Global warming - fact or conspiracy?

First of all, it was in response to an ad hominum attack on environmentalists. Second, I did not directly question the motivations of the skeptics. I merely pointed out that they are mostly supported financially by energy companies. This is a true statement. There are a few skeptics who have done competitively funded research but not many. Most have opted for easier to get non competitive grants from energy companies. It is a fact. I merely pointed it out.

Ah - the old, "it is well known." argument. But the devil is always in the details and that is why we need research. It is not enough to know the general effect. We need to know how it applies to different kinds of plants and ecosystems and the unknown specific effects. Secondly, the "conserve water" reference is somewhat vague. If you mean that elevated carbon dioxide levels will help plants conserve water you have it exactly backward. The more carbon dioxide taken in by a plant and used, the more water is required. Carbon dioxide plus water yields glucose plus oxygen. Basic photosynthesis equation. Not only that, as plant leaf area increases in response to the elevated carbon dioxide levels there will be an even higher demand for water as transpiration rates increase.

quote:

---

Yes, there might be enough to warrent suspicion there, but such an attack to invalidate your opposition is not a noble way to do it!

---

Who is making an attack? I am simply pointing out the well-known and verified phenomenon that organizations with a vested interest in a particular conclusion have been able to produce scientific studies that have reached their desired conclusions. I am simply pointing out that this has occurred even when it has become clear (and was clear at the time) that the opposite conclusions were being reached in the scientific community at large. And I am simply pointing out that the research produced by the vested interests were often not up the standards considered acceptable in the field.In the case of tobacco use, the overwhelming evidence acquired by researchers with no clear reasons to be biased in one way or the other showed that smoking was strongly linked to lung disease. The vast amount of contrary evidence were acquired by research funded by those who clearly would benefit from the conclusion that there was no such link.This phenomenon has occurred in quite a lot of issues where the personal interest of a few powerful entities favored a certain conclusion.Most people do not own electron microscopes, radiotelescopes, or have the means (or training) to conduct properly controlled randomly sample opinion surveys, nor the training to evaluate the methodologies involved in the data collection, the interpretation of the data according the various competing theories, or the logical inferences made from the data and the interpretations. So most people are unable to properly evaluate the competing claims if different researchers come to opposite conclusions. If the person is unable to take the time to obtain a PhD in the field and spend years acquiring actual practical experience in conducting research in that field, then it is entirely acceptable to evaluate the claims using what knowledge she has, including an understanding of how clearly biased scientific results have been used in the past.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

I'm not disagreeing with you on the apparent motive of special interest funded research groups. I am disagreeing on using such a fact to support your position.Your message 48 is much better and cannot be viewed as an ad hominem because you explained how the process worked.The original statement in question merely accused the other side of having a biased motivation, which is never fair!

The original statement in question was mine and it did nothing of the sort, as I pointed out in post 46.Here is the "original statement" with the "relevant quote" it was in response to: Note that I was RESPONDING to a quote which used the term "shifty environmentalists" and asked the question what would motivate them to be shifty (deceptive). I then pointed out that GW skeptics are often financially supported by energy companies who are motivated by profits. That is a fact. It is not saying that the skeptics themselves have a biased motivation. There is nothing unfair about it. It only suggests that energy companies are more likely to fund individuals whose research tends to promote their economic interests. There is nothing wrong with that per se but there is also nothing "unfair" about pointing it out.

I agree in high humidity its uptake of carbon dioxide and water is increased. In times of low humidity higher CO2 levels promotes greater closure of the stoma, reducing amount of water lost through evaporation.* resource cited below.Previous research has claimed that the observed increases in plant growth result from a greater abundance of atmospheric CO2. Though plants clearly require CO2 to grow, water and higher humidity make plants more efficient at drawing in carbon. In dry conditions, plants close special cells in their leaves, called stoma, to reduce the amount of water lost to the air through evaporation. Higher CO2 availability also promotes closure of these cells since the plants can have a smaller opening, save water, and take in the same amount of nutrients. But when the air is wetter, these pores can open without a net water loss, increasing CO2 uptake while reducing the amount of water needed to grow. “If you increase the rainfall you can sequester more carbon from the atmosphere,”Rain Helps Carbon Sink

But you actually missed one of the main points of the article which is that it is only under conditions of high humidity and water availability that plants are going to be benefit from the extra carbon. If it is dry, the plants are not able to take up the extra carbon. Not only that, but a rainy period followed by a drought will be more of a problem under elevated carbon dioxide because lush growth and large leaf area will be promoted as long as the rain lasts but as soon as it gets dry the large leaf area is going to promote a transpiration rate that is unsustainable under the dry conditions for shallow rooted annual crop plants and the plants are going to suffer more from the drought than they would have otherwise. Note that plants in arid areas minimize their leaf areas by having spines and needles instead of leaves. This is because lower leaf area means less transpiration and greater drought tolerance.Edited by deerbreh, : typo

deerbreh writes

quote:

---

Note that I was RESPONDING to a quote which used the term "shifty environmentalists" and asked the question what would motivate them to be shifty (deceptive). I then pointed out that GW skeptics are often financially supported by energy companies who are motivated by profits. That is a fact. It is not saying that the skeptics themselves have a biased motivation. There is nothing unfair about it. It only suggests that energy companies are more likely to fund individuals whose research tends to promote their economic interests. There is nothing wrong with that per se but there is also nothing "unfair" about pointing it out.

---

So, in other words, you were using "tu quoi" rather than ad hominem.

I was more or less stating the obvious. Corporations do not fund research that is not in their own self interest. Nor would I expect them to. Nor is it unfair to state the obvious.

I've read the entire thread so far--it seems no one knows who Crichton is (of course, that's highly unlikely).You have to keep in mind, Crichton writes thrillers. Andromeda Strain, the Sphere, Jurassic Park, State of Fear, and plenty of others. As a side note, he's also behind E.R, the tv series. To give you some background--everyone's familiar with the Jurassic Park movie, and the book is along similar lines. In Andromeda Strain, a killer strain hits the earth, and five scientists try to find a way to combat it. In the Sphere, a USA spaceship (or sub?) from the future is sitting on the bottom of the ocean. His books thrive on unlikely scenarios and painting dubious pictures of business, government from what I remember.I've not read State of Fear, but it's important to treat it with a grain of salt--it is a work of fiction with some basis in truth, much like that new movie (and less new book) the Da Vinci Code.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I would not read Crichton's book for information about global warming just as I would not read Tom Clancey's novels for information about terrorism or national security (even though some celebrity butt sniffing senators did once have him at a hearing on missile defense).

The article is mentioning that plants benefit in times of low humidity because the stoma cells are able to close down (due to Co2 increased atmospheric concentrations) so the plants are not drawing excess water from the soils.It benefits shallow root crops because the farmer needs to water less during times of low humidity. In this way the article its saying Co2 benefits plants even in times of low humidity.In response to increased leave surface area, that would be a good thing because more cells would be photosythesising converting Co2 to Oxygen.I agree per square inch during times of low humidity it would convert less Co2 but the greater leaf surface has more cells to photosythesis Co2 to O2.The greater surface area naturally would draw more water from the soil, but not excessively due to the closing down of the stoma's.The farmer benefits because the plants would not be drawing water from the soil excessively during times of low humidity(water energy savings to the farmer).

doesn't anybody realize that it's algea that does most of the photosynthesizing on this panet? They don't even have stoma, because they are, except for a few exceptions I would imagine, unicellular. That benefit of CO2 is crap. And in order to get the benefits of the CO2 you're describing, I would imagine that it would take quite a high level of CO2 in the atmoshpere.So much for benefitting the farmer.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

With just a 300 ppm increase in Co2 plant yields increased 31 percent in optimal water conditions and 63 percent in times when water is less plentiful.Co2 atmospheric concentrations is expected to double in the next hundred years which will benefit the farmer.* reference sited belowver the past 150 years atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased approximately 30 percent, rising from 280 to 360 parts per million (ppm).Instead of a disaster, the expected doubling of CO2 due to human activities will produce a number of benefits over the next century.Farmers Need CO2. Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average 32 percent across species.Increasing CO2 levels speeds the time in which plants mature and improves their growth efficiency and water use. Botanists have long realized that CO2 enhances plant growth, which is why they pump CO2 into greenhouses.In addition, higher CO2 levels decrease water loss in plants, giving them an advantage in arid climates and during droughts. In 55 experiments conducted by U. S. Department of Agriculture research scientist Sherwood Idso, increased levels of CO2 dramatically enhanced plant growth. For example, Idso found:
With a CO2 increase of 300 ppm, plant growth increased 31 percent under optimal water conditions and 63 percent when water was less plentiful.http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=enviro...

But this doesn't take into effect what happens to the environment when the CO2 level approaches 600 ppm. What happens to the oceans? If they have a massive algal bloom, then plenty of marine organsims die. We see this happen in ponds and lakes. And you know what, we depend on marine food.And this will undoubetdly raise the temperature of the oceans, one of two major driving forces of weather (the other being the sun, of course). What happens when you increase the warmth of the ocean by so many degrees as predicted? What happens to the rainforests? As to that one, the prediction is more desert, like the sahara. Now then, can you please tell me what basic foods grow in the desert. Does wheat? corn? rice? does livestock?While that stuff may hold true for greenhouses, which are controlled envirnoments, man cannot control the earth. This doubling is not a good thing large scale.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences