The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Perhaps more CO2 is good for us > Comments

Perhaps more CO2 is good for us : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 12/12/2012

Greener plants using less water and capable of feeding the world's multitudes - surely that is good news?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Grahma,

No doubt, you'll tell me off for this as well. Nevertheless, there's obviously a huge question on confirmation bias in anything Craig Idso authors, He appears to be fairly intimately connected with many instituions who reject the scientific consensus on global warming.

Surely the antecedents of the person at the centre of this article are relevant to current discussion?

http://www.desmogblog.com/craig-idso

http://heartland.org/craig-idso
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 13 December 2012 10:59:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY:"You pick on a reference that is not in the paper under discussion, say that it has been incorrectly reported, and therefore, because of one "mistake", the whole lot is negated."

Actually Graham, this is not what I am saying at all! I am saying that the case for ignoring peer review is not supported and that peer-review, while not perfect nor any guarantee of correctness often picks up these dodgy mistakes. Idso is NOT peer reviewed, so who's to know? Do I want to spend my time looking for all the mistakes in his work? For WHAT? What is the benefit to me? The credit for discrediting non-peer reviewed work? How professionally satisfying that would be.
As a PhD level 'scientist', he should have the decency to put his proverbial nuts son the table of peer review.

I don't 'overlook' the catastrophism or mistakes, they are picked up quite well by many in the blogosphere, why do I need to add my voice to them? I see them and say ok, theres a mistake buggaluggs101 has pickup it up, so what?

I think the distinction needs to be made between C3 and C4 photosynthetic systems and what that actually means for plant growth and changes in ecosystems. While Idso acknowledges they exist he does not tell us that they actually react differentially to higher CO2 levels , nor discuss what that means for ecosystems and crop diversity etc. On the whole, it doesn't seem to move beyond 'plant growth increases and this is good' .
This is an example of an actual laboratory that actually do look at that and explain the difference in photosynthetic systems:
http://serc.si.edu/labs/co2/index.aspx
http://serc.si.edu/labs/co2/c3_c4_plants.aspx

And they have a reference list of research that they have actually done and had peer reviewed.
How about that?
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:58:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot says:

"Surely the antecedents of the person at the centre of this article are relevant to current discussion?"

And links to a smear site.

In respect of the link to Desmog rubbish it is asserted there that Heartland received funding of $67 million.

Perhaps desmog gets its information from Peter Gleick the disgraced liar and thief:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/03/update-on-fakegate-what-we-know-so-far/

Anyway sans a criminal conviction or a public record of fraud and lying all evidence is treated, or should be treated on its merits not its source.

The irony here of course is that criminality and a public record of lying lies entirely on the pro-AGW side:

In respect of criminality the FOI request made against the UEA CRU was illegally refused:

http://www.panopticonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Keiller-v-IC-and-University-of-East-Anglia1.pdf

In respect of lying and fraud the emails show conclusively that climate scientists are connivers, prepared to usurp process, restrict access and prevent contrary views, regardless of their scientific merit.

By Poirot's standards there would be very few climate scientists standing; but that doesn't matter to Poirot because the nefarious actions of the pro-AGW scientists is forgiven by their 'noble cause', saving the world from AGW.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 13 December 2012 12:05:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

If I link to the affiliations of those who reject AGW, what's the problem?

Pointing out these affiliated institutions and individuals shouldn't be reason for skeptics to declare unfairness in debate. I would have thought the skeptic camp would hold these institutions and individuals in high esteem and, therefore, be quite happy that they are recognised.

Merely putting the information on affiliations out there isn't a form of disparagement - it's a form of clarity.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 13 December 2012 12:13:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Merely putting the information on affiliations out there isn't a form of disparagement - it's a form of clarity.<<

Clarity? Well that's an interesting way of putting it.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Doesn't matter if Idso is President of the Flat Earth Society: hanging out with people who are wrong about some things - even if they are laughably wrong - doesn't weaken someone's arguments.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 13 December 2012 2:31:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Lavis,

I didn't say it did weaken his argument.

(I reject your assertion that I attacked Craig Idso's character or personal traits)

Bugsy seems to have found a flaw, and is wary of those who would diminish the importance of peer review, as am I.

cohenite,

I put up a link to the Heartland Institute to balance the one I put up to desmog....I take it the Heartland one was A-okay, because you didn't criticise that.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 13 December 2012 2:48:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy