Slashdot Mirror

CO2 is food for plants.

You know what, you're right! And I don't know why those folks in Fukushima got all upset about their nuclear reactor getting water washed all over it! I mean, the darn thing needs water to work anyway, right? Plus plants and people drink water, why were they upset that they got extra from the ocean? It's just water!

Big whoop. Warming up this damn freezer I live in is NOT being "dirty".

Right because the possibilities of water wars, refugees, failing economies, destruction of the food chain, droughts and general destabilization of the planet will have no effect on you whatsoever.

What in the world was up with this letter from ex-employees (also discussed on Slashdot)? Was that just totally out of left field? Was there an internal reaction to it? Did you respond?

Here are your citations! plantsneedco2.org says warmer is better then colder. They have lots of facts that seem logical and scientifically sound. Like this bit:

We have determined that CO2 's influence, while significant at low concentrations in the atmosphere, is of minor impact as more and more is added to the atmosphere...

It must be true because that is what I have been saying all along without any research or experimentation. [end sarcasm]

Honestly, what is even more troubling to me is other potential problems that might be caused by co2 like the acidity of the oceans.

Yet, when I talk to a self-identified Conservative that denies global warming and I mention other potential risks of co2 (such as the aforementioned) the response is childish at best. We can agree humans are putting a lot of c02 in the atmosphere at unprecedented rates. Yet, global climate change is outside of our influence.

How many papers have been published and peer reviewed in journals that support the current consensus of the scientific community? Isn't it like 97-98% of all papers submitted in regards to global warming have verifiable data to reach the conclusion that we are indeed impacting the climate in a warming sort of way. How many for the deniers???

I will just leave with this quote from plantsneedco2.org and let your head explode.

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is one of the drivers and while everyone agrees that CO2 does contribute to climate change as a greenhouse gas, the magnitude of CO2 's influence has not been settled within the overall scientific community, the political systems, the media or the population in general.

--
I like my coal smug cloud.

Here are your citations! plantsneedco2.org says warmer is better then colder. They have lots of facts that seem logical and scientifically sound. Like this bit:

We have determined that CO2 's influence, while significant at low concentrations in the atmosphere, is of minor impact as more and more is added to the atmosphere...

It must be true because that is what I have been saying all along without any research or experimentation. [end sarcasm]

Honestly, what is even more troubling to me is other potential problems that might be caused by co2 like the acidity of the oceans.

Yet, when I talk to a self-identified Conservative that denies global warming and I mention other potential risks of co2 (such as the aforementioned) the response is childish at best. We can agree humans are putting a lot of c02 in the atmosphere at unprecedented rates. Yet, global climate change is outside of our influence.

How many papers have been published and peer reviewed in journals that support the current consensus of the scientific community? Isn't it like 97-98% of all papers submitted in regards to global warming have verifiable data to reach the conclusion that we are indeed impacting the climate in a warming sort of way. How many for the deniers???

I will just leave with this quote from plantsneedco2.org and let your head explode.

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is one of the drivers and while everyone agrees that CO2 does contribute to climate change as a greenhouse gas, the magnitude of CO2 's influence has not been settled within the overall scientific community, the political systems, the media or the population in general.

--
I like my coal smug cloud.

They would but 49 members of the engeniering branch, with no climate experience, quit and now work for a non-profit with ties in to the coal industry. Oh they also wote the letter in question for the article.

False, unless you have a different source from TFA. The letter was organized by someone from that non-profit. There is no indication whatsoever that all or the majority of the individuals who signed it are otherwise affiliated with that organization (Plants Need C02). Also, only most of them had engineering backgrounds, not all (one of them at least was a meteorologist). Link to fill text and signatories.

Spreading falsehoods is not the way to invalidate climate change deniers.

The 49-person letter was organized by Leighton Steward, chairman of Plants Need CO2, a non-profit with ties to the coal industry.

To this site and promptly commit suicide? From that site:

Earth and its inhabitants need more, not less, CO2.
More CO2 means:

More Plant Growth
Plants need less water
More food per acre
More robust habitats and ecosystems

CO2 is Earth's greatest airborne fertilizer. Without it - No Life On Earth!

A site with a banner that says "Warmer is better than colder." and "CO2 is Green." and "Climate Change is the Norm." really just makes my head hurt. The arguments presented on this site seem to imply that policy is to completely remove all CO2 from Earth. That is not true. It also grasps at hilarious straws:

In addition to increasing the quantity of food available for human consumption, the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is also increasing the quality of the foods we eat. It significantly increases the quantity and potency of the many beneficial substances found in their tissues (such as the vitamin C concentration of citrus fruit), which ultimately make their way onto our dinner tables and into many of the medicines we take, improving our health and helping us better contend with the multitude of diseases and other maladies that regularly afflict us. In just one species of spider lily, for example, enriching the air with CO2 has led to the production of higher concentrations of several substances that have been demonstrated to be effective in fighting a number of human maladies, including leukemia, ovary sarcoma, melanoma, and brain, colon, lung and renal cancers, as well as Japanese encephalitis and yellow, dengue, Punta Tora and Rift Valley fevers.

Climate warming increases the quality of your food! Burn all the shit you want, folks! Hey, if CFCs make the planet warmer and this site says "warmer is better than colder" shouldn't we be purposefully releasing those things up into the ozone?

Is the claim in this letter opinion or fact?

Well, from the letter itself:

March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack - JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell - JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick - JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman - JSC, Scientist - astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox - JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day - Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. - JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich - JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron - JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany - JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson - JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon - JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi