Global warming fallacies

[waldo]

whaaa! TrueMetis... a most excellent thread!

- deniers claim the peer review process is corrupted... (of course, when you highlight the fact that hundreds of 'skeptical' papers get regularly published... deniers hold fast to claiming the peer review process is still corrupted. Apparently it has something to do with the fact that none/few of the 'skeptical' papers can stand the test of an extended peer-response - go figure!

- deniers claim the science is "cooked" by scientists working to sustain funding... (of course, when you ask for substantiation to such a broad conspiratorial claim, you'll hear crickets back).

[Guest TrueMetis]

Global Warming is a religion. Creationists say the same thing about evolution, it seems everyday I notice more parallels between the two.

[TimG]

Global Warming is a religion. Creationists say the same thing about evolution, it seems everyday I notice more parallels between the two.

So what? The the problem with climate science is it is being used to as a tool in a political debate. This means the limitations and biases of our scientific institutions are being exposed in a way they never have been before. It does not surprise me that people critical of the theory of evolution would have encountered those same limitations and biases even though I do not agree with the position they are advocating. Edited December 19, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

So what? The the problem with climate science is it is being used to as a tool in a political debate. This means the limitations and biases of our scientific institutions are being exposed in a way they never have been before. It does not surprise me that people critical of the theory of evolution would have encountered those same limitations and biases even though I do not agree with the position they are advocating.

This isnt something new, science has always been used in political debates.

Your simply attacking the source of a conclusion you dont like. Really no different than how PRO AGW folks attack dissenting scientists, and claim every single one is on the payroll of big oil.

This is just how arguing on the internet works.

Luckily for all of us though, internet forum AGW enthusiasts arent gonna be deciding JACK SHIT. This whole phenomenon of two sides frantically combing the internet and blogosphere for little bits of data that support their crude and poorly informed arguments wont matter when all is said and done (and a fuck of a lot more has been said than done).

The scientific process is what it is, and its working just fine. Theres scientists in relevant fields on both sides of the issue, and we are just going to keep learning more.

[waldo]

- on selective self-serving occasions, deniers cherry-pick ridiculous short-term interval periods for climatic event trending analysis... completely disavowing/ignoring the need to account for natural variations (noise) that may occur within the duration of longer range climatic events. Suggesting to deniers, the requirement for longer time trending interval periods, (typically, in the 25+ (minimal), to 35+ (preferred) years range), is usually met by denier scorn and/or bewilderment and/or dumbfoundedness.

[charter.rights]

I am using the meaning that is understood by most people. i.e. pollution is something like toxic waste or smog. Dictionary definitions are irrelevant when having public discussions. The generally understood meaning is what is important.

You don't get to change the definition to suit your error in thinking. The dictionary definition IS the meaning understood by MOST people. You can use a different word to describe what you are talking about, but if we are talking about "pollution" then it includes naturally occurring compounds in high concentrations, as stated.

[wyly]

You don't get to change the definition to suit your error in thinking. The dictionary definition IS the meaning understood by MOST people. You can use a different word to describe what you are talking about, but if we are talking about "pollution" then it includes naturally occurring compounds in high concentrations, as stated.

which brings us back to the subject of the OP...AGW fallacies

CO2 is natural (So are CO and SO2 no one says they aren't a problem)

CO2 is not a pollutant (Same as above)

he's knows and has been shown that natural compounds can be pollutants when not in the correct concentrations and comes back gens such as "CO2 is plant food"..CO2 is part of sick building syndrone, it makes people ill, it can even kill, as can pure O2...

[TimG]

The dictionary definition IS the meaning understood by MOST people.

Wrong. When people think of pollution they think of poisons. Not natural substances which cause problems in large quantities. Calling CO2 'pollution' makes as much sense as calling 'water' or 'oxygen' pollution. Edited December 21, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Wrong. When people think of pollution they think of poisons. Not natural substances which cause problems in large quantities. Calling CO2 'pollution' makes as much sense as calling 'water' or 'oxygen' pollution.

The dose make the poison anything and everything is poisonous in large concentrations. Mercury, Salt, Sugar all these things will kill you in the proper dose. This is science Tim and as such you will use the proper definition or you don't get to play. You are doing the exact same thing creationists do trying to alter definition to suit you view. That just doesn't fly.

FYI oxygen has been pollution in the past, when it was produced by plants and then killed much of the life on earth. Water is also toxic in large quantities see Water intoxication it has killed people.

[dre]

Wrong. When people think of pollution they think of poisons. Not natural substances which cause problems in large quantities. Calling CO2 'pollution' makes as much sense as calling 'water' or 'oxygen' pollution.

This is just silly. What youre really talking about is people that dont understand what pollution is

Lots of pollution is made up of substances that occur naturally. Methane, Carbon Monoxide. Arsenic is a natural part of the eco system as well, does that mean its not pollution if you dump a truck load of the stuff into the ditch down the block?

[TimG]

Lots of pollution is made up of substances that occur naturally. Methane, Carbon Monoxide. Arsenic is a natural part of the eco system as well, does that mean its not pollution if you dump a truck load of the stuff into the ditch down the block?

You are more or less agreeing that pollution is something that is toxic to life. Water, oxygen, arsenic and CO2 are toxic to life at high levels. At low levels they are harmless and even beneficial. When a beneficial substance become toxic then it becomes pollution.

The trouble with the AGW 'CO2 is pollution' meme is the CO2 levels we are talking about are not toxic by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it is quite possible that higher CO2 will be a net benefit. Therefore, it is extremely misleading to describe CO2 as pollution.

Edited December 21, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

You are more or less agreeing that pollution is something that is toxic to life. Water, oxygen, arsenic and CO2 are toxic to life at high levels. At low levels they are harmless and even beneficial. When a beneficial substance become toxic then it becomes pollution.

The trouble with the AGW 'CO2 is pollution' meme is the CO2 levels we are talking about are not toxic by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it is quite possible that higher CO2 will be a net benefit. Therefore, it is rediculous to claim that CO2 is pollution.

like cfc's weren't toxic to life but they were still a pollutant, what life forms died from the hole in the ozone tim? none that I'm aware of but cfcs were damaging to the atmosphere so therefore a pollutant...a pollutant be toxic to an individual organism or it can be toxic to the environment...

if excess CO2 changes the balance of the oceans it becomes toxic to life in the ocean and healthy oceans are essential to life on this planet...and this crap about plant food is a simplistic diversion we aren't plants, animals do not do better in higher CO2 concentrations...

[TimG]

like cfc's weren't toxic to life but they were still a pollutant, what life forms died from the hole in the ozone tim?

CFCs are toxic and serve no purpose in nature. CO2 must be present for the eco-system to function. There is a huge difference. Water is damaging to the environment. Should it be called pollution?

none that I'm aware of but cfcs were damaging to the atmosphere so therefore a pollutant...a pollutant be toxic to an individual organism or it can be toxic to the environment.

CO2 is not toxic to the environment. In fact, the environment will do just fine even if the levels went to 1000ppm or higher. Climate change is only a potential economic problem because we are not that mobile anymore. That is another reason why it wrong to call CO2 pollution.

crap about plant food is a simplistic diversion we aren't plants, animals do not do better in higher CO2 concentrations.

Most of us live in environments with CO2 >600ppm. The notion that 'animals do not do better in higher CO2' is crap you just made up. Animals will do fine in a higher CO2 environment. Edited December 21, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

CFCs are toxic and serve no purpose in nature. CO2 must be present for the eco-system to function. There is a huge difference. Water is damaging to the environment. Should it be called pollution?

CO2 is not toxic to the environment. In fact, the environment will do just fine even if the levels went to 1000ppm or higher. Climate change is only a potential economic problem because we are not that mobile anymore. That is another reason why it wrong to call CO2 pollution.

Most of us live in environments with CO2 >600ppm. The notion that 'animals do not do better in higher CO2' is crap you just made up. Animals will do fine in a higher CO2 environment.

you've serious tunnel vision, or very narrow focused education...

Carbon Dioxide

Different species of fish have different susceptibilities to carbon dioxide toxicity. In some species, excess carbon dioxide hinders the ability of the blood to hold oxygen. Produced during respiration and consumed during photosynthesis, carbon dioxide levels fluctuate throughout the day opposite to dissolved oxygen levels. High carbon dioxide levels lower the pH, which in turn affects the ratio of un-ionized to ionized ammonia.

[dre]

You are more or less agreeing that pollution is something that is toxic to life. Water, oxygen, arsenic and CO2 are toxic to life at high levels. At low levels they are harmless and even beneficial. When a beneficial substance become toxic then it becomes pollution.

The trouble with the AGW 'CO2 is pollution' meme is the CO2 levels we are talking about are not toxic by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it is quite possible that higher CO2 will be a net benefit. Therefore, it is extremely misleading to describe CO2 as pollution.

Youre just redefining a word to suit your own agenda. All a substance has to be be a pollutant is to change the environment to make it more dangerous or hostile from a given perspective.

[dre]

Water is damaging to the environment. Should it be called pollution?

If my activities generated a large ammount of it that caused changes to make the ecosphere less hospitable for others than absolutely it would be pollution.

[TimG]

Youre just redefining a word to suit your own agenda. All a substance has to be be a pollutant is to change the environment to make it more dangerous or hostile from a given perspective.

So if from my perspective brocolli harms the environment then that means brocolli is pollution?

You are the one twisting words to suit your agenda. The generally understood meaning of the word pollution means something in released quantities that is toxic to life. CO2 does not meet that definition.

If my activities generated a large ammount of it that caused changes to make the ecosphere less hospitable for others than absolutely it would be pollution.

Not if it generally improved the ecosphere for others. Edited December 21, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

So if from my perspective brocolli harms the environment then that means brocolli is pollution?

You are the one twisting words to suit your agenda. The generally understood meaning of the word pollution means something in released quantities that is toxic to life. CO2 does not meet that definition.

Not if it generally improved the ecosphere for others.

So if from my perspective brocolli harms the environment then that means brocolli is pollution?

Not "harms" the environment per say, just makes it less hospitable to you. If someone else dumped a few billion tons of the stuff in your neighborhood, and it smelled or made your water taste funny then yes... it would be pollution, whether it was toxic or not.

The generally understood meaning of the word pollution means something in released quantities that is toxic to life.

You keep saying this but its absolutely false. I dont know anybody that thinks pollution means that besides you. Pollution doesnt have to be toxic to life it just has to make the environment less hospitable to life. Thats all. Noise pollution for example rarely kills people or makes people sick, it just makes their environment less hospitable. Dumping garbage in the ditch or in the ocean is also polluting whether or not its toxic. Air pollution could just be a foul smell that doesnt harm you in the slightest. In fact thats the root meaning of the word... "foul".

Edited December 21, 2010 by dre

[waldo]

Calling CO2 'pollution' makes as much sense as calling 'water' or 'oxygen' pollution.

The trouble with the AGW 'CO2 is pollution' meme is the CO2 levels we are talking about are not toxic by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it is quite possible that higher CO2 will be a net benefit. Therefore, it is extremely misleading to describe CO2 as pollution.

The generally understood meaning of the word pollution means something in released quantities that is toxic to life. CO2 does not meet that definition.

deja vu - hey, Riverwind TimG?

CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

- not according to the U.S. Supreme Court

- not according to the EPA, now obligated by the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling to follow it's mandate/obligations under the U.S. Clean Air Act

the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that EPA must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare

- not according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that has now just recently released it's Endangerment & Cause or Contribute Findings --- Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (PDF)

- not according to the EPA that is now meandering down the legal battle towards regulation

[waldo]

from an earlier MLW discussion related to denier tactics... as reflected upon and/or leveraging particular denier fallacies:

...we see a mini variant of the following played out quite regularly on MLW, thank you very much!

- Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.

- Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

- Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

- Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

- Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

- Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

- Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

- Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

- Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.

- Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

[GostHacked]

Here is a fallacy, no one is making money on the AGW scam.

[waldo]

Here is a fallacy, no one is making money on the AGW scam.

hey buddy, is your latest, as stated, emphasis on, "following the money"... an attempt to seek solace in the fact you can't challenge the actual science? Will your new found solace seeking result in a better level of argument... or will you similarly flail and wail & fluster and bluster - hey?

[GostHacked]

hey buddy, is your latest, as stated, emphasis on, "following the money"... an attempt to seek solace in the fact you can't challenge the actual science? Will your new found solace seeking result in a better level of argument... or will you similarly flail and wail & fluster and bluster - hey?

Do you disagree that people are making a lot of money here?

[Michael Hardner]

Do you disagree that people are making a lot of money here?

In order to make change happen, money will be made and money will be lost. Would it be better if the government did everything and taxe everybody ?

[GostHacked]

In order to make change happen, money will be made and money will be lost. Would it be better if the government did everything and taxe everybody ?

So to solve the world's issues someone has to make money? I don't get this. If we are really heading down that path, there is no amount of money that will actually address the issue, let alone fix it. It's a cynical view I have for sure, but when I see that the carbon market make record profits last year (in the order of about 140 billion) it tells me that this is simply a money making scheme.

Some people are making money, and some people are losing money. No doubts about that.