Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Dan26]

Thank you monniehawk for pointing out that Dan is ONLY in this "debate" for the politics, he seems to think that only one side can "win".

It's NOTHING about politics. It's about the truth.

It's only about politics from the left's point of view.

I've posted many many times that it doesn't matter if you are a Labor voter, you can still be a sceptic about global warming alarmism. I've posted many times before that I used to be an alarmist! I changed my mind as the evidence piled up, because I don't let politics sway me in a scientific debate. Only the ignorant fall for that.

But those of the left tend to treat this as a religion and can't distance themselves from the politics.

The reality is that number of scientists who really do agree with the catastrophic alarmist view is so small, that it has become a numeric joke.

What you posters who are left-leaning need to accept is that you don't have to be an alarmist because you think you should be. It's perfectly acceptable to be a Labor voter or a Greens voter and accept the evidence that the alarmism is exaggerated and over-stated.

This debate is about the science, not left or right, and the facts are that there is NO empirical evidecne that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming. That's a simple fact, that is not in dispute.

If those of the left can't see past their own politics, that's their problem. What you need to realise mcVeigh (and Monniehawk too) is that that little C02 molecule up there that doesn't warm that much, doesn''t care who you vote for.

 

[nicky]

I believe in global warming because the overwhelming agreement that it exists in the scientific community.

There are a few scientists, whose research is paid for by interests groups aligned with those of big corps, who deny global warming is a problem. The rest are fairly well aligned.

YOu're full of shit dan26.

 

[Dan26]

I believe in global warming because the overwhelming agreement that it exists in the scientific community.

In other words, you believe what you're told.

There is no "overwhelming" consensus.

"First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon afer it was discovered that the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25

Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions)."

But EVEN IF THERE WAS A CONSENSUS (which there isn't anymore) that doesn't prove anything Nicky, because consensus isn't evidence. it only takes one person who is right to dissprove 100 who are wrong. There used to be "consensus" that the Earth was flat.

But if you like consensus, go here http://www.petitionproject.org and you will see 30,000 scientists who disagree with the catastrophic alarmist cause. Now those 30,000 itself doesn't "prove" anything, because as I've said, consensus isn't evidence. But it does prove that the debate isn't over.

YOu're full of shit dan26.

Well, unfortunately for you, you appear to be one of those people who will refuse to change their opinion to suit the evidence. That's religion, Nicky. I hope I'm wrong about you.

There is NO empirical evidence that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming. None. None at all. So, why do you assume the alarmism is true? All of the models have been wrong, exaggerated or manipulated.

A belief is not scientific if there is no evidence and no situation where it could be proven false. Theories must be falsifiable. Anything else is faith-based.

Can you point to any observations that show C02 causes dangerous warming, because the IPCC can't.

Click on the links I gave you.

 

[Holy Foley!]

This isn't about left or right. Nicky. It's about the truth.

And the fact is there is NO empirical evidecne that human C02 emisiions cause dangerous warming. None. Search all you want on the internet for that one peer-reviewed paper the alarmists wish exists that proves that humans are dangerously warming the planet. That paper doesn't exist.


The debate is HOW MUCH warming? Is it dangerous? Might it even be good (C02 is plant food after all, and the more of it there is, the more plants grow and the more food is produced) and is it cost effective to do anything about it, even if the alarmist predictions were true, which of course they are not as Tim Flannery embarrassingly knows all too well.

I have to disagree with these two points.

1. I find that argument incredibly selfish, ignorant and perhaps naive. It might not be dangerous to us, but that doesn't mean it's not dangerous. Humans will survive CO2 concentrations up to ~130,000 ppm, i'll give you that. Currently CO2 concentrations are at ~395 ppm, the highest it has ever been in 800,000 years. Hardly normal, or part of any "cycle". However, this is enough to raise global temperatures by 1 degree or more. This doesn't sound like a lot, but is enough, for example, to accelerate ice mass loss, leading to more acidic sea water. Coral reefs, for the most part, are made up of calcium carbonate. And when calcium carbonate reacts with acid, it dissolves. So try and think of the bigger picture, and what rising temperatures mean for Earth, not just humans.

2. CO2 is plant food, provided there are enough plants, and more importantly trees, to photosynthesise the CO2. With accelerating deforestation rates (and lack of planting), I doubt the plants can keep up.

Mass planting, production of renewable energies, and sustainable infrastructure are so essential for the future for more reasons than just global warming, and this, Dan26, is where it becomes political.

 

[rayven]

Can dan26 show us how the earth deals with carbon and methane?

 

[Monniehawk]

Can dan26 show us how the earth deals with carbon and methane?

BF's own Hayden Ballantyne...

 

[Mcveigh]

It's only about politics from the left's point of view.

Wow...just.wow

 

[medusala]

I believe in global warming because the overwhelming agreement that it exists in the scientific community.

There are a few scientists, whose research is paid for by interests groups aligned with those of big corps, who deny global warming is a problem. The rest are fairly well aligned.

YOu're full of shit dan26.

So what if there is agreement there is global warming? Noone disputes that. The argument is over the cause and the future consequences

Hopeless straw man. As is the pathetic big oil argument.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Tick tock...only a few years to go...suprised if Al isn't down in Antartica with a bunsen burner as we speak

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Wow...just.wow

Quality post Mcveigh

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

1. I find that argument incredibly selfish, ignorant and perhaps naive. It might not be dangerous to us, but that doesn't mean it's not dangerous. Humans will survive CO2 concentrations up to ~130,000 ppm, i'll give you that. Currently CO2 concentrations are at ~395 ppm, the highest it has ever been in 800,000 years. Hardly normal, or part of any "cycle". However, this is enough to raise global temperatures by 1 degree or more. This doesn't sound like a lot, but is enough, for example, to accelerate ice mass loss, leading to more acidic sea water. Coral reefs, for the most part, are made up of calcium carbonate. And when calcium carbonate reacts with acid, it dissolves. So try and think of the bigger picture, and what rising temperatures mean for Earth, not just humans.quote]


WTF ...complete garbage on all levels.

 

[rayven]

The argument is over the cause .

do explain

 

[Holy Foley!]

WTF ...complete garbage on all levels.

Which part(s)?

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Which part(s)?

Everything bar CO2 levels at 395ppm currently

Ignorant, naive comment swings the other way too HF

 

[Holy Foley!]

Humans will survive CO2 concentrations up to ~130,000 ppm

http://http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html

Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels
slightly intoxicating, breathing and pulse rate increase, nausea: 30,000 ppm
above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppm
unconscious, further exposure death: 100.000 ppm

The highest it has ever been in 800,000 years. Hardly normal, or part of any "cycle".

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/13/carbonemissions.climatechange

You have to watch the video in the first link. Pay particular attention to the last 1 minute.

However, this is enough to raise global temperatures by 1 degree or more. This doesn't sound like a lot, but is enough, for example, to accelerate ice mass loss

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Greenland-ice-mass-loss-spread-to-northwest.html

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg

Doesn't quite prove it. But you'd think it's not coincidence.

leading to more acidic sea water. Coral reefs, for the most part, are made up of calcium carbonate. And when calcium carbonate reacts with acid, it dissolves.

That's just basic chemistry and common knowledge. It's like saying grass isn't green.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Basic chemistry yes, but we're not talking about hydrochloric acid are we?

 

[Mcveigh]

WTF ...complete garbage on all levels.

Everything bar CO2 levels at 395ppm currently

Ignorant, naive comment swings the other way too HF

Basic chemistry yes, but we're not talking about hydrochloric acid are we?

quality posts. Bit dramatic aren't we?

How about you go into a little more depth to backup your bold statements?

 

[Dan26]

I have to disagree with these two points.

1. I find that argument incredibly selfish, ignorant and perhaps naive. It might not be dangerous to us, but that doesn't mean it's not dangerous. Humans will survive CO2 concentrations up to ~130,000 ppm, i'll give you that. Currently CO2 concentrations are at ~395 ppm, the highest it has ever been in 800,000 years. Hardly normal, or part of any "cycle". However, this is enough to raise global temperatures by 1 degree or more. This doesn't sound like a lot, but is enough, for example, to accelerate ice mass loss, leading to more acidic sea water. Coral reefs, for the most part, are made up of calcium carbonate. And when calcium carbonate reacts with acid, it dissolves. So try and think of the bigger picture, and what rising temperatures mean for Earth, not just humans.

The Earth was a couple of degree warmer than what it is now during he medieval warm period. Nothing bad happened.

The fact that C02 levels are higher now than what they have been is not the issue. The issue is is this increase bad?

And there is NO empirical evidence that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming. NONE. Whatever small increase humans are causing on the rising temperature it is no match for the other, bigger natural factors out there.

Also, it is a fact that as each extra molecule of C02 goes into the atmosphere it has less and less warming effect.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

Example: If 100 ppm CO2 emissions causes say, "x" of a degree of increase, it will take more than 100ppm to cause the same "x" degree of increase the next time, and more again for the same increase etc etc.

2. CO2 is plant food, provided there are enough plants, and more importantly trees, to photosynthesise the CO2. With accelerating deforestation rates (and lack of planting), I doubt the plants can keep up.

Oh give me a break What evidence is that that plants "can't keep up"

The reality is if there is more C02, plants gwo quicker, better and in areas, where if the C02 was lower, the growth of the plants would be marginal. This leads to more food production.

30,000 scientists have signed a petition, http://www.petitionproject.org and their wording is unequivocal.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

 

[medusala]

do explain

If for example all or the vast majority of the recent warming was due to the sun then there would be little point in drastically cutting emissions.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

quality posts. Bit dramatic aren't we?

How about you go into a little more depth to backup your bold statements?

Ignorant...yes. To the complexity of the science and the limited role CO2 plays in the environment. Look at the MVP for instance, its acknowledged it happened, it was warmer than now, now CO2 wasn't the driving force...unless you believe that it didn't happen ofcourse, what i guess you do.


Naive...to the complete manipulation that you're fed/believe that is CO2 is catastrophic to the planet and the earth won't adapt again, like it has for 1000's of years.

Well the chemistry presented would work in a test tube...sure

But this is a common fault of alarmists...its the real world we are talking about and to date there is absolutely nothing to suggest this is a problem or will be a problem.

Unless you can shed some light on a "new" study out there..

Go on mcveigh, step up with your evidence...the world is waiting


While we wait......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM

 

[Dan26]

Ignorant...yes. To the complexity of the science and the limited role CO2 plays in the environment. Look at the MVP for instance, its acknowledged it happened, it was warmer than now, now CO2 wasn't the driving force...unless you believe that it didn't happen ofcourse, what i guess you do.

MeVeigh doesn't believe in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in which it was more than 2 degrees warmer than what it is now.

I know this because alarmists don't believe it either since in one of their reports a few years ago, they ignored the MWP, and they were exposed for this omission in the climategate emails. These emails among other things showed them manipulating data to make it appear there was more warming.

He believes these idiots.

Hence McVeigh doesn't believe that the MWP existed.

It's religion to these fools. They will simply believe whatever they need to believe for the alarmist theory to hold water.

You can't reason with them or supply evidence to them. All they do is ignore it.

 

[Mcveigh]

The Earth was a couple of degree warmer than what it is now during he medieval warm period. Nothing bad happened.

The fact that C02 levels are higher now than what they have been is not the issue. The issue is is this increase bad?

Hey dan, how many human beings were on the planet back then? What do you mean by "bad"

And there is NO empirical evidence that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming. NONE. Whatever small increase humans are causing on the rising temperature it is no match for the other, bigger natural factors out there.

Also, it is a fact that as each extra molecule of C02 goes into the atmosphere it has less and less warming effect.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

Example: If 100 ppm CO2 emissions causes say, "x" of a degree of increase, it will take more than 100ppm to cause the same "x" degree of increase the next time, and more again for the same increase etc etc.

What the hell does that rubbish graph even say?

Here's a couple that aren't designed to mislead and confuse the reader and are relevant to the tripling of the human race in the last 100 or so years.

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climat...st-a-few-degrees-can-cause-major-changes.aspx

But we should trust some biased blog over the csiro right?

 

[rayven]

So dan26 is relying on people to refrence who think ciggerette smoke is not dangerous and funded by amongst others big pharma and exonmobil and who credit christopher monkton as legit as well as who refrence fox news weathermen...

sorry but LMFAO..

 

[Mcveigh]

MeVeigh doesn't believe in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in which it was more than 2 degrees warmer than what it is now.

I know this because alarmists don't believe it either since in one of their reports a few years ago, they ignored the MWP, and they were exposed for this omission in the climategate emails. These emails among other things showed them manipulating data to make it appear there was more warming.

He believes these idiots.

Hence McVeigh doesn't believe that the MWP existed.

It's religion to these fools. They will simply believe whatever they need to believe for the alarmist theory to hold water.

You can't reason with them or supply evidence to them. All they do is ignore it.

Have a look at the links I posted. The MWP definitely happened, sea levels were also 4-6m HIGHER back then than in the 20th century.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Hey dan, how many human beings were on the planet back then? What do you mean by "bad"



What the hell does that rubbish graph even say?

Here's a couple that aren't designed to mislead and confuse the reader and are relevant to the tripling of the human race in the last 100 or so years.

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climat...st-a-few-degrees-can-cause-major-changes.aspx

But we should trust some biased blog over the csiro right?

Dans right mcveigh doesnt believe in MWP or halocene periods going on those graphs...comedy gold.

Thats very similar to the hockey stick graph mcveigh..is it?

I guess if you don't believe in the evidence of prior warming periods its no point continuing in this debate.

Well that may be mcveigh but not CO2 though, because all the evidence suggests the earth recovers.

Shall we start the cull