How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[manxman]

You admonishing him burnt whilst sourcing a journalist, is he a rational impartial journalist ?, or do him and Cook have something in common ?..

Monbiot .. CO2 is more dangerous than nuclear waste, because there is no way to clean up CO2.

 

[Burnt State]

I don't think the issue is the ongoing battle between various media outlets and science folk as they battle out what is happening in the climate. I acknowlege that everyone is partisan in the debate. Those who started neutral often lean towards GW as a reality IMO; but as we see in Pixel's quality of discussion and proofs there is a trend towards really bogus figures who are totally pretending and just plain making stuff up. I don't deny both sides are selective of data. My point was that Felix is far, far from a reputable source and this post fom the Guardian proved that.

Regarding co2 vs. nuclear waste: sounds like rhetoric to me as part of the partisan debate. But as we don't know where all the extra trace gas is going or how the planet will respond to it, this talk lends itself towards that whole catastrophe piece. It's always a doomsday scenario on planet earth, but the difference between Y2K, 2012 Mayan Calendar, The Year of Slender Man etc. & GW is that this scenario at least has both credibility and existing evidence. That means it is worth being preventative about.

Do you really believe that green taxes are going to bankrupt the financial future of the next generation as opposed to driving industry towards renewable energies? Don't you see a future where western world nations work on getting off oil and gas, in the way that Europe is doing so right now? And then getting the third world to follow suit through our cost supplements will only do what - make a healthier planet? Imagine that, some green taxes used to shift our approach to energy consumption. I don't see what's evil there.

The evil is in citing as evidence folks who are sponsored by the energy and mining sectors who couldn't give a crap about forests, oceans, atmosphere, weather or other living beings. I know you see it different, but from my perspetive the pro-carbon/climate denial discussion is only about one thing - industry raping and pillaging for profit.

 

[mike]

That was pretty sappy.
I am for cleaner oceans and I love whales tho.

Its a good example tho.

You are advocating we need more CO2 in the atmospshere, But if we are going to geoengineer the atmosphere we should be doing it in a planned and controlled manner.
Right now there are no checks and balances, no way to turn it off when we get the desired concentration.

When we hunted whales with no checks and balances.........

We use controlled burns down here to manage bushfire risks. Planned and controlled burns

The way CO2 is being added to the atmosphere now, is akin to just setting the whole bush alight and saying Oh well it will be beneficial in the end.

Even if your premise is true, that we need more CO2, that we need to be geoengineering our atmosphere. The manner in which its being done has no checks and balances, no way to stop when the desired level is acheived. Its runaway out of control.

We saw what happened to the whales when last we just went hell for leather with no checks and balances......

Its the same stupidity.

 

[mike]

That means it is worth being preventative about.

Exactly

In any question where one of the answers is it will damage us, the smart choice is to err on the side of caution and adopt best practise.
And the byproduct of addressing out of control runaway CO2 emissions at its root cause, will also fix a plethora of other undisputed problems.

Does smoking kill you ?

Some say yes, others counter grandad did two packs a day till he was 103.

But you know quitting makes sense, even if it doesnt resolve the does it kill you question, your house,hair and clothes will smell better not to mention your breath.
Your fitness will improve, and your wallet will thank you too.

On just the chance the correct answer is yes, it will do damage. It is indeed worth erring on the side of caution and being preventative.

 

[pixelsmith]

I said nothing about introducing CO2 on purpose or geoengineering.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

All plants and life on earth cease to exist when CO2 gets down to 150 ppm. At the beginning of the Industrial Age we were at about 277 ppm and now we are at 400ppm. Plants prefer 1500 - 2000 ppm and that is why many growers introduce CO2 into their greenhouses. Thankfully humans have helped to reverse the 150 million year trend of reduced CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yeah you have, youve argued we need more CO2, that More is a good thing. When you say humans have reversed the trend you are making a case for human induced geoengineering.

And the difference is when farmers introduce CO2 into their greenhouses, they do so in a controlled and planned manner, they can turn it off when they want to

Our emissions now (whether or not they are causing warming) is not controlled, there are no checks and balances, no way to turn it off. Thats not best practise, thats not smart

Again the CO2 debate is a distraction. were i a cartoonist id draw one showing two survivers of a destroyed ecosystem, the oceans overfished to the point of eco collapse. the forests over logged to the point of eco collapse, the air filthy and toxic like they have in china, the soils degraded and infertile.

A ruined ecosystem with these two survivors standing in the mess, and one says to the other "See i told you CO2 wasnt the problem"

If we address all the other issues that are draging our biosphere to hell in a handbasket, the whole CO2 debate is moot.

You can see the trees, but not the rapidly dwindling forest

 

[Burnt State]

what's really happening to Norway's glaciers contrary to Pixel's odd version of reality:Shrinking glaciersShrinking glaciers

 

[Burnt State]

where's the warmth Pixel always wants to know: Unusual North Pacific warmth jostles marine food chain - Northwest Fisheries Science Center

 

[Burnt State]

Ocean acidification is not a worry either.

Warmer is better than colder.
More CO2 is better than less for the planet right now. The earth is CO2 starved.

Man has a tendency to kill massive numbers of its own species quite often. The more crowded we get the more we will kill. It will probably work itself out.

Just so we all have the perspective clear on this subject: more carbon please; the oceans can acidify, warm and oh yes the glaciers are actually not melting; many people will kill other people.There is absolutely nothing to worry about at all.

That's such a familiar voice.

Beware the voice that sees "acceptable losses" as par for the course. Mass death is never acceptable.

 

[Tyger]

Some great posting!

However, it is unlikely that the links will ever be read. I am one to post the text of the links. It's clear that what I have posted has not been read. There is no conversation whatsoever, just a series of instructions: 'you should check out this or that'. (I do think Pixel is using SkS as a source for his talking points, oddly enough. Some of his posts are word-for-word from the Skeptical Science site. It's a game.) There is never any elucidation of the science he seems to feel is lacking - by him. How about he supplies the links - why all the instructions? Very strange. It's actually kind of creepy when you really think about it - for in the course of someone's day, out in the world doing business, the time is taken to text a one-liner that is often venemous. What kind of person is that? What kind of life can tolerate that kind of toxic excess in acidic drops? Cannot be happy. I worry for him and those in his world.

It has to be clear what is going on with Pixel. I have watched him do the exact same thing to other posters time and time again. He has never been able to hold his own in any science debate - it's usually a series of ad hominem, baiting tactics - you've seen the sum of his efforts. In fact, I have not really been in conversation with him but he can't figure that out. Generous posters such as you and Muadib (and others) have given him the time of day on this and other Global Warming threads. The best that has come out of it are the great posts that everyone can read.

Burnt, you have given an outstanding rebuttal. 'Nuf said, but it's really a waste of time. I have found that the denier world is an Alice-In-Wonderland experience and a genuine waste of time. There are people throwing out what amounts to 'intellectual trash'. There exists an intellectual equivalent of the Pacific Gyre extant on the internet regarding Climate Change science. It's also wound up with the most despicable racism and unfounded, personal assaults on people - it's really ugly. (Pixel has illustrated this, sadly). Those speaking the science have a lot to contend with on a personal level - it shouldn't be happening 'in this day and age'. This is all the denialist camp can appeal to however, because the denialist position cannot stand on any science - so the appeal is to demagoguery (emotionalism and prejudice). It should be so clear. Sad situation.

 

[Tyger]

Also, just to say, when I post here on this thread I am not seeking to engage Pixelsmith. I have never been in conversation with him, though he clearly is under the impression he is in conversation with me. I have seen his modus operandi too many times. I have had no interest. From the beginning.

Toodles.

 

[mike]

Man has a tendency to kill massive numbers of its own species quite often. The more crowded we get the more we will kill. It will probably work itself out.

I found that a bit disturbing too, its akin to saying rather than have the cat desexed, i'll just bag up her kittens everytime she has them, and drop them in a creek.

A solution that could and should be avoided by any right minded person

 

[manxman]

We all know YOUR solution to over-crowding mike, weve all read your rid the world of muslims diatribes, tranch after tranch of them, and we already know you would gladly aid in their destruction.

So ou will have to forgive us for not giving a shit about your concern for a few whales due to your imagined and false drama laden claim of RUNAWAY CO2 levels...

What does Runaway co2 even mean, even if co2 is rampantly increasing, whch it isnt, if human produced co2 goes up 25%, its will still only be 0.00016% of the atmosphere, but it isnt so it wont.


Look Mike im going to make my position crystal clear, i dont come to the paracast forum to 'do' politic's, but its here.

Personally i think that mostly your politics stink, infact border on the extreme, and on the other hand, i dont care one iota what you think of mine..

However i can completely blank out a persons views i find distasteful, and quite happily discuss differing topics of mutual interest without any animosity.

Political debates are dirty, if you dont want to get dirty, then dont roll in the mud, it doesnt matter how well you write your extremist view, they will be met with differing vew-points, you roll in the mud, you get dirty..

They are just our individual arm-chair view-points on matters we can do nothing to change, no matter how strongly we feel the injustice.

 

[flipper]

Check the definitions of climate and weather.

Forgive me Gene for my tardy response but do to the whether, that is shoveling snow, I have not been able to reply. I have been hearing about the sun being the the chief source of climate change for some time and wonder what others thought about it. It is silly to deny that we do not effect the climate of the planet because we do, by breathing, traveling and eating. However, here in Southern Ontario it has been cooler, especially the past two years.. I went to a meeting of http://www.climatenetwork.org/profile/member/350org-0
I was quite impressed by the fact that their primary concern was justice. The meeting was well run and inclusive. Personally I think the focus should not be on climate but justice and pollution. The climate of the planet that I would like to change is that to one of peace.

 

[manxman]

How many there talked about catastrophic warming and human extinction in the next 50 years because of 'runaway' co2 flipper please.

I would imagine the majority were just well meaning people, each with their own set of enviromental concerns.

You know a kinda AA group meeting for greens to pour out their hearts.

''Hi everyone my name is wayne and im an environmentalist'' HI WAYNE

 

[pixelsmith]

Also, just to say, when I post here on this thread I am not seeking to engage Pixelsmith. I have never been in conversation with him, though he clearly is under the impression he is in conversation with me. I have seen his modus operandi too many times. I have had no interest. From the beginning.

Toodles.

Thats because you can't backup your CO2 hole with facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manxman]

I dont know why you bother replying to him pixel, he is just internet noise, like tom and jerry on the tv in the background, just noise.

 

[mike]

All plants and life on earth cease to exist when CO2 gets down to 150 ppm. At the beginning of the Industrial Age we were at about 277 ppm and now we are at 400ppm. Plants prefer 1500 - 2000 ppm and that is why many growers introduce CO2 into their greenhouses. Thankfully humans have helped to reverse the 150 million year trend of reduced CO2 in the atmosphere.

When farmers introduce CO2 into greenhouses thats geoengineering

Climate engineering, also referred to as geoengineering, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system

And youve used that to justify adding CO2 to the atmosphere via industrial pollution.

And sometimes it is approriate to introduce an element to a system for postive result.

Pharmaceuticals is a good example, but again when we do so we do it via measured doses, we control the amount administered to acheive the desired result. And the purity of that introduced element is also a factor

Even if your premise that we should be adding CO2 to the atmosphere like growers do in green houses, geoengineering our atmosphere. The method of delivery ie industrial pollution, is akin to stuffing handfuls of paracetamol down our necks and then eating and drinking food laced with unknown doses of the same.

And again even if your premise that we need more CO2 were correct, the method of delivery via industrial pollution is just plain stupid. Not withstanding there are no control mechanisms, no checks and balances look at at the other particulate matter that gets spewed out of a coal fired power station, i can add CO2 to my water via the sodastream, a clear gas, no particulate matter.

You are missing the big picture

China's toxic air pollution resembles nuclear winter, say scientists
Air pollution now impeding photosynthesis and potentially wreaking havoc on country's food supply, experts warn

Chinese scientists have warned that the country's toxic air pollution is now so bad that it resembles a nuclear winter, slowing photosynthesis in plants – and potentially wreaking havoc on the country's food supply.
Beijing and broad swaths of six northern provinces have spent the past week blanketed in a dense pea-soup smog that is not expected to abate until Thursday. Beijing's concentration of PM 2.5 particles – those small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream – hit 505 micrograms per cubic metre on Tuesday night. The World Health Organisation recommends a safe level of 25.
The worsening air pollution has already exacted a significant economic toll, grounding flights, closing highways and keeping tourists at home. On Monday 11,200 people visited Beijing's Forbidden City, about a quarter of the site's average daily draw.
He Dongxian, an associate professor at China Agricultural University's College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, said new research suggested that if the smog persists, Chinese agriculture will suffer conditions "somewhat similar to a nuclear winter".

China's toxic air pollution resembles nuclear winter, say scientists | Environment | The Guardian

They are certainly doing their bit to help our CO2 deficit, they should be heros in your eyes given your premise we need more. But the method of doing so is creating more problems than its solving isnt it ?

When growers geoengineer the atmosphere in a greenhouse, they do so via a gas bottle of pure CO2 gas, which they can turn off when they hit the desired target. They DONT fill a brazier with coal and fill the greenhouse with thick black smoke.

Your premise then, when we examine your own example (growers and greenhouses) that industrial pollution that releases CO2 is OK since we need more CO2, fails the logic test.

 

[pixelsmith]

No that is NOT geoengineering when CO2 is added to a greenhouse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

No that is NOT geoengineering when CO2 is added to a greenhouse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it is

Climate engineering, also referred to as geoengineering, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system

Change the word earth to greenhouse and thats exactly what they are doing, deliberate intervention and changing of the atmospheric gas mix inside the greenhouse