New Theory: CO2 Makes You Fat

Danish researchers have announced a rather wild hypothesis: Perhaps we are getting fatter and fatter because of the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

By Thomas Hoffman

No, this is not 1 April – and this is not an April Fool’s hoax.

Mad as it may sound, Danish researchers have announced a theory that may not only explain why people all over the world are getting fatter and fatter, but also warn of the serious consequences for life on Earth of continued pollution of the atmosphere by CO2 emissions.

In itself, the theory is quite simple: CO2 contributes to making us fat.

“There’s something in the air”

The theory arose several years ago, when Lars-Georg Hersoug studied the development of obesity among people who had been followed over a number of years in the so-called MONICA studies (Monitoring of Trends and Determinants in Cardio-vascular Disease) in Denmark. These studies have mapped the lifestyles of thousands of Danes.

Hersoug was surprised to see that both fat and thin people taking part in the studies over a 22-year period had put on weight – and the increase was proportionately the same.

Orexins – which are neuropeptide hormones – in the brain stimulate wakefulness and energy expenditure. These hormones may be affected by CO2, and this can cause us to go to bed later, affecting our metabolism so it is easier for us to put on weight. But orexins are also involved in the stimulation of food intake.

Read the rest at Science Nordic.

108 Responses to New Theory: CO2 Makes You Fat

  1. Rob N. Hood March 13, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    The brain is very complex (obviously) and very sensitive. To dismiss anything to do with it, especially related to chemicals, is infantile.

    • Darren Potter March 13, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

      Blogged by RobNHood – “To dismiss anything to do with it, especially related to chemicals, is infantile.”

      While entertaining a Theory that says A is the result of B and fails to show there are no other possible causes for A is infantile.
      Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

      • NEILIO March 13, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

        Illa populuus es bardus!

  2. Darren Potter March 13, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    New Theory: CO2 Makes People Gullible to Faux claims of Global Warming

  3. Dan McGrath March 13, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

    I’m fat because you drive an SUV! It’s not my fault – it’s the evil 1% that did this to me!

    • NEILIO March 13, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

      If this is true then why have I lost 20 pounds in the last month and a half?

      • Dan McGrath March 15, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

        The headlights of a Prius or Volt must have shone their grace upon you and you are saved.

        • Rob N. Hood March 22, 2012 at 11:10 am #

          Lawdy Lawdy I sees the light!!

    • Rob N. Hood March 14, 2012 at 9:37 am #

      In the brilliant movie Chinatown, the cornered, luckless hero (Gittes) demands the villain’s motivation:

      Gittes: I just want to know what you’re worth. Over ten million?
      Cross: Oh my, yes!
      Gittes: Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What can you buy that you can’t already afford?
      Cross: The future, Mr. Gits – the future.

      So drives today’s Republican providential villainy: at home, the conscious, cynical wholesale demolition of modern, secular, middle-class America – overseas, smashing medieval, non-Christian states that offend its entitled vision of the future.

      • NEILIO March 14, 2012 at 3:31 pm #

        Why are you quoting works of fiction? Oh, wait I know why.

        • Rob N. Hood March 15, 2012 at 11:00 am #

          Why not? You think AGW is fiction… Can you not gain knowledge from fiction? Especially when it reflects reality…

          • NEILIO March 15, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

            I think you have lost all touch with reality.

  4. NEILIO March 13, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    Why would RNH claim that dismissing this would be infantile? I can dismiss this in a very adult manner. The first thing that we run into is the same language as calling the oceans acidic when they are not. Blood has a pH above 7 which means it is basic, or alkaline. It is incorrect to say that anything above 7 pH is acidic, (and if you note below wikipedia does state that “blood that has a pH below 7.35 is too acidic” which I disagree with emphatically. I think the best way to describe it would be “not alkaline enough”). Remember 7 is neutral 7 is alkaline. This is not an opinion, this is adhereing to the strict meaning of the words to describe pH.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood
    “Blood pH is regulated to stay within the narrow range of 7.35 to 7.45, making it slightly alkaline. Blood that has a pH below 7.35 is too acidic, whereas blood pH above 7.45 is too alkaline. Blood pH, partial pressure of oxygen (pO2), partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2), and HCO3? are carefully regulated by a number of homeostatic mechanisms, which exert their influence principally through the respiratory system and the urinary system in order to control the acid-base balance and respiration.” To say it is acidic is the language of fear, just like with the ocean “acidification” fearmongering.

    The other thing that we run into is that the study claims that CO2 makes your blood more “acidic” by lowering the ph of your blood and affecting your brain in certain ways. But then later in the article it says:
    “Hersoug adds that fruit and vegetables also reduce the blood’s pH value, so the CO2 theory is also an argument for eating more healthily.”
    This made me scratch my head because it seems to be saying that reducing the blood pH level is a good thing while saying CO2 making blood more acidic is a bad thing. ????!
    This is contradictory. It leads me to think that maybe, just maybe, the researchers might not know what they are talking about, and that casts a large shadow of doubt over the whole idea. IMO.

    • NEILIO March 13, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

      I don’t know what happened. I must have hit an unintended button or something because the last line in the first paragraph should look more like this:
      “Remember 7 is neutral >7 is alkaline, and <7 is acidic. This is not an opinion, this is adhereing to the strict meaning of the words to describe pH."

  5. joe March 13, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    Love it! I purposely exhale on extremely thin people to make them fat! My God, what else is coming from the Gore minions. I actually thought this was a joke on Drudge this a.m. I guess there is a well granted college professor or someone making money to this day off Gore’s BS. It will never change.

    • NEILIO March 14, 2012 at 5:31 am #

      Look, it’s simple. Global warming didn’t work. Climate change didn’t work. Global climate disruption didn’t work. Ocean acidification didn’t work. Now they have to try something else to frieghten people into agreeing to the policies that they want to enact upon the world. Although you gotta hand it to them, they are a creative bunch.

  6. alloporus March 14, 2012 at 4:33 am #

    And here is me thinking that it was food that made you fat, but no, its climate change. No wonder the dinosaurs were so huge.

  7. Rob N. Hood March 14, 2012 at 7:40 am #

    O ho ho. Yup… let’s make fun o’them there pinheaded scienteests! Yuk Yuk. Eggheaded Losers! And to Darren above: nice latin egghead. But I was referring to the complexity of the brain, and I doubt that the above researchers and their purposed hypothesis ruled out ALL other possible factors completely. No study can ever do that fully, and those “eggheads” either A. know that inherently and it’s part of the study; and/or B. may not have added that tidbit in any soundbite becuase it is a given that other factors may be involved and we non-eggheads are aware of that too. Or I could be wrong and they are the first researchers in the history of science to be 100% certain about a brand new theory, and boast publically about their arrogance. Right….

  8. brennn dawg March 14, 2012 at 10:00 am #

    this is so fake…

  9. beaver valley March 14, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    I think it is eating too much, are the animals fatter?

  10. Rob N. Hood March 14, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

    Another genius heard from! But hey your web name is intriguing… ;-)

    • NEILIO March 14, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

      Why are you so up in arms RNH? I think beaver valley has brought up an excellent point. Are the animals fatter? I mean, that is an excellent question. I have seen a couple of really fat cats, but other than that I don’t think there is any evidence of wild animals being too fat. Is there?
      I really don’t think that it is from overeating though. I think the problem is in food choices. I have recently gained great insight on this issue, as I was diagnosed with diabetes about two months ago. Since then I have been reading nutrition labels like a madman, and I have to say I am very surprised at all the crap I was eating. And it may surprise you to know that it’s not fats that I have to watch out for, nope, it’s carbohydrates. Carbs = sugar. And guess what, just by reducing my intake of carbs I have lost 22 pounds in a month and a half. Carbs are what you’ll find in all processed foods, i.e. cereal grains, pasta, bread, baked treats like donuts and cinnamin rolls. They are also in dairy milk and ice cream, most fruits and some of the vegetables too like beans, corn, rice, and potatoes. If you want to lose weight it’s really easy, count your carbs. If you limit carbs to between 60-75 grams per meal you will lose weight. I think to find the source of the obesity problem one need not look any further than Monsanto, and Cargil. RNH is all worried about big oil, when he should really be going after big flour.

  11. joe March 14, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    Over 60 years never saw a “Fat” Deer. Pigs maybe. Cows? Better steak! More fat. As to normal wildlife? NO! They are no different than humans or the mice the “scienteest” studied due to inhaling/exhaling. Man, they think we are stupid. Similar to ole Harry Reid. We are “Stupid” as well as the the DNC, we are all “stupid.” Must be like the “Scienteests?” What a joke!

  12. Rob N. Hood March 15, 2012 at 7:03 am #

    Simple minds think a like. While humans are closely related to some if not many animals re: DNA, our brains are different. Again, it’s chemistry, complexity, minute things that could make us react or behave differently than animals. I got beaver’s point as soon as you did. And it wasn’t bad, just simple. Until some of you start conducting your own scientific experiments, scientifically, I would not shout out my own biases and simple-minded opinions so openly.

    • Dan McGrath March 15, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

      Maybe you didn’t read the article. The animals studied included dogs, cats, mice, monkeys, three other animal species and humans. According to the researcher all got fatter because of elevated CO2.

      • NEILIO March 15, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

        Nope, sorry Dan but that is one of the things I point out in my way-too-long post down further. That study was not about CO2 it was about the Orexins. The only study of the effect of CO2 is the one where six young men were subjected to climate controlled rooms for a number of hours and the ones that were in elevated CO2 rooms ate 6% more than the control group. And I wouldn’t even call that a study. I’d call that an experiment. One that I think the researchers came to some dubious conclusions.

  13. Rob N. Hood March 15, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    Scientists, or their earlier incarnations thereof, were not infrequently jailed for years at a time and even put to death for their “outrageous” and “irresponsible” theories, that most of the average people also felt threatened by for whatever reasons. They even joined in one the tar and feathering (if the person was lucky) enjoying their smug festivities greatly. History is full of this kind of “normal” behavior on the part of the general public and their leaders too of course. Hmm, that sounds so familiar…

  14. Rob N. Hood March 15, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Oh, and many of the most hated scientists turned out to be right. Not all of them of course, but does that make the hatred and evil treatment they received ok? I know- you aren’t tarring and feathering anyone, but verbally and emotionally you people are behaving the same way. The more things change…

    • Dan McGrath March 15, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

      Oh. Poor scientists. I guess they’re only trying to reorder world governments, turn our economies back hundreds of years, cast us into poverty and rob us of our freedom. Nothing to get excited about. We should just shut up and let them do what they want, whether they’re right or not. No biggie.

  15. Rob N. Hood March 15, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    Wow- regressive! You’d fit right in to medieval times there Dan. Like I said the more things change, the more they stay the same. Find any witches to burn lately? (metaphorically speaking of course)

    Dan the people who have the kind of power you are amazingly bestowing upon scientists, are a whole other group of people entirely. All you would need to do is look at who signs your pay check, for example.

    • NEILIO March 15, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

      http://www.phoenixbiotech.net/allobesity/Catalog%20Files/Orexins%20Section/OrexinInfoSect_.html
      “Orexin-A and -B stimulate appetite and food intake in rats. Orexins and orexin receptors are present in the hypothalamus as well as the enteric nervous system, the pancreas and the gut. The presence of orexins in peripheral blood, however, has not yet been reported. To determine whether orexin-A is present in human plasma and is related to body weight, we measured plasma orexin-A and leptin levels in a population with a body mass index (BMI) range from 19.8 to 59 kg/m(2). Plasma orexin-A levels correlated negatively and plasma leptin levels correlated positively with BMI. In obese and morbidly obese individuals, orexin-A levels were significantly lower and leptin levels were significantly higher when compared to normal. Our results support previous data suggesting that orexin-A acts also in a peripheral manner. The fact that lower levels of plasma orexin-A are present in obese individuals suggests that it is involved in the regulation of human energy metabolism.”

      So, CO2 is either reducing, destroying, or deactivating the Orexin-A and -B and making us fatter. But if that were the case there would also be other indications of this from an increase in the incidence of narcolepsy, or other disruptions in the sleep/wake cycle.
      Or, as they suggest in the study, CO2 is stimulating, or activating Orexin -A and -B making us more active, staying awake longer, and stimulating the need for food intake. But if that were the case they did not cite any instances of their study subjects having increased energy or staying up later. In fact the only study here that tested this hypothesis was the one where they put six young men in climate controlled rooms where the ones who were exposed to higher levels of CO2 ate 6% more than the others. That was it. the one study that took less than a day. They also said the ones exposed to higher levels of CO2 had higher heart rates. Uh, Duh! Of course their heart rates were higher. You don’t even have to be a Jr. high science teacher to figure that out. Their heart rates were elevated because the mixture of oxygen in the air was reduced by the increase in CO2! Their heart rates increased to suply their bodies with the same amount of oxygen they were getting right before they entered the climate controlled room! Which was probably why they were hungrier too, come to think of it. Occam’s razor guys, come on.

      There is also something very misleading in the story above. In it, it says:
      “A study from 2010, covering 20,000 animals in various laboratories, showed that all the animals put on weight, even though they were given food under controlled conditions and should therefore not have put on weight. The animals studied included dogs, cats, mice and monkeys. And when researchers studied rats in both urban and rural environments in the US, the result was the same. “The probability that all animals of eight different species put on weight from random causes is one in 10,000,000,” says Hersoug. “This indicates that the animals were affected by environmental factors – and you can speculate on what these environmental factors are.”-”

      The study from 2010 he mentions WAS NOT ABOUT CO2!!!!!!! It was a study on the Orexins! And it is pure speculation on Hersoug’s part that it was caused by CO2.

      And last, but not least, there is this. A possible, and IMO a more probable, explaination as to why all of the subjects in the MONICA study gained weight:
      http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-people-gain-more-weight-as-they-get-older.htm
      “One reason people tend to gain weight as they age is a change in metabolism. As we age, our digestive systems tend to work less efficiently, meaning less food energy is burned off as calories and more of it is stored as fat deposits. A child may be able to burn off excessive calories through play sessions or sports, but a sedentary middle age office worker who consumes the same meal may find more of it collecting around his abdomen as fat. This slowing of metabolism causes older people to gain weight which ordinarily would have been consumed during the digestive process.

      Another reason why people gain weight as they get older is a lack of dietary restraint. Adults are no longer under the control of parents or school dietitians who made sure they received nutritious meals and controlled portions. There were certain foods such as pizza and marbled steaks which were considered problematic for growing children. Some people are capable of maintaining these early dietary habits, but others discover the pleasure of eating fatty or sugary junk foods high in carbohydrates and empty calories. Many workers also discover that a quick meal from a fast-food restaurant is often more convenient that preparing a healthier meal from home. Years of poor eating habits almost inevitably cause adults to gain weight as they age.”

      • NEILIO March 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

        Sorry Dan, that came out longer than I thought it was going to.

  16. joe March 15, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

    Neilio, correct. Metabolism. How old were the subjects as well as the mice? Never stated. My mother has cancer and lost 50 pounds. We as family will all exhale upon her to gain her weight back? Joke science is what it is called. Now I understand that Jersey Shores will be four feet or more under water by 2030? Gore and his minions with federal grants have been extremely busy haven’t they?

    • NEILIO March 15, 2012 at 11:13 pm #

      Thanks Joe. I don’t know why I bother sometimes though. I just knew when I read the story that it’s just BS. How can they do one experiment and conclude anything? I’m not a scientist but it seems to me that there was no rigorous adhearence to the scientific method here. Studies like this need to be repeated, replicated, refined, repeated again, and peer reviewed before there is any theory advanced. But this has a press release? And they’re fairly certain that obesity is caused by CO2? It’s nonsense.

  17. Rob N. Hood March 16, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    “These hormones may be affected by CO2, and this can cause us to go to bed later, affecting our metabolism so it is easier for us to put on weight.” See the word MAY in there? I sure do. I also know what it means. Do you? I also see metabolism mentioned too.

    • NEILIO March 16, 2012 at 12:06 pm #

      If that’s the case then why the press release? So far as I can see there was only one experiment done to test this hypothesis. Where is the evidence that anyone is staying up later? Where is the evidence that, as a result of staying up later, anyone is increasing their food intake? There is none anywhere.
      Do you know what this is? This is a fishing expedition for grant money. That’s all it is, and this is all that will ever come of it. Mark my words.

  18. Rob N. Hood March 16, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

    Its all about money, in the end. So that’s a moot point. Neil- Fact 1. 24-7 news cycles devours whatever it can get its hands on. 2. Can the researchers or anyone get a little time from you to try to duplicate the study?? (this one took 22 years- which is very good since longitudinal studies are relatively rare, costly, and better than any other type). 3. You dismiss, with unrestrained relish, anything that even seems to come close to questioning your precious fossil fuels and other scared notions such as your beloved CO2, and endless inability to agree with anything negatively manmade (pardon ladies).

    • NEILIO March 16, 2012 at 6:01 pm #

      You have that wrong. And it’s something I attempted to point out before and it looks like I have failed miserably. Go back and carefully read the story. The studies that have been going on for 22 years are the studies on the Orexins. There has only been 1 experiment on the possible effects of CO2 on obesity. Are you following so far? Let me put it another way. They have been studying Orexins for 22 years, they have NOT, I REPEAT, NOT been studying any possible connections to levels of CO2 in the 22 year long chain of studies. I am not criticising the studies on Orexins, so far as I can tell they are using the scientific method as it is supposed to be used, doing repeatable experiments revising them, and having them peer reviewed, and so on and so forth. That’s how studies are supposed to be done. But the subject of this article is not the studies on Orexins, it is the alleged link to the effect of CO2 on Orexins that is discussed. And the only experiment so far to test that hypothesis is this one:

      ” In 2011, together with researchers Anders Mikael Sjödin and Arne Astrup from the University of Copenhagen, Hersoug started to test the hypothesis on humans.

      At the university’s Department of Human Nutrition, they placed six young men in special climate rooms, where some of them were exposed to increased amounts of CO2. After seven hours, the men were allowed to eat as much as they liked.

      This little pilot study showed that the men with the greater amount of CO2 in their blood ate six percent more food than the men who had been in climate rooms with a normal amount of CO2.
      “We could also see that the extra amount of CO2 caused the men’s heartbeat to rise, and this gives us an indication that CO2 affects the brain’s nerve cells – orexins in the hypothalamus – which among other functions control our appetite and the composition of our nutrient intake,” says Hersoug.”

      And that is it. Any other studies mentioned in the story are only there to show where he formed his hypothesis. And Hersoug was not involved in those studies either, he just looked at their published results and formed his own ideas.

      The way this article is written is in itself deceptive in the way that it seems to imply that this experiment was part of those other studies. You are reading what the article says, but you are not reading what it is saying. Go back and read it again. Line by line. Then pause after every paragraph and consider what was just said. I gaurantee that you will see the truth in what I’m saying.

  19. Rob N. Hood March 16, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

    Oh, and Neil, BTW, for someone who purports to be sophisticated about such things- studies and research promote THEORIES (thus words like “MAY”). Please look up the definition, but don’t post it unless you want to.

    • NEILIO March 16, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

      Yes it is a hypothesis, a theory, that has not been verified or even studied indepth, I understand that completely. So, why is this newsworthy then? What is the purpose to reporting this story now? I’m shure there are thousands of scientists across the globe who have a theory that they have done one experiment that had promising results. Why are their theories not trumpeted to the world in a press release then? The answer is simple. I’ll let you try to figure it out before I tell you why.

      • NEILIO March 16, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

        You know the answer. But I’ll tell you anyway. The reason that this is a news item is because it is a possible negative aspect of CO2, which advances the leftist green agenda. There is no other reason for this press release. It is just the same old CO2 doom and gloom story with a new angle. It’s pathetic, and I see right through it.
        You do to, but I understand that you need to back your team’s play.

      • Rob N. Hood March 17, 2012 at 7:40 am #

        Why is it news-worthy for this site then? Hypocritical much?

        • NEILIO March 17, 2012 at 8:31 am #

          Wow, really? You know the name of this website? You know that this is not a news outlet?

  20. NEILIO March 17, 2012 at 12:13 am #

    Junk science is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas.

    Examples of special interests include:
    ?The media may use junk science to produce sensational headlines and programming, the purpose of which is to generate increased readership and viewership. More readers and viewers mean more revenues from advertisement. The media may also use junk science to advance personal or organizationsl social and political agendas.
    ?Personal injury lawyers, sometimes referred to simply as trial lawyers (as in the American Association of Trial Lawyers or ATLA), may use junk science to extort settlements from deep-pocketed businesses or to bamboozle juries into awarding huge verdicts.
    ?Social and political activists may use junk science to achieve social and political change.
    ?Government regulators may use junk science to expand regulatory their authority, increase their budgets o advance the political agenda of elected officials.
    ?Businesses may use junk science to bad-mouth competitors’ products, make bogus claims about their own products, or to promote political or social change that would increase sales and profits.
    ?Politicians may use junk science to curry favor with special interest groups, to be politically correct or to advance their own personal political beliefs.
    ?Individual scientists may use junk science to achieve fame and fortune.
    ?Individuals who are ill (real or imagined) may use junk science to blame others for causing their illness. Individuals may also use junk science to seek fame and fortune.

  21. Rob N. Hood March 17, 2012 at 7:42 am #

    I answered your question above before you asked it. But you ignored it. 24-7 news cycle. Ignore the obvious much?

    • NEILIO March 17, 2012 at 8:49 am #

      So, “24-7 news cycles devours whatever it can get its hands on.” was your answer? Do you really believe that? I don’t. What if there was a scientist somewhere that did an experiment, and the results of that experiment suggested that CO2 made poeple more serene, and contemplative, promoted peacfulness, fulfilment, and love for fellow human beings? Do you think anyone would print that press release? Fat chance.

  22. Rob N. Hood March 17, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    Yes, I believe that is huge part of it- why else would I blog it? And yes, if such a story as you describe was made available it would also make the news cycle, definitely. You are so sure of your own biases it is almost humorous, if it wasn’t so sad. Would your rhetorical story make it on this website- yes to that also of course. BTW- you never acknowledged that aspect of the “media” printing the above story and it landing on this site too. Don’t bother replying to that- it’s rhetorical also. Just an observation that could be pondered. Or not.

  23. NEILIO March 17, 2012 at 10:04 am #

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ANCHORAGE_SNOW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-17-05-18-38
    “ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A near-record snowfall this winter has buried Anchorage neighborhoods, turning streets into snow-walled canyons and even collapsing some roofs.”

    “Two different weather phenomenon – La Nina and its northern cousin the Arctic Oscillation – are mostly to blame, meteorologists say. Global warming COULD also be a factor because it is supposed to increase weather extremes, climate scientists say.”

    Oh, and RNH, BTW, for someone who purports to be sophisticated about such things- studies and research promote THEORIES (thus words like “COULD”). Please look up the definition, but don’t post it unless you want to.

  24. Rob N. Hood March 17, 2012 at 10:42 am #

    What is your point?

    • NEILIO March 17, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

      You really have no idea what this site is dedicated to do you. My point is that AGW, greenhouse theory is just that, a theory. Hello?

  25. Rob N. Hood March 17, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    Wow. Ask a simple question and get an angry inhospitable reply. Was that really necessary? Nope. I get your point, thanks for clarifying. It was needed though based upon your previous post, sue me. I’ve never denied that AGW is a theory. Show me where I did that, ever. Strike 2 for you. Gonna go for 3?

    • NEILIO March 17, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

      waaaah!

    • NEILIO March 17, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

      You are really one to question what is necessary, chinatown, Vonegut, native american witnesses to the Donner party canibalism. I mean really? You’re going to go there out of necessity? Also, you may have never denied that AGW is just a theory, but you shure as heck never agreed that it was either, so excuse the heck out of me for thinking otherwise.

      • Rob N. Hood March 18, 2012 at 7:32 am #

        And you depict me as the baby? Again, all I can say is wow. Your level of logic above is another example of what frustrates me. Plus the making of convenient assumptions. I cannot excuse you for either of those things because I have been honest with my opinions, and so sue me if you haven’t convinced me of your religious experience I’ll call denial. Not only that but it’s an example of an open-mind (mine). I’m not saying I am better than you for that reason just that it is not necessary, I dont think, for you to be prickly and impolite as you often are. That is your right. Just sayin’. Oh, and my “extraneous” postings are entered to MAKE PEOPLE THINK. So again, sue me. Your frequent anger and inanity is just a humorous plus for entertainment value.

        • NEILIO March 18, 2012 at 9:29 am #

          As though you are a paragon of politeness?! Give me a break. The feigning indignation bit is stretched pretty thin. No one cares that you’re offended.

          • Rob N. Hood March 18, 2012 at 10:18 am #

            Who’s been more polite? Joe? Not you. Me, that’s who. Just another fact that you choose to ignore for your own personal reasons. Do I not make you feel indignant? So I cannot feel that way also at times? Why not? Why is everything a double standard with you people? You talk a lot about accountability and personal responsibility, but that’s all it is, talk.

  26. joe March 17, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

    Nice discourse. Like a boxing match.

    • NEILIO March 18, 2012 at 12:04 am #

      Who’s winning?

  27. NEILIO March 18, 2012 at 1:25 am #

    There’s another thing about this “experiment” that I am curious about. Did the researchers note if there was an increase in the rate of breathing in the subjects exposed to higher concentrations of CO2? Well appearantly that’s what will occur if the CO2 level is raised. It seems that there is a mechanism already in place in the human body that regulates the CO2 level in the blood. So even if the CO2 content of the air increases our bodies control it by increasing the rate and depth of breathing. This totally shoots down the hypothesis that CO2 causes obesity by affecting the Orexins. It can’t. The medulla oblongata will not allow the levels of CO2 to increase in our blood.

    http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Pulmonary.html
    “The rate of cellular respiration (and hence oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production) varies with level of activity. Vigorous exercise can increase by 20–25 times the demand of the tissues for oxygen. This is met by increasing the rate and depth of breathing.

    It is a rising concentration of carbon dioxide — not a declining concentration of oxygen — that plays the major role in regulating the ventilation of the lungs. Certain cells in the medulla oblongata are very sensitive to a drop in pH. As the CO2 content of the blood rises above normal levels, the pH drops
    [CO2 + H2O ? HCO3? + H+],
    and the medulla oblongata responds by increasing the number and rate of nerve impulses that control the action of the intercostal muscles and diaphragm. This produces an increase in the rate of lung ventilation, which quickly brings the CO2 concentration of the alveolar air, and then of the blood, back to normal levels.”

    • NEILIO March 18, 2012 at 7:20 am #

      Lost in translation! That chemistry notation above did not copy right. The two question marks were not question marks originally. The first one was an arrow pointing to the right, the second was a line like the ones used over a repeating decimal, whatever those mean. I’m not a chemistry guy.

  28. NEILIO March 18, 2012 at 7:36 am #

    Here is something said about climate modeling that articulates what I’ve been trying to say about them for years, but does so much better than I could ever hope to.

    http://www.masterresource.org/2012/03/what-the-skeptics-are-skeptical-of/
    “In physics it is generally possible to exactly predict the behavior of systems involving two independent bodies, whether planets interacting through gravity or elementary particles through the electromagnetic field. More bodies means no exact solution to the dynamical equations and a zoo of different approximations, usually requiring computational simulation, which takes more and more time as the number of bodies being simulated increases. Indeed the computation time generally grows exponentially with the number of bodies.

    The global climate system comprises an astronomical number (at least billions) of effectively independent “bodies,” which is to say of isolatable, relatively uniform chunks of air, ocean, and earth. Their interactions span the complexity spectrum, from the mechanical push-and-pull of an ocean current to the lesser-known dynamics of cloud formation to intricate, biological mechanisms like plant growth and respiration that have evolved over billions of years.

    Solving this kind of complex system is outside the realm of controlled approximations and reasonable estimates. It’s in the realm of random stabs, on any objective assessment of our current scientific powers. Since attempts to model this system are the basis of claims for catastrophic global warming, the evidence we need to consider pertains to whether or not such models are capturing enough of the detailed mess of forces that actually drives the climate.”

  29. Rob N. Hood March 18, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    Yep, we’ll never figure it out. Too complicated! So don’t even try, or if you do, be ready to give it up at the earliest level of criticism. It doesn’t matter that everyone agrees upon a greenhouse effect (well, most everyone), and that there are certain gases that increase this effect- some of which are being created (introduced into the world) by humans. Beyond this all is a mystery…

    • NEILIO March 18, 2012 at 11:59 am #

      Tell you what. You show me one atmospheric computer model that has correctly predicted anything, and I’ll shut up. If you can’t then you can do the same.

  30. Rob N. Hood March 18, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

    Testy. Ooops, I better shut up. Neil get mad.

    • NEILIO March 18, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

      I’m not mad, just tired of you. You are just opposed to anything we say because you are here to promote your political point of view, and most of the people who come to this site are of the right leaning variety, and you are a communist. Don’t bother to deny that, anyone who is a recent visitor to this site might buy your centrist line but those of us who have been here a while can remember when you spelled out your hopes. You come here everyday and play antagonist to whatever is posted, you don’t listen to anyone, you claim to be ever so open minded yet you have yet to exhibit it, and you bash America at every chance you get. It’s just sickening to read your prattle day in and day out. And I am still not convinced that you are just some private citizen doing this in your spare time, or even that you are one person and not some organization that does this sort of thing as a paid gig. I could be way off the mark there, but it would explain a great deal, such as why you are still here when anyone with half the sense God gave flea gives up after a while, like that renewable guy, and a bunch of others I fail to recall their names. Either that or you have some rare form of brain damage that does not allow you to see when the time is right to move on. I’m just tired of you, that’s all.

  31. Rob N. Hood March 18, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

    But I believe I did. Increased greenhouse gases causes increased temps. Does this accompany an atmospheric computer model? I dunno- probably has one, or two of them. But you will tell me I’m sure, so please don’t shut up. Not yet.

    • NEILIO March 18, 2012 at 3:30 pm #

      Yes greenhouse gases have contributed to a rise in global temperature of about 1 deg C. over the last hundred years! That is not what the computer models predicted, and that temp rise over the last hundred years is by no means dangerous or catastrophic, and CO2 only CONTRIBUTED to that, it was not the cause of it. Water vapor controls the planets temp. See this is what I mean by you don’t listen to what anybody says here. You’re only here to be disruptive and you do that by being an obstinant JO.

      • Rob N. Hood March 19, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

        “waaaah!”

        quote-unquote Neilio

  32. joe March 18, 2012 at 10:44 pm #

    Neilio,

    You are ahead in the count. Two rounds to go I assume until the “Knockout?”

  33. Rob N. Hood March 19, 2012 at 7:16 am #

    A “JO”? Wow. I assume that’s a bad thing?! Neil- I simply responded to your challenge and regardless of your reply, which I agree with and it sounds correct, still doesn’t mean my point was INCORRECT. And I believe I met your challenge- since you have not indicated what the computer models predicted, if not a rise in temps due to greenhouse gases. Did you disprove that? I don’t think so. However, since I am the polite one, after all, I will not demand your “shutting up” (as if I could). Beyond this point will only be further nit-picking, unless you truly have vanquished this round . And also- BTW, calling me obstinant is a little like the pot calling the kettle black don’t you think? We BOTH are guilty of that. And as far as disruption, it is as much as you yourself allow, grasshopper. “It is not time for you to leave”, yet. (P.S. I think I “listen” a little too much, for your comfort, thus the chanllenges to your posts).

  34. Rob N. Hood March 19, 2012 at 8:33 am #

    Per Neil(io): “Tell you what. You show me one atmospheric computer model that has correctly predicted anything, and I’ll shut up. If you can’t then you can do the same.”

  35. Rob N. Hood March 19, 2012 at 8:39 am #

    But remember- I didn’t agree to the “wager”, I’m just keeping it real- or trying to. I won’t/can’t hold you to it either. I believe we are both correct in a way (although me more than you actually). But you live in a black and white world, and I await, and of course will accept, your (Neil’s) judgment (as if I have ever had any choice since your rules of debate are stating that you are correct regardless).

  36. Rob N. Hood March 20, 2012 at 7:00 am #

    Yes, that you are. So in other words, you were righter than me? And I’m the pathetic black knight- and that’s how you want to leave it? Letting it hang there, like everything else you do when boxed into a corner, and in this case one of your own making? So be it. If you can live with that so can I.

    • NEILIO March 20, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

      That is exactly what the Black Knight would say. And it’s only slightly more annoying than Pee Wee Herman’s “I know you are, but what am I?”

  37. joe March 20, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    Checkmate Neilio.

    • NEILIO March 20, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

      No it’s not. There is no winning. Do you think this will phaze the entity? Not in the least. I’m not suffering under any illusions that this will cause any kind of wrinkle in the flow of postings by the RNH’s.

  38. Rob N. Hood March 21, 2012 at 6:57 am #

    Wow. That’s all… wow.

    • NEILIO March 21, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

      Wow? That’s it… wow? No pearls of wisdom from your exceptionally open mind? No raindrops of enlightenment for our arid parched intellectual ignorance? Which one of you is going to answer this? The one that uses parentheses all the time, or the one that can’t spell worth a darn? Or maybe the one that can’t think of anything to write, and just copies and pastes other blogs? Who are you people?

  39. NEILIO March 21, 2012 at 7:07 pm #

    See Joe? There is no end.

  40. Rob N. Hood March 22, 2012 at 6:55 am #

    Yeah see Joe?- Neil won’t stop!! Whatever will we do??

  41. Rob N. Hood March 22, 2012 at 8:39 am #

    Neil- technically I was right, that time. You aren’t big enough to admit it…ok then. I didn’t brag or boast, nor will I. I even gave you some credit for whatever you were able to add, and I didn’t even question your facts on that point- because by doing so you conceded the issue. And yet you persist in painting me as some kind of sore loser. What are you sore about? Losing? Hey you’re only human. And I don’t win many arguments here. Throw a dog a bone once in awhile. Or not.

    • NEILIO March 22, 2012 at 10:36 am #

      there is nobody saying that there is no greenhouse effect. There are a few kooks out there who do but that is not relevent. But there is a debate on how much of an effect there is, and what kind of feedbacks, positive or negative, can amplify or diminish that effect. My point is that stating that there has been an increase in temperature from added anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not a big revelation. This is already known, and the actual temp increase from it is miniscule. Well within the range of natural variations. The debate is about the feedbacks because warmists say that there will be positive feedbacks that will create a runaway greenhouse effect, and sceptics are saying that is unlikely. IMO if we were going to experience positive feedbacks in the climate system due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, we would already be experiencing it. In fact the warmists need to keep modifying past predictions in order to reflect current conditions. The computer models all assume positive feedbacks, and so far the warming trend that has been going on over the last century has not even reached the level of their best case scenarios, and in fact that warming trend is showing signs of reversing itself in the past 15 years. Another thing that has happened in the last 15 years is CO2 levels have risen by about 30 ppmv, but there has been no corresponding temp increase. Why do you suppose that is?

  42. Rob N. Hood March 22, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    So, in other words… what? Did you not previously agree that there has been “computer generated” prediction of greenhouse gas effect – only not as much as predicted. Technically I was right, barely, according to your “facts.” That’s all I’m now saying and I’m not proud of this, it’s just a fact, and one that you don’t exactly like, but nonetheless. ALSO, THAT IS WHY I GAVE YOU A TIP OF THE HAT RE: THIS VERY MINOR TECHNICALITY.

    To answer your question above, I currently don’t know- an actual gradual global cool-down, that has inexplictedly followed on the heels of the warming? I beleive there is a theory that either predicted that exact thing or close to. But then again, there seems to be theories of all kinds, right? As to your other comment that I’m a communist… it fills me with conflicting feelings, such as sadness, pride, incredulousness, amusement, and a little bit of anguish. The last bit mostly for our country, not for myself.

    • NEILIO March 22, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

      I fail to see any significance to your point. The greenhouse effect predicted in past climate models were all exaggerated by including theorized positive feedbacks, which have failed to materialize. Therefore they have all been wrong. My rhetorcal challenge above was, and this is word for word, “You show me one atmospheric computer model that has correctly predicted anything, and I’ll shut up.” So far as I know there still is not one that predicted anything correctly. I don’t know what you think you are “technically” correct about. I never said there was no “computer generated” prediction of greenhouse gas effect. As far as I know that’s what they are all focused upon, and they all seriously overestimate the effect. I really don’t know why you are harping on and on about it. It has no bearing on anything.

  43. NEILIO March 22, 2012 at 11:22 am #

    My overall point is that now that it is demonstrable that there is very little effect on the climate due to CO2, they must now come up with a scenario that makes CO2 to be the bad guy again. Because the climate thing didn’t work out, and the ocean acidification isn’t really catching on either, the new straw dog is CO2 makes you a fatty.

  44. Rob N. Hood March 22, 2012 at 12:11 pm #

    IKR?! ‘Specially round the middle… I hate that.

  45. Rob N. Hood March 22, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

    Exhibit B: “there is nobody saying that there is no greenhouse effect. There are a few kooks out there who do but that is not relevent. But there is a debate on how much of an effect there is, and what kind of feedbacks, positive or negative, can amplify or diminish that effect. My point is that stating that there has been an increase in temperature from added anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not a big revelation. This is already known…”

    Neilio (circa recent historical archives)

  46. Rob N. Hood March 22, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    and C. ” that’s what they are all focused upon, and they all seriously overestimate the effect”

  47. Rob N. Hood March 22, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    and D. “and in fact that warming trend is showing signs of reversing itself in the past 15 years”.

    So we both are right. More or less. In that wonderful gray area we humans call life…

  48. Rob N. Hood March 22, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    Last but not least… Exhibit E. joe says: March 11, 2012 at 10:24 pm
    Yes, Neil is elusive but mostly accurate in his posted/researched statements…

    “Mostly” accurate, your honor. I rest my case. Thank you Joe.

    The above bit’o drama brought to you by Frosted Flakes. Theeeerrree Grrrrreeaaat!

  49. NEILIO March 22, 2012 at 3:45 pm #

    Whatever RNH’s. Nobody’s perfect. If you want to claim a victory here feel free. Although going back and reading your posts I still do not see where you said the thing that you claim that wer’e both right about. But if it makes you happy to be delusional IDC.

  50. Zman March 22, 2012 at 5:34 pm #

    Wow, it’s nice to see that almost every website has their share of bickering couples quibbleing back and forth.

    • NEILIO March 22, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

      Why is that nice to see? Unless you are being sarchastic. But yeah you’re right in either case. I want a divorce!

Leave a Reply

A project of Minnesota Majority