The Sound Of Settled Science

With news like this coming out almost daily, someone please explain to me why on earth we see things like the Wildrose Party now falling over themselves to get on the global warming bandwagon.

Things just don't add up. Do adults never grow up? I mean this is the sort of thing teenagers do - go to school, see how all the other kids are dressed, try to dress exactly the same way, wanting desperately to be part of the "common mindset".

There are plenty of reputable scientists who dispute the global warming fraud. There are plenty of highly regarded economists who say that the costs of addressing this non-issue will be enormous and achieve little.

But no no, Wildrose has to get completely on the bandwagon along with every other sucker, rather than taking the time to articulate a more reasonable policy.

Computer models are the "crystal balls" of the 21st century.

Without a completely thorough understanding of the sun, oceans, atmosphere , etc, etc and all the complexities of their interactions, it is simply impossible to predict our climactic future. Misinfo in, misinfo out, so to speak.

I am so disappointed in how many scientists have apparently abandoned the rules of scientific method, instead preferring to cower in the shadows of a politically correct agenda.

So what this new research paper is saying is that plants absorb atmospeheric CO2 for growth and thus provide a negative feedback for CO2 levels.

Plants need CO2. Who knew? Amazing what science is discovering nowadays.

I'm not so sure how solid the rural WRP vote is cgh. I keep in touch with a lot of rural folks who to a (wo)man are not certain about any party that has weather vane policies. What's more I'm not so certain that the sudden change of heart will endear them to the softheaded urban voter either. What I see is the WRP thinks it failed because Danielle Smith was not Ralf Klein so they are going to rebrand her as Nancy Betkowsky.

BTW those rural folk I am talking about are a huge AGW fans. They all grow plants for a living and the extra CO2 isn't doing them any harm.

All right then.

Anybody here who believes human activity has zero effect on the surroundings truly belongs in a loony bin.

What Danielle Smith has articulated is that human activity does affect the surroundings, but unlike the loony AGW proponents, humans are not the SOLE cause of whatever it is the extremists are calling it these days, trying to drag us into their collective guilt solution.

Science always wins (thanks FredR).

The IPCC as a product - would be one of those eco-front load washing machines. Costs more, cleans less and stinks the whole place up with bacteria.

So more CO2 that the trees convert into cellulose which makes the trees bigger with more leaves to convert more quantities of CO2 affects the levels of CO2 in the air. You would think scientists would take grade nine biology into account when developing their computer models.