Climate Change Arguing

[Kwality]

Ignorant? She’s only saying what climate scientists have been saying for years.

I’m sure most scientists would agree they’ve almost lost the war.

Which means we’ve lost the planet.

Nice work guys

Overegging, blaming others
The likes of Tim Flannery ...

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Serious question SBD because I've looked for the answer unsuccessfully, who is funding the Greta Thunberg phenomenon?

No idea.

(The Koch brothers? )

Doubt she'd need much funding. Press (for and against) can't get enough of her.

 

[Kwality]

No idea.

(The Koch brothers? )

Doubt she'd need much funding. Press (for and against) can't get enough of her.

Didnt she sail across the Atlantic?

Where did the latest group of kids bob up from.

Shades of the school kid in Melbourne that put on 55 buses to ferry school kids to a protest in Melbourne.

Oh for an investigative journo anywhere?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Overegging, blaming others
The likes of Tim Flannery ...

Overegging????!!!

Did you see the report that came out just a few days ago?

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Didnt she sail across the Atlantic?

Where did the latest group of kids bob up from.

Shades of the school kid in Melbourne that put on 55 buses to ferry school kids to a protest in Melbourne.

Oh for an investigative journo anywhere?

Ever heard of a mass movement?

My kids and I went to the strike the other week along with tens of thousands of others. No-one paid us.

 

[JackOutback]

The irony of climate change deniers saying we should’t listen to ‘ill-informed’ children when the reason we are having to listen to children is because they have been ignoring the experts for decades.

 

[Kwality]

Ever heard of a mass movement?

My kids and I went to the strike the other week along with tens of thousands of others. No-one paid us.

IF the answer is a mass movement well done. If there is something to hide/prefer not be discussed I'm uncomfortable.

 

[iBeng]

IF the answer is a mass movement well done. If there is something to hide/prefer not be discussed I'm uncomfortable.

"We want to improve our impact on the environment."

"ITS A MONEY MAKING CONSPIRACY!"

 

[Kwality]

The irony of climate change deniers saying we should’t listen to ‘ill-informed’ children when the reason we are having to listen to children is because they have been ignoring the experts for decades.

Jack one time expert* comes out as an activist is not a good look IF winning over those who accept climate change but arent bandwagoneers. Not denying the right to hold cheer squad get to gethers.
*
A ‘colossal failure’ of climate activism
Each year the situation becomes more critical. In 2018, global emissions of greenhouse gases rose by 1.7% while the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere jumped by 3.5 parts per million – the largest ever observed increase.
No climate report or warning, no political agreement nor technological innovation has altered the ever-upward trajectory of the pollution. This simple fact forces me to look back on my 20 years of climate activism as a colossal failure.

The gloves are off: ‘predatory’ climate deniers are a threat to our children

Climate deniers have joyously laboured to create a world potentially uninhabitable for our children. Our activism has failed, and rebellion may be the only answer.

theconversation.com

SO, Jack are you more of the problem? Note: not a shot at you personally.

 

[Kwality]

"We want to improve our impact on the environment."

"ITS A MONEY MAKING CONSPIRACY!"

Are you unable to answer my question, unwilling or couldnt care?

 

[iBeng]

Are you unable to answer my question, unwilling or couldnt care?

You seem content with it being a massive liberal money making conspiracy situation, why should I bother changing your mind?

Id have more luck convincing a brick wall it was made of glass.

 

[JackOutback]

Jack one time expert* comes out as an activist is not a good look IF winning over those who accept climate change but arent bandwagoneers. Not denying the right to hold cheer squad get to gethers.
*
A ‘colossal failure’ of climate activism
Each year the situation becomes more critical. In 2018, global emissions of greenhouse gases rose by 1.7% while the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere jumped by 3.5 parts per million – the largest ever observed increase.
No climate report or warning, no political agreement nor technological innovation has altered the ever-upward trajectory of the pollution. This simple fact forces me to look back on my 20 years of climate activism as a colossal failure.

The gloves are off: ‘predatory’ climate deniers are a threat to our children

Climate deniers have joyously laboured to create a world potentially uninhabitable for our children. Our activism has failed, and rebellion may be the only answer.

theconversation.com

SO, Jack are you more of the problem? Note: not a shot at you personally.

So, you’re blaming the people trying to fix things for not trying well enough, and not the people who have ignored both the evidence and the activism?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Misrepresenting me again. All I said was there was never a 'hole'. There is a seasonal thinning due to natural forces.

Do you actually know the difference between something being literal and metaphorical? When BT said Greene was fiery yesterday did you also comment that he wasn't literally on fire?

If however you are insistent on looking for sources of ozone depleting chlorine why would you ignore a 2 mile high active volcano (Mt Erebus)? Much higher chance of that chlorine getting high enough into the atmosphere in sufficient quantities to munch on ozone than man made CFC's which are several times heavier than air.

Unfortunately, nobody has ignored it or any other volcano and the difference in chemical compounds between man-made and naturally occuring CFCs in the stratosphere makes it very easy to determine what percentage of the compounds have originated from where.

If a similar volcano was present in the Arctic and absent in the Antarctic I'm sure the 'hole' would be over the North Pole rather than the South Pole. It's also true that CFC use in the northern hemisphere dwarfed it's use in the southern by a large magnitude.

And you'd be wrong.

"Ozone-depleting substances are present throughout the stratospheric ozone layer because they are transported great distances by atmospheric air motions. The severe depletion of the Antarctic ozone layer known as the “ozone hole” occurs because of the special atmospheric and chemical conditions that exist there and nowhere else on the globe. The very low winter temperatures in the Antarctic stratosphere cause polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) to form. Special reactions that occur on PSCs, combined with the relative isolation of polar stratospheric air, allow chlorine and bromine reactions to produce the ozone hole in Antarctic springtime. "

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q10.pdf

To my knowledge no lab has ever been able to replicate Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina's hypothesis. The only two recipients of the Nobel prize ever to be protested by other scientists.

The truth is easily found if you follow the money. Outlawing CFC's allowed DuPont et al to monopolise production of their replacements. The patent on freon's like F12 & F22 had expired. F12 & F22 had been brought in to replace natural gases like butane and propane after DuPont lobbied Western governments to outlaw their use. When the patents for the present replacements expire they will once again be demonized and new more profitable chemicals endorsed.

Uh huh

Consider also that according to presently accepted time scales, oxygen has been present in our atmosphere for at least 1.4 billion years. UV has been forming ozone since then. If ozone wasn't so unstable and was therefore being produced at a rate higher than it's decomposition, our atmosphere would be full of it. What we have instead is a dynamic equilibrium.

80% of the chlorine in the atmosphere is from anthropogenic sources as shown above; that means it wasn't there 200 years ago before the industrial revolution let alone 1.4 billion years ago. There's zero precedent to say this is an equilibrium.

Further reading here - peer reviewed journal article

You're missing four or five steps if you're trying to use DuPont's profiting off the transition to prove that CFCs don't damage the ozone layer. As it stands this is very twisted logic.

And another

I have no idea what you are trying to prove with this? Could it be that you're suggesting there were a few flaws or inaccuracies in an original model of ozone depletion/regeneration and you're implying that because it hasn't proven to be 100% accurate then the whole theory must be bunk? Because if that's the case, please don't bother. That's really weak and fallacious argument that I'm not interested in wasting my time with.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

 

[Crankitup]

Do you actually know the difference between something being literal and metaphorical? When BT said Greene was fiery yesterday did you also comment that he wasn't literally on fire?

So glossing over the fact you misrepresented me again and straight into semantics about metaphors. Mate it's just typical alarmism. A hole where none exists, an imminent climate crisis when that is so far from reality it's pie in the sky.

Unfortunately, nobody has ignored it or any other volcano and the difference in chemical compounds between man-made and naturally occuring CFCs in the stratosphere makes it very easy to determine what percentage of the compounds have originated from where.

If you'd read one of the links I gave earlier (from the climate scientist) the one you refused to, you would realise that you're wrong.


BTW, is your chart from the same decade old link you referred to?

"Ozone-depleting substances are present throughout the stratospheric ozone layer because they are transported great distances by atmospheric air motions. The severe depletion of the Antarctic ozone layer known as the “ozone hole” occurs because of the special atmospheric and chemical conditions that exist there and nowhere else on the globe. The very low winter temperatures in the Antarctic stratosphere cause polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) to form. Special reactions that occur on PSCs, combined with the relative isolation of polar stratospheric air, allow chlorine and bromine reactions to produce the ozone hole in Antarctic springtime."

So when I said earlier in the thread that no lab has ever been able to replicate Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina's hypothesis, which therefore means I must have read their theory and am therefore quite familiar with how they posited that CFC's get up there and still you post the above as if it's new news to me?? How ironic that you later talk about me wasting your time. Seems like it's the other way round to me.

Uh huh

A concession of that point or just no other response you could muster?

I'm probably wasting my time here, all because I made a passing remark about the fact the 'hole' was an exaggeration, but I'll leave you with this. Mt Erebus spews out over 1000 tons of active chlorine every day. Go there and see for yourself. It has been erupting continuously since 1972. This chlorine, far from being cold like CFCs, comes out as superheated gas which shoots straight up into the stratosphere. Mt Erebus puts out more chlorine per year, all by itself, than all the escaping refrigerants and aerosol cans on earth put together could do in a decade (before they were banned).

Erebus was almost entirely ignored, just like so much counter evidence is. Which is a great segue back to the broader topic of AGW which I'm happy to discuss to get the thread back on topic.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

So glossing over the fact you misrepresented me again and straight into semantics about metaphors. Mate it's just typical alarmism. A hole where none exists, an imminent climate crisis when that is so far from reality it's pie in the sky.

Are you going to bitch about this misrepresentation for much longer because, as stated, I don't care if I've offended you. If you're that offended then stop posting. Not entirely sure I'm misrepresenting you either when you've just said "no hole exists" after you've whinged about me bringing up metaphors and when you've said there's a seasonal thinning in a previous post, so clearly there's a point or a concept here that you don't fully understand.

Plus the only people who still talk about ozone depletion are the fringes who are bent on proving climate change isn't happening, despite the fact the rest of the world is content on having solved this problem and has put the issue to bed, so spare me with this alarmism shit.

If you'd read one of the links I gave earlier (from the climate scientist) the one you refused to, you would realise that you're wrong. Is your chart from the same decade old link you referred to?

You mean those links from shitty blogs? Look, if you're going to pretend that "science" blogs carry more weight than real scientists doing real scientific investigation then it's clear we're not on the same page and there's no point arguing this further. You're bringing a knife to a gunfight and have no idea how badly you're losing.

Nonetheless, here's the 1998 report on ozone depletion as commissioned by NOAA, NASA, UN, WMO and the EC. Feel free to go through and debunk every line and argument that you feel your blogs have a better explanation for. If you want to be taken seriously then do the hard yards yourself.

Here's a hint: start on Chapter 3

So when I said earlier in the thread that no lab has ever been able to replicate Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina's hypothesis, which therefore means I must have read their theory and am therefore am quite familiar with how they posited that CFC's get up there and you then post the above as if it's new news to me? How ironic that you later talk about me wasting your time. Seems like it's the other way round to me.

LOL

We both know you haven't read their theory in full nor would you have any idea how or why it's wrong let alone being able to prove that yourself. What you've done is watched a video on Youtube University from some random about the topic and now you've got a Ph.D in Climate Science. You're familiar in one side of the climate change and CFC debate, and that's the backwater channels that go against what you call "mainstream science" because they indulge your fantasy that these theories are bunk.

I'd ask you if I'm right, but I know I am. Feel free to bitch about that misconception too.

A concession of that point or just no other response you could muster?

No, I just don't care. When you can prove CFCs are harmless then I'll care more.

The fact is Mt Erebus spews out over 1000 tons of active chlorine every day. Go there and look — it is puffing away all the time. This chlorine, far from being as cold like CFCs, comes out as superheated gas which shoots straight up into the stratosphere. This chlorine does break down the ozone. And Mt Erebus puts out more chlorine per year, all by itself, than all the cars and aerosol cans on earth put together could do in a decade (before they were banned).

Erebus was ignored, just like so much counter evidence is.

Who ignored Mount Erebus? Have you tried checking the frequently asked questions on the Earth System Research Laboratory website? Here's one that might interest you

 

[Crankitup]

Are you going to bitch about this misrepresentation for much longer because, as stated, I don't care if I've offended you.

It's not about offending me at all. I merely pointed out that you misrepresented what I'd said very early on in our discussion and then shortly after I pointed that out, rather than apologising (which I would do if I had misrepresented you) you then lied about something else I'd said. It speaks to the character of the person I'm dealing with. The hope is that since I've exposed you as a liar you'll be less inclined to continue doing so in the future. I've encountered many of your type before. They seem to love twisting peoples words to create a straw man argument they find easier to argue against but they also hate being exposed for doing so.

Plus the only people who still talk about ozone depletion are the fringes who are bent on proving climate change isn't happening ...

Are you saying that in an effort to insinuate that I introduced the subject into the thread? If you are I'll just point out now that I didn't. I merely responded to this post #526. My response somehow got you all so twisted up you still can't unknot your knickers. Hard to work out why that particular post I made in a Climate Change thread somehow got you all worked up and yet this one #462 didn't. Weird.

Look, if you're going to pretend that "science" blogs carry more weight than real scientists doing real scientific investigation then it's clear we're not on the same page and there's no point arguing this further.

Like I said the article was written by a climate scientist. Are you saying that climate scientists aren't real scientists doing real science?

Who ignored Mount Erebus?

I must have been editing my post before I read your reply. Usually you take a day or so to respond so I thought I had plenty of time. I changed 'ignored' to 'virtually ignored' because I remembered that NASA did send a probe/lunar landing type vehicle into Erebus' crater to record chlorine levels during the ozone debate, before the Montreal Protocol was put into effect. They found high chlorine levels and then promptly ignored them.

Have you tried checking the frequently asked questions on the Earth System Research Laboratory website? Here's one that might interest you

LOL. That's it? Two isolated mentions of Erebus in the whole document? Like I said, virtually ignored.

Despite what they said in that decade old document, Erebus has been continuously erupting since 1972 and spews out 1000 tons of chlorine each day.
This sort of stuff (video footage) from 2005.




Link to a peer reviewed article written by real scientists doing real science follows.

The Antarctic ozone depletion caused by Erebus volcano gas emissions

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Anyone who believed one word of the utter schite that Morrison spewed out at the UN better read this for a dose of reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-into-the-ocker-trump-australian-media-beware

 

[TimmeT]

Anyone who believed one word of the utter schite that Morrison spewed out at the UN better read this for a dose of reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-into-the-ocker-trump-australian-media-beware

so you want us to take an opinion piece as gospel...

will remember to post the next bolt or devine opinion which contains factual detail in it when it can be passed off as a reality dose.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

so you want us to take an opinion piece as gospel...

will remember to post the next bolt or devine opinion which contains factual detail in it when it can be passed off as a reality dose.

No, I never said I want anyone to take it as gospel.

Feel free to contest the conclusions. I found his arguments pretty watertight, but go on, tell us where he's wrong.

And feel free to post some Bolt or Devine opinion pieces and we can go through them together.

Or is it just so much easier to shoot the medium?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

No, I never said I want anyone to take it as gospel.

Feel free to contest the conclusions. I found his arguments pretty watertight, but go on, tell us where he's wrong.

And feel free to post some Bolt or Devine opinion pieces and we can go through them together.

Or is it just so much easier to shoot the medium?

On a different note, how do you feel about children committing suicide because of these ridiculous apocalyptic predictions, none of which have eventuated over the past 50 years?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

On a different note, how do you feel about children committing suicide because of these ridiculous apocalyptic predictions, none of which have eventuated over the past 50 years?

Do point me to a reliable source detailing these specific predictions that have not come true, and the proven cases of children committing suicide as a direct consequence of them.

What do you think about children gruesomely self-harming in detention camps? That is well documented.

 

[quotemokc]

Do point me to a reliable source detailing these specific predictions that have not come true, and the proven cases of children committing suicide as a direct consequence of them.

What do you think about children gruesomely self-harming in detention camps? That is well documented.

What do detention camps have to do with climate change?

People are free to leave detention camps whenever they want.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Do point me to a reliable source detailing these specific predictions that have not come true, and the proven cases of children committing suicide as a direct consequence of them.

What do you think about children gruesomely self-harming in detention camps? That is well documented.

All of this information you are requesting has already been posted in either this thread or the Paradox thread in the last few pages. I'll be honest, I can't be bothered quoting it for you.

I don't see what your detention camp question has anything to do with this or even what detention camp you are referring to?

 

[QuietB]

The real debate is how long will it take for the next intelligent lifeform to evolve on planet earth?

Because life on earth will not end - just the human species and all the other large living species are doomed. But something will survive - who knows what. Maybe a tiny creature at the bottom of the ocean, maybe a simple bacteria will survive feeding off the human carcasses until it evolves into something bigger and smarter.

It is an interesting question? Will it take a human form or will it be completely different?

Will this new intelligent life form scoff at the bible or will they dismiss Darwin?