How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[mike]

Look Look over here....

CO2 is natural, CO2 is good, CO2 wont hurt you, the amount of CO2 we make is tiny

Never mind the manner in which we are making it is doing all sorts of other environmental damage

Dont worry about that, Dont look in that direction, look over here. see ? CO2 is fine, we dont even make much of it.

Its distraction pure and simple

Big Biz/Govt love profit, love growth.

Dont look at the mess industrial emissions are making of our biosphere, look over here. see ? CO2 is fine its not doing any damage

They love sheep like you who buy into the distraction and promote it.

The amounts of CO2 coming out of that power plants chimney is tiny, and besides its a natural gas it wont hurt you or the environment.
Never mind all that other stuff thats coming out with it

CO2 maaaaaan, its safe

 

[mike]

Ive been running your posts through a google translator but so far all i'm getting is

Big Polluters like sheep, its helps them distract the populace from the destruction they cause in the name of profit

Greed is Gooooooood

 

[pixelsmith]

I am more of an environmentalist than you will ever hope to be. I want clean air, water, land etc as much as you. The only area we probably disagree is there human contribution of CO2 is causing anything remotely catastrophic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

I am more of an environmentalist than you will ever hope to be. I want clean air, water, land etc as much as you. The only area we probably disagree is there human contribution of CO2 is causing anything remotely catastrophic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dispute that claim, for starters you cant possibly know how much of an environmentalist i am, so you have no basis for which to make that comparative claim
At best you might guess, making an absolute statement of fact with no supporting data is silly

Second you've long rejected the idea Runaway population growth is bad for the environment. Citing such obviously flawed rationales like everyone could fit in texas.

And of course youve cherry picked CO2 out of the emissions plume, claiming it doesnt cause damage. ignoring all the other pollutants that come out with it in the process.
More distraction, more short sighted trees not forest mentality.

Again big polluters love sheep like you, keep distracting. Keep insisting we should look at the CO2 in your left hand, so we dont see all the other pollutants that are created with it in the other hand.

Your argument is that since CO2 is harmless the CO2 you inhale from a cigarette is harmless, ergo Cigarettes are harmless.

Big tobacco prob loves you too, Baaaaaaa

 

[pixelsmith]

Wow you have much to learn Sonnyboy. The CO2 from a cigarette is not going to hurt you it's all the other chemicals that hurt you. Why aren't you dead from exhaling CO2 and sitting in an office or small room full of CO2?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

A small room in your home can hold as much as 5000 ppm or more and you do not die. Wake the hell up learn something


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

You are worse than Tyger


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

Be extremely careful of those tiny bubbles in your soda that's pure CO2 you could die


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manxman]

Funny stuff, ''im a bigger enviromentalist than you'' no your not i go to demo's an everyfing.

Like 2 train spotters arguing about who saw the 2.15 out of Hull first.

 

[Burnt State]

From the beginning this thread has never been anything but.

 

[mike]

Wow you have much to learn Sonnyboy. The CO2 from a cigarette is not going to hurt you it's all the other chemicals that hurt you. Why aren't you dead from exhaling CO2 and sitting in an office or small room full of CO2?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats exactly what ive been saying all along. And its all the other chemicals that come with man made CO2 that are doing the damage to the environment.
You want to seperate the CO2 in this debate and say see its not much, and its not bad. we dont have a problem

And if the big polluters were just discharging pure CO2 you might be right. But thats not the reality

If it was just pure CO2 coming out of the stack of a coal fired power plant that would one thing, but its not. Its all the other stuff thats generated too.

Man made CO2 comes part and parcel with a whole host of other pollutants. Thats why we have a problem.

Your premise is since CO2 is harmless, the means by which we are generating it is also harmless. Thats no more true than smoking cigarettes is harmless.

You are making yourself look silly now. You are actually making my point for me.

You cant just cherry pick the CO2 component of industrial emissions and claim that since thats safe the emissions themselves are. Its all part of the same activity

 

[mike]

Your argument is

Dont worry about this, the CO2 being generated is safe. ignore the fact that mixed in with the CO2 is arsenic, berrylliumm cadmium,chromium, lead,mercury,radium and selinium.
Dont worry about that a study in eastern Ohio found coal combustion accounted for 70% of the mercury in rainfall

That there is no problem because the CO2 in this picture is safe


http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf

You cannot simply seperate Man made CO2 from the equation and say see..... industrial emissions are safe , nothing to worry about

 

[mike]

Its very easy to seperate the CO2, from all the other poisons emitted in an online debate
But in real life thats not so easy

If Man made CO2 emissions in real life, come hand in glove with a shipload of other HAP's, that you cant emit one, without emitting the others.
That they are part and parcel of the one emission

Then should we continue to emit man made CO2 in that example ?

 

[mike]

And again the guys making mega profits doing this

Just love the sheep who buy into their CO2 distraction.

Those stacks are emitting a cocktail of particles and gases, lets make the debate about the harmless components of this predominatly toxic soup.
That distracts nicely away from any discussion about the poison being spewed as well.

These guys love the CO2 narrative and debate, while you're doing that you're not talking about the really bad shit thats in that smoke

Classic stage magic, distract the audience so they dont see whats really going on before their very eyes.

Oh there is a consiracy , a con. And you got taken in by it

Like a lamb to the slaughter while they laugh all the way to the bank

 

[mike]

The evidence you got taken is all here, 50 plus pages of it

You've argued there is nothing wrong with this picture

Because the CO2 coming out of those stacks is harmless, and a tiny fraction of the earths total.

The toxic mercury, and lead and other HAP's were not even on your radar

I would not be surprised if the "carbon tax" was itself the creation of the big coal polluters.
Down here we had a carbon tax, electricity prices went through the roof, the tax was repealed by the next Govt, the prices decreased but remained higher than before the tax was introduced.
Their profits only increased, the environment got nothing. and the conversation was about CO2, no mention of all the other Toxic HAP's that get generated by this industry

Big coal got richer, the environment got sicker. and the sheep remained focused on CO2 oblivious to the far greater problem of toxic pollutants being belched unnoticed

You couldnt make this shit up

 

[Randall]

On the issue of CO2: It's a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the greenhouse effect can cause warming, and that since the beginning of the industrial revolution CO2 concentrations have been rising. It's also self-evident that CO2 emissions are a byproduct of human industry, and therefore linking rising CO2 to human industrial output is a reasonable assumption supported by plentiful scientific data. Because of this, it's not a reasonable position to take that humans haven't added CO2 to the atmosphere. Therefore even if we cannot be certain as to the relative percentages of every single source of CO2 that contributes to the greenhouse effect around our planet, we can be sure that we contribute something, and therefore if we're adding another x% of insulation to the attic ( so to speak ), there must be some effect.

However after the above, everything starts to get murky really fast depending on who you talk to, and what bothers me about the whole debate is that it's become a political football exploited by business interests, that distracts us from other causes of the greenhouse effect, such as jet aviation, an industry that deposits millions of tons of water vapor directly into the upper atmosphere 24-seven, and which is far more effective at causing the greenhouse effect than CO2. Yet this factor is constantly downplayed because it doesn't fit in with the whole carbon trading scheme the global traders have rigged-up. Add to that all the other issues that are at least as important, like the ongoing Fukushima meltdown, and other damage to the environment caused by industry and consumer activity, and what we have is a major mess, no matter how you look at it.

So what do we do? Keep arguing over whether or not CO2 is what we should all be focusing on? Or is the real cause something more fundamental related to human psychology and behavior? And if so, how do we deal with that? That's the hard question. IMO the CO2 debate isn't going to get us focused on solving the root problems. It's just going to keep people arguing and distracted while things keep deteriorating. It's frustrating because we all want an easy target to pin the blame on, but it's just not that simple. As individuals we're overwhelmed with the scale of the problem. Maybe these kinds of arguments are as much about venting that frustration as anything else. I don't know. There's my rant.

 

[Tyger]

How CO2 warming is driving climate
LINK: How CO2 warming is driving climate

What The Science Says: "The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon dioxide, other short-lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon) cause an additional warming approximately 65% as much as CO2, and other short-lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling. However, claiming that CO2 has only caused 35% of global warming is a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the paper."

Climate Myth: "CO2 only causes 35% of global warming. CO2 does not account for even a majority of the warming seen over the past century. If other species accounted for 65% of historical warming that leaves only 35% for carbon dioxide. (Doug Hoffman)"

TEXT: "In August 2010, Nature published a commentary by Penner et al. which mainly focused on the uncertainty regarding the effect short-lived pollutants (such as aerosols and black carbon) have on the climate. As is often the case, many in the blogosphere misinterpreted and misunderstood the statements and conclusions in the commentary. Not surprisingly, the biggest misinterpretation related to the contribution of anthropogenic greenhouse gases to global warming. [What follows] is the most misunderstood quote, with emphasis on the key word: "Of the short-lived species, methane, tropospheric ozone and black carbon are key contributors to global warming, augmenting the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide by 65%. Others — such as sulphate, nitrate and organic aerosols — cause a negative radiative forcing, offsetting a fraction of the warming owing to carbon dioxide."

"Numerous blogs have (mis)interpreted this statement to mean that carbon dioxide is only causing 35% as much global warming as previously believed. A more accurate reading of the quote is that certain short-lived pollutants cause warming in addition to carbon dioxide- quantitatively, approximately 65% as much warming as CO2. And certain other short-lived species cause a cooling effect which offsets some of this warming.

"This is not a new conclusion. The IPCC puts the radiative forcing from CO2 at 1.66 W/m2, compared to the forcing from other greenhouse gases, black carbon, and troposphericozone at approximately 1.4 W/m2. Similarly, the negative forcing from aerosols is approximately -1.2 W/m2. Thus if anything, the 65% figure is an underestimate of the contributions of short-lived pollutants to global warming, but this contribution does not change the 1.66 W/m2 radiative forcing from CO2 or the amount of global warming it has caused.

"Much ado has also been made about another quote from the commentary: "Warming over the past 100 years is consistent with high climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide combined with a large cooling effect from short-lived aerosol pollutants, but it could equally be attributed to a low climate sensitivity coupled with a small effect from aerosols. These two possibilities lead to very different projections for future climate change."

"This statement gets to the main point of the commentary - that there remains significant uncertainty regarding the effect of these short-lived pollutants on the global climate. However, estimates of the planetary climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 and other radiative forcings are not solely based on the change in the mean global temperature over the past 100 years. In fact, the climate sensitivity parameter has been estimatedthrough many different methods, including:

• 
  
  • climate models
  • recent responses to large volcanic eruptions
  • recent responses to solar cycles
  • paleoclimate data
  • data from the last Glacial Maximum
  • and yes, data from the instrumental period

"All of these different methods show strong agreement, overlapping in the IPCC climate sensitivity range of 2 to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (2xCO2).
"Figure 2: Distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from different lines of evidence. The circle indicates the most likely value. The thin colored bars indicate very likely value (more than 90% probability). The thicker colored bars indicate likely values (more than 66% probability). Dashed lines indicate no robust constraint on an upper bound. The IPCC likely range (2 to 4.5°C) and most likely value (3°C) are indicated by the vertical grey bar and black line, respectively (Knutti and Hegerl 2008)

"Interestingly, Penner et al. find that whether the climate sensitivity parameter is on the low or high end, reducing anthropogenic emissions of the short-lived warming pollutants would achieve a significant reduction in global warming over the next 50-100 years. In the red lines in the Figure 3, they employ a climate model with a sensitivity of 5°C for 2xCO2, slightly outside the IPCC likely range. The blue line is a climate model with a sensitivity of 2°C for 2xCO2, on the lower end of the IPCC range. Note that even with the lower climate sensitivity, the model shows the planet warming 3°C by 2100 in this emissions scenario(see the figure caption for further details).

"Figure 3: Global mean temperature measurements (black) and projections based on an IPCC scenario with high emissions (A2) for a climate sensitivity parameter of 5°C (upper red) and 2°C (upper blue). Linearly decreasing the total anthropogenic radiative forcingowing to methane, tropospheric ozone and black carbon — starting in 2010 and achieving pre-industrial levels by 2050 — results in significant near-term climate mitigation (lower blue and red curves) (Penner 2010)

"Unfortunately, reducing the short-lived cooling pollutants such as aerosols would cause a warming effect of similar magnitude, and so CO2 remains the primary pollutant of concern. Coincidentally, a group of scientists from NASA GISS just published a paper in Scienceentitled Atmospheric CO2: Principle Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature.

"Although it is important to reduce the remaining climate uncertainties, such as the magnitude of the impacts of short-lived pollutants, it does not change the fact that CO2 isvery likely the driving force behind the current global warming, or that if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels, the planet will likely warm in the range of 2 to 4.5°C "

 

[mike]

Which brings us back to humans

Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, buses) and stationary sources (e.g., factories, refineries, power plants), as well as indoor sources (e.g., building materials and activities such as cleaning). There are two types of stationary sources that generate routine emissions of air toxics:
"Major" sources are defined as sources that emit 10 or more tons per year of any of the listed toxic air pollutants, or 25 or more tons per year of a mixture of air toxics. These sources may release air toxics from equipment leaks, when materials are transferred from one location to another, or during discharge through emission stacks or vents

More Humans = more HAP's

 

[mike]

Its very easy to seperate the CO2, from all the other poisons emitted in an online debate
But in real life thats not so easy

If Man made CO2 emissions in real life, come hand in glove with a shipload of other HAP's, that you cant emit one, without emitting the others.
That they are part and parcel of the one emission

Then should we continue to emit man made CO2 in that example ?

So can you answer this question Pixel ?

Let me rephrase it, we know water is safe, its a natural thing, our bodies are made up of water etc etc etc

If i were to mix it with arsenic, and lead and mercury, would you drink it ?

If you cant seperate the safe element from the good element, if they come as a total package. is it still safe.
If man made CO2 emissions come packaged with a plethora of other toxic elements, is it still safe to emit CO2 ?

Is it still safe to drink water, if its also laced with poison ?

 

[mike]

Ufology and Tyger

A pair of posts i wish there was a Like X 10 button for