy is an astronaut, if it really gets to be a problem he can just leave.

yes he can , his options are unlimited

[Smidge204]

what part of the piece do you object to?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I object to the part where you posted this nonsense in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the article.
=Smidge=

[KJD]

what part of the piece do you object to?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I object to the part where you posted this nonsense in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the article.
=Smidge=

+1

[WetEV]

all of y'all who are hung up on CO2 should read this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago).

Yes, very true. And palm trees grew above the Arctic Circle before 65 million years ago as well.

[Stoaty]

all of y'all who are hung up on CO2 should read this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you are really interested in learning something, I would suggest reading not only the skeptical science web site, but spend a few years reading here:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once you have read about the science over a period of time you will realize how silly that article is (assuming you read with an open mind and want to learn something).

[apvbguy]

all of y'all who are hung up on CO2 should read this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you are really interested in learning something, I would suggest reading not only the skeptical science web site, but spend a few years reading here:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once you have read about the science over a period of time you will realize how silly that article is (assuming you read with an open mind and want to learn something).

hmmm do you think that site that you sent me to is an unbiased credible source of info? I couldn't get past the idiotic pop up asking me if I was concerned that the NRA controlled congress. If that is the level of their partisanship nothing they have nothing of value to offer.
The article I offered was written by people who do not seem to have any political axes to grind. Is their theory right? I don't know but if you were interested in learning and if you actually had an open mind, and actually read the article I linked to, and noticed the authors and their credentials you would be rebutting their assessments instead of telling me it was junk science and you wouldn't be righting it off so quickly.