andygates: (Default)
andygates ([personal profile] andygates) wrote2009-02-15 01:52 pm

Quick enviro-question

Are there any climate models that show no climate chance with increased CO2?  Only I'm tired of playing whac-a-mole with deniers, and before I say "there are no models that show it because it is in defiance of bloody physics!" I need to be sure of it.

[identity profile] ravenbait.livejournal.com 2009-02-15 02:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Haven't been able to find one, but you may want to look at some of the quotes on this page.

[identity profile] andygates.livejournal.com 2009-02-15 03:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Mmm, lots of moles lined up to whack. Ta.

[identity profile] ravenbait.livejournal.com 2009-02-15 03:21 pm (UTC)(link)
It's when you see trained scientists come out with stuff like:

# Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."


You realise that, with or without anthro/non-anthro global warming, mankind is doomed.

WTF does he mean by "enhance health-promoting properties"? It sounds a bit like energised water to me.

I find it interesting that such a large propertion of them are American. Is that simply a reflection of population size? Or something else?

[identity profile] andygates.livejournal.com 2009-02-15 09:55 pm (UTC)(link)
They're more likely than others to check out their brains when approaching a politically-polarized arena.

And yes, health-promoting properties are right there with spiral water.

There must be some evolutionary benefit to this kind of willful stupidity, but I haven't found it yet.
(deleted comment)

[identity profile] andygates.livejournal.com 2009-02-16 12:12 pm (UTC)(link)
For sure. I'm just trying to figure out where this particular ability - to maintain a dogmatic belief when there's no supporting evidence or even contrary evidence - comes from.

It's not the same as native intelligence, which is (to a large degree) a variable based around the energy budget we can afford to give to the brain. This is something else.

We're a pattern-matching species, and there's a pleasant little epiphany feeling that comes with finding patterns. I wonder if folks who persist in silly beliefs just have the slider for "ooh, nice pattern" pushed up higher than most?

Or whether they're just dicks. :)