Why Do Alarmist Always Turn Good News into "But" Scenarios?

This seem to be a poor exercise in coming up with yet another cute nickname like alarmist, moonbat, gore-whatever etc etc all a bit sad and childish really.

The funny part is, like the "mars is warming" which deniers also tried to use, which was also from National Geographic, like that story, this story has a second page which starts "For the short-term, at least"

This is not me saying 'but' it is your own link, beyond denier clap trap real scientists have been researching the effects of increased Co2 for some time and have shown that it will indeed increase some plant growth with a moderate drop in the the water these plants will require. This is science as is the research of the other effects GW that will not be good for us like sea level rise.

(Every time a new scientific study comes out that rejects the "Climate Change" theory)

Sorry but there aren't any, unless you are talking about the made up science coming from people like anthony watts, these are not scientific theories, that is the reason they can't get published in any real scientific journals.

Did you even read the second page, Einstein? Or do you enjoy cherry-picking?

"The problem is that eventually the positive effect of global climate change on vegetation production is likely to reverse. Climate changes go in cycles and Nemani says that "we hit a good patch for the last couple of decades."

In the Amazon, for example, the same amount of rain continues to fall each year even though the cloud cover has changed. What happens if the region starts to dry up? "It will be catastrophic," said Nemani.

This is already happening in Africa, where the equatorial forests are not doing as well as they did in the 1980s. Indeed, according to the study a few parts of world saw their plant production decrease over the two-decade period."

_________________________________

This is 2009 and we all know what's happened in Australia with their mega-droughts. Only a BUTT HEAD would cherry-pick data from 2003.

Good points.

I've always wondered how it can be considered "green" to reduce CO2 when that's what green plants live on.

Maybe the wacky environmental movement should be renamed to "black" since if they get their way plants will die and turn from green to black. Animals will die too, but that's also part of the plan.

Once you realize what the "environmentalists" really want, it's easy to understand why they do what they do and believe what they believe. Thankfully, most intelligent people no longer believe the AGW lies.

I love the silly nicknames they give to people who don't follow in lock-step with this AGW nonsense. I hear "deniers" thrown around a lot. It's kind of ironic when they are the ones who deny science and rely on some kind of "global warming" religion that is completely devoid of scientific fact.

Historians will note that "environmentalism" was part of the Nazi tactics to get people to fall into line with their strong arm fascist bullying. History certainly repeats itself in aspects like this "global warming" idiocy.

You're just now learning of that 6 year old article? What it doesn't tell you is that the Brazilians are cutting out that rain forest now to plant crops for bio fuels and ranchers.

Some may be "but heads," BUT you are a true BUTT HEAD for failing to do additional research on the subject.

Deforestation charts:

http://www.mongabay.com/general_tables.htm

There's actually a real answer to this question.

In today's society a scientist who comes up with something that contradicts global warming puts his/her reputation at risk by publishing information apparently going against 'Global Warming'. They therefore add the BUT... to give themselves a getout clause.

As you say - just ignore the unsupported But... bit.

Examples:

Ice cores show global temperature rises and is then followed - years later - by a carbon dioxide increase. This would appear to indicate Carbon dioxide levels are not responsible for global warming BUT... an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide could cause global warming

Sea levels will rise due to global warming BUT... London and Venice are flooding because the land is sinking.

(NB sea levels are rising BUT... at the same rate they have risen for the last 40,000 years)

It works both ways BUT... it's good to give yourself a getout clause

I'll get it out of the way before the warmers do. All this is great but you aren't a scientist so you are too stupid to know what you are talking about. This proves that there is global warming and now you just need to start listening to other scientist who say it's our fault.

Works for me...I'm really unimpressed with the alarmist one sided views. They have an aversion in representing facts and global diversity.

http://www.redlac.org/index.php?option=com_content...

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg...

http://forests.org/archived_site/archive/samerica/...

But here's a pro link for the alarmist(BH's); most are lazy or just plain ignorant to look anything up for themselves. It has some pictures, so they don't have to struggle with reading.

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wnf_amazonerappo...

This is my favorite but head. We many not get any warming for the next ten years, BUT after that it will return with a vengeance.

Geez I don't know how anyone could think that there's a point where increased CO2 and hotter temperatures wouldn't be beneficial for vegetation. I mean, don't they know about all the rainforests on Venus?

*edit* LOL brilliant retort, CC! A childish ad hominem attack. I've come to expect no less.