How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[pixelsmith]

take your time to get it right

 

[mike]

You've stopped making sense

 

[pixelsmith]

You stopped making sence long ago and i need to figure out if you are intelligent enough to continue wasting my time with.
Please go and study the percentage of greenhouse gasses, what is the most what is the least, what has the most influence, what has the most benefit, what percentage of any of them do we contribute and what percentage the earth contributes and come back.. preferably in about 5 years. THEN we can make progress. I will wait.

 

[pixelsmith]

start with water.. it is the most abundant and influential ghg and kills people every minute of the day and you have not mentioned it once because no one told you to worry about it. why do you worry about an essential trace gas when water kills millions?

 

[mike]

You stopped making sense long ago and i need to figure out if you are intelligent enough to continue wasting my time with.
Please go and study the percentage of greenhouse gasses, what is the most what is the least, what has the most influence, what has the most benefit, what percentage of any of them do we contribute and what percentage the earth contributes and come back.. preferably in about 5 years. THEN we can make progress. I will wait.

Its not about percentages of CO2, look at china

Are they creating catastropic amounts of CO2 ? no

Is the method by which they create even a small amount of CO2 doing incredible damage to the environment ? Yes

And your whole man made CO2 helps plant growth is destroyed by the Chinese example

Agriculture feels the choke as China smog starts to foster disastrous conditions
Pollution is blocking natural light and threatening agriculture, say experts
Greenhouse farms, which occupy more than four million hectares and supply most of the mainland's vegetables, would be the first to be hit.

Agriculture feels the choke as China smog starts to foster disastrous conditions | South China Morning Post

 

[mike]

Your contribution to this debate has been demonstrated as blinkered and narrow in purview. Your short sighted arguments just dont hold up when we look at the matter from a larger perspective.

Your Chicken little, nothing to worry about premise fails when the big picture is applied to the debate.

Its over, all thats left is for you to figure that out. If thats possible

In the big picture China is a perfect example, its a peek into a future we will have have to live with if we dont act.

Is china making CO2 ? yes
Is the amount of CO2 less than 3 percent of the total ? yes
Is the means by which this small amount of CO2 is generated causing huge environmental problems ? YES
Is the root cause of Chinas environmental issues population ? YES

Your short sighted narrow view of the topic means you see trees, but not the forest

 

[pixelsmith]

Your contribution to this debate has been demonstrated as blinkered and narrow in purview. Your short sighted arguments just dont hold up when we look at the matter from a larger perspective.

Your Chicken little, nothing to worry about premise fails when the big picture is applied to the debate.

Its over, all thats left is for you to figure that out. If thats possible

In the big picture China is a perfect example, its a peek into a future we will have have to live with if we dont act.

Is china making CO2 ? yes
Is the amount of CO2 less than 3 percent of the total ? yes
Is the means by which this small amount of CO2 is generated causing huge environmental problems ? YES
Is the root cause of Chinas environmental issues population ? YES

Your short sighted narrow view of the topic means you see trees, but not the forest

CO2 is NOT the only thing causing China's problems. Carbon monoxide, soot and other particulates are causing them some problems and I agree wholeheartedly the slash and burning of the leftover plants in their fields to introduce nutrients into the soil is having an adverse effect on their health. Many factories also produce pollution, thats because people live there.. These are things that can be resolved and are quickly diminished in the big picture the next time a volcano goes off somewhere on earth.

You produce CO2 every time you exhale yet you continue to do so every few seconds. Every time you open a soda you release CO2, you produce methane everyday as well.. these are small amounts but according to you and the other warmists it is going to kill us all by causing HUGE environmental problems because even a small amount adds to the problem. You and others here seem to hate humans so if you factor in your Carbon based human emissions and your concern for the environment and your hatred of humans then why not curb yours for 20 minutes or so and save the whales? OR... just be a hypocritical chicken little. Peace.

 

[pixelsmith]

Maybe people like you Tyger Burnt and others are special and don't count.. maybe your cars and homes do not create CO2.. maybe you do not consume products produced by fossil fuels... right? you are all hypocrites. Period.

 

[mike]

More with the narrow view short sighted arguments, you are missing the larger picture. I actually think you are incapable of seeing, perhaps the mental version of age induced macular degeneration.

Ive agreed with you CO2 may not be the problem, although you've just moved the goal posts and stated it is causing some

CO2 is NOT the only thing causing China's problems

The issue is the manner in which they produce CO2 is causing catastrophic problems

Emissions from coal plants in China were responsible for a quarter of a million premature deaths in 2011 and are damaging the health of hundreds of thousands of Chinese children, according to a new study.
The study by a US air pollution expert, commissioned by Greenpeace, comes as many areas in northern and eastern China have been experiencing hazardous levels of air pollution in recent weeks.

In some eastern cities including Shanghai, levels were off the index that tracks dangerous pollution,

The analysis traced the chemicals which are made airborne from burning coal and found a number of health damages were caused as a result. It estimates that coal burning in China was responsible for reducing the lives of 260,000 people in 2011. It also found that in the same year it led to 320,000 children and 61,000 adults suffering from asthma, 36,000 babies being born with low weight and was responsible for 340,000 hospital visits and 141 million days of sick leave.
"This study provides an unprecedentedly detailed picture of the health fallout from China's coal burning," said Dr Andrew Gray, a US-based expert on air pollution, who conducted the research. Using computer simulations, Gray said he was able to "draw a clear map tracing the trail of health damages left by the coal fumes released
by every power plant in China, untangling the contribution of individual companies, provinces and power stations to the air pollution crisis gripping the country."

China's coal emissions responsible for 'quarter of a million premature deaths' | Environment | The Guardian

Your argument seems to be CO2 is a natural gas, the CO2 you inhale smoking a cigarette wont hurt you, ergo smoking cigarettes is safe

 

[pixelsmith]

Look... you hate humans and chinese people are dying from coal soot.. be happy!

I have a hard time accepting arguments from a hypocritical carbon based ghg emitting useless eater..

 

[pixelsmith]

China does have problems. I agree. I have no problems with fixing those problems. But they are a different issue.

 

[pixelsmith]

More with the narrow view short sighted arguments, you are missing the larger picture. I actually think you are incapable of seeing, perhaps the mental version of age induced macular degeneration.

Ive agreed with you CO2 may not be the problem, although you've just moved the goal posts and stated it is causing some



The issue is the manner in which they produce CO2 is causing catastrophic problems



China's coal emissions responsible for 'quarter of a million premature deaths' | Environment | The Guardian

Your argument seems to be CO2 is a natural gas, the CO2 you inhale smoking a cigarette wont hurt you, ergo smoking cigarettes is safe

I want to hear your argument for your own contribution of CO2 and Methane. You do it every day. You and Tyger say it adds up yet you continue. Are you special? Are you SAFE?

If all you alarmists on this forum banded together and held your emissions for 20 minutes think of the impact it would have on the world!! You would be heros!! Save the whales!!

 

[mike]

Synthetic chiefs with frozen smiles holding unsteady courses.
Grip the reins of history, high on their battle horses.
And meeting as good statesmen do before the T.V.
eyes of millions, hand to hand exchange the lie ---
pretend to make the clasp.
The US and China shake hands over emissions cuts........
Before the TV eyes of millions
exchange the lie
pretend to make the clasp




China approves massive new coal capacity despite pollution fears| Reuters

Half of the electricity produced in the United States is generated by the burning of coal. World wide, proven reserves of coal are about 909 billion metric tons, which could sustain the current uses of coal for another 155 years. Coal-generated electricity is more dependable than electricity from wind; and users pay less for electricity from coal-fired plants than they pay for solar-generated electricity. There is no possibility that a coal-fired plant will melt down like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island; and coal-fired plants do not require radioactive fuel.
However, when all of its environmental impacts are considered together, coal is by far the most destructive of all the fossil fuels:
Coal Pollution

China steps up coal capacity even as pollution mounts

Nothing to worry about folks

China's massive pollution problem - The Week

CO2 wont hurt you, dont worry about the method we use to create it, its natural

Coal pollution in China is cutting life expectancy by 5.5 years - The Washington Post


But dont worry about the CO2 emissions from coal fired power stations, its only a small amount and its actually good for you and the environment

 

[pixelsmith]

No argument here. They do have a problem..and you use coal fired plant products every damn day.... oops that awkward moment when you realize you really are a hypocrite.

 

[mike]

I want to hear your argument for your own contribution of CO2 and Methane. You do it every day. You and Tyger say it adds up yet you continue. Are you special? Are you SAFE?

If all you alarmists on this forum banded together and held your emissions for 20 minutes think of the impact it would have on the world!! You would be heros!! Save the whales!!

I minimise my impact on the environment in many ways.

Again this macro view, this short sighted single out the small factors view isnt the solution.

The answer lies in the bigger picture, it lies in runaway population growth.

In order for you to be right, you need to single out the small factors and make a case from them. CO2 is natural, it wont hurt you we need more.
Youve taken a tiny portion of the larger problem and seem to think if you can make a case that its not a problem, the larger issue with which it is entwined is also not a concern

You could not be more short sighted and wrong.

As i said your premise seems to be the CO2 is cigarattes is harmless, ergo cigarettes are harmless. only the delusional believe that

 

[pixelsmith]

Why not live in a cave naked?, please, no fires tho.. that would contribute CO2 and soot.

 

[mike]

No argument here. They do have a problem..and you use coal fired plant products every damn day.... oops that awkward moment when you realize you really are a hypocrite.

So now we are on a fatalist track ?

First it was we dont need to address the issue because CO2 isnt a bad thing, when i make a case the manner in which it is produced IS a bad thing you go all fatalist and say oh well we all contribute, so lets not try and address the problem.

Face it your premise we dont need to address this issue has been destroyed at every level

 

[mike]

But by all means play your fiddle while rome burns, thats your right

But the rest of us will lobby for a change to the way we treat the biosphere, will argue for balance and reason. will continue to insist

Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

That best practise is best practise

That clean is better than dirty

 

[mike]

Its actually you whos been conned by big business, fooled , had the wool pulled over your eyes.

They want you to focus on CO2, because they know in distracting you with it, they can hide the real problems

You are playing right into big biz/big govts hands with your arguments.

This way they can continue to pollute for profit, continue to endorse growth for profit.

You can see the lie with the most recent agreement, china agrees to cut emissions to global applause, and then set about opening new coal mines
Australia did the same thing, rolled out a solar panel scheme and threw up the "savings" they generate, but when you compare those "savings" to the output of the new coal mines they opened the environment gets nothing, on the contrary it gets more emissions



Penny Wong, in her last speech to the Poznan Conference identified Australia’s population growth as a serious impediment to achieving the Rudd Government’s own 2050 emission reduction target. Yet every state government, with the full support of Federal Government policy, is chasing population growth and growth in per capita consumption, very substantially increasing, rather than decreasing environmental impact of which GHG emissions are only one symptom.
“The recently released State of Environment Report for Victoria says that humanity would need four Earths if all were to live like Victorians. What’s true for Victoria is true for Australia as a whole.
“If the Rudd and successive governments continue with the present course of rapid population growth (another million Australians every three years) combined with naked economic growth then it will be between two and four times harder to achieve its 60% 2050 emission reduction target.
“Garnaut showed that the very weak 5% 2020 reduction adopted by Rudd and Wong would require a 15% per capita reduction because of our rapid rate of population increase.
“Jonathan Porritt, advisor to the UK Government on sustainability has recently pointed out, ‘…..every single one of the environmental problems we face today is exacerbated by population growth, and the already massive challenge of achieving an 80% cut in greenhouse gases by 2050 is rendered completely fantastical by the prospective arrival of another 2.5 billion people over the next 40 years.

Emulate China & achieve emission targets (Dec) | Sustainable Population Australia

End Population Growth to Achieve Climate Targets | Sustainable Population Australia

Climate change and population growth implication, CO2 emission targets | (We) can do better

Big Biz/Govt love people like you, you help them sell the lie that what they are doing to the planet in the name of profit is just fine and dandy

 

[mike]

Forget the carbon price, forget the opposition’s Direct Action climate plan. Australia could probably meet its targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without either, provided we did one thing. But you won’t hear the politicians talk about it.
A statistical analysis by Crikey, based on data released this week, indicates that if Australia’s high population growth rate were reined in, the country would already be meeting its targets to cut pollution. In fact, we’d probably be under those targets.
The federal government’s data on greenhouse gas emissions for the December quarter points to the major impact the population boom has had on Australia’s emissions. Here’s the Crikey number-crunching that shows why it might be time to talk about the environmental impact of Australia’s growing population. (This is a crude statistical analysis, but you won’t find the government — both major parties support and plan for significant population growth — doing it. So we had a go.)

Population and immigration: climate change, emissions | Crikey