Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

An absolute belief in an uncertain and incredibly complicated science is equally religious.

Having faith in science seems the prudent thing to do when issues of a technical or complicated nature need addressing, especially in the ongoing face of 95% or so consensus amongst scientists. Putting more faith in the government's political solutions seems more crazy than religious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So you figure the more prudent thing to do is base public policy on what 5% or so of scientists believe?

Er... where exactly did I make such a statement? Nowhere, and it is certainly not what I advocate. My opinion is that if someone wants to comment on scientific topics and be taken seriously, they should take the time to understand the science and make arguments based thereupon, rather than arguments based on polling other people. Reality is about facts, not opinions.

As to my position regarding climate change, it is explained fully in the opening post of the thread I linked on page 20. You may peruse it at your leisure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will you stop being so thick.

What the hell is a layman to do when faced with the fact that 95% of scientists say PAY ATTENTION year after year after year? Do we ignore them or would you just have us pray that they're wrong?

What is the layman to do? Exactly what they do do... keep going on with life as they always have. Not seeing how anything I've said in any way inconveniences or disturbs the layman. Life is better at this point in history for the average layman than it ever has been, so what's the problem?

What I am saying is that people who want to discuss science should understand the science they are discussing... doesn't seem that far of a stretch to me.

And no, being an atheist, prayer would not be one of my recommendations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, you have... consistently accused me of being a denier that CO2 emissions cause global warming, despite no evidence and evidence to the contrary.

if I've consistently, as you say, accused you... you should be able to provide a quote to that effect. Waiting...

Perhaps consistently was the wrong word, but here is a quote:

I've certainly labeled you a concern troll; beyond that, we'll need a bit more time to flush out your real position.

:lol: of course, you couldn't find a quote to support your claim. And you say, "perhaps consistently" was the wrong word for you to have used!!! Nice. And somehow... somehow... the quote you come back with is supposed to substantiate your claim, "consistently, or otherwise"!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...What the hell is a layman to do when faced with the fact that 95% of scientists say PAY ATTENTION year after year after year? Do we ignore them or would you just have us pray that they're wrong?

Just ignore them...scientists only get one vote just like everybody else. Yay democracy !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - I kept asking you to identify what the climate of the distant past... your going back 500 Million years ago... has to do with today's relatively recent warming, related climate change and attributions therein. Although you keep harping on that distant past, you're unable to answer this question/challenge put to you... well, other than your catch-all, hand-wave to the distant past's high CO2/temperature levels providing "optimal conditions to support human/plant life".

.

One of the things that early history has to do with is whether current conditions are within the Earth's experience or if the only way this could happen is human impact.

no - your "fringe of the fringe" denier position, now firmly established given some of your recent posts, is that today's warming is the result of, as you claim, natural cyclic action... in fact you claim today's warming is simply the result of the earth "coming out of the Little Ice Age".

the anthropogenic related principal cause of today's warming is firmly established. What I pointed out recently to the other guy is that when your types reference the distant past you don't even realize you're scoring "an own goal":

talk about (you being) pwned! When you reference the distant past climate change, particularly your emphasis, you're speaking to evidence of a strong response by the earth to increased heat buildup... of net positive influences on that past climate. That strong past historical response implies a large climate response/change to CO2 forcing... your continued references to distant past climate change are a direct implication indicating that humans (via anthropogenic sourced CO2) can significantly affect climate today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was claiming that climate alarmists have a premise that the pre-industrial CO2 and temperature levels in the mid 19th century towards the end of the little ice age are somehow optimal.

what level would that be... what's the basis for your claim, strawman man?

Either 1850 or 1880 would be used as the benchmark. That's what the IPCC and various climate change mitigation advocacy groups use.

Here is an example of a climate alarmist saying that we need to return to pre-industrial levels.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions

I ask you for the level of CO2 you associate with "pre-industrial"... and you come back with year references??? Why would you avoid identifying the actual CO2 level itself?

and no, your (relatively dated) article does not support your strawman. Given what's in the article, the journalist has taken liberty with the article title. What the scientist speaks to is the emphasis on the need to stabilize CO2 rise. The only related article commentary to your strawman, directly attributed/quoted to that scientist is the following:

"It is a very sweeping argument, but nobody can say for sure that 330ppm is safe," he said. "Perhaps it will not matter whether we have 270ppm or 320ppm, but operating well outside the [historic] realm of carbon dioxide concentrations is risky as long as we have not fully understood the relevant feedback mechanisms."

notwithstanding the weekly averaged global CO2 level is now ~395ppm, the above quoted statement from the scientist in your linked article doesn't support your claim. As I've bold-highlighted, the above quote is most correctly putting the emphasis on uncertainties related to (longer-term) feedback mechanisms; positive feedbacks that will act to amplify the basic warming from just a doubling of CO2.

in fact, it was you that made your belly-flop into this thread with your big-time fail over your warming projection claim. As was pointed out to you, repeatedly, you made an improper reference to the UNFCCC 2°C target goal aimed to minimize the worst impacts of warming/climate change... which, of course, has an accompanying CO2 (stabilization target) level (rightly or wrongly) generally associated to 450ppm. That target, those figures (rightly or wrongly) were arrived at by mandated climate scientists tasked to do so. And, of course, at today's levels, even if a stabilization on rising CO2 could be realized, given the accumulated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is suggested the earth would continue a warming increase for 50+ years. How is this scientific focused 450ppm... even 400ppm... even 350ppm... how are any of those levels grounds for your claim that, as you stated, "climate alarmists have a premise that the pre-industrial CO2 and temperature levels in the mid 19th century towards the end of the little ice age are somehow optimal"... you know, 270ppm, the level associated with pre-industrial. Oh, I see... that's why you avoided providing the actual CO2 level, hey!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the layman to do? Exactly what they do do... keep going on with life as they always have. Not seeing how anything I've said in any way inconveniences or disturbs the layman. Life is better at this point in history for the average layman than it ever has been, so what's the problem?

The problem is that the vast majority of experts are saying that going on with life as we always have will in all likelihood prove disastrous. Only a very very few are advising we have nothing to worry about.

What I am saying is that people who want to discuss science should understand the science they are discussing... doesn't seem that far of a stretch to me.

Maybe not in a research setting or to satisfy some academic point of order but what people are saying is that they want governments to address the findings and recommendations that scientists have communicated to the public and governments alike. If we were talking about scientists recommending how we safely store and cook food would you recommend we ignore them?

And no, being an atheist, prayer would not be one of my recommendations.

For the life of me I'd swear you're recommending that the public should pay no attention to scientists and not participate in discussing what scientists recommend with their representatives. That seems really weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - the only ambiguity is yours... it's identified in the post you won't touch; again - here. The one I'll keep throwing back at you... until you speak to your own ambiguity. You know, come out from behind your blatant, broad and all encompassing claim of an increase in global crop yields, come out from behind your isolation to enclosure non-real world growth studies, come out from behind your refusal to speak to the myriad of considerations on any presumption of staple crop growth increase, on any staple crop, in any world region, at any geographic latitude level.

I have provided more than sufficient evidence to support the CO2 fertilization effect in this thread. The CO2 fertilization effect is well established, has scientific consensus, and comes down to basic chemistry that if you increase your limiting reactant in a reaction (such as photosynthesis), more of that reaction will occur.

But I guess that somehow the CO2 fertilization effect magically stops working 'in the real world' and for some reason looking at the CO2 fertilization effect in the past such as 10,000 years ago when the last ice age ended doesn't counter either because it isn't recent enough. *sarcasm* Is this the same logic you guys use when explaining heat engines? How about you at least admit that the CO2 fertilization effect exists.

And what is with your continued insistence on performing this strawman argument that I've never said there are other factors that influence crop yields other than the CO2 fertilization effect? I've consistently said that indirect effects of CO2 increases by climate change (changes in temperatures, rainfall, wind speeds, etc.) will have varying effects on crop yields.

and, once again, your consistently displayed lack of comprehension rises to the top! You've shown nothing other than non-real world, enclosure 'greenhouse/chamber' type studies... you started out claiming rising CO2 is a big positive for the world... an increase in "global crop yields" you trumpeted, over and over and over again! Even when pressured and you finally begin to come around to, (on a most limited level), recognize and acknowledge influences on real-world crop growth yields, you still continue to bleat on about "an increase in global growth yields".

you've provided nothing... ever... that speaks to specific latitudes associated with your anticipated crop growth increase. You've provided nothing... ever... to identify the actual type of staple crops associated with your anticipated crop growth increase. You've provided nothing... ever... to quantify your claimed level of global crop yield increase - what level, 5% increase, 10% increase... what increase level? You've provided nothing... ever... that speaks to the regions/latitudes where growth yields are anticipated to decrease..... and, accordingly, what overall world impact any limited gains within select latitudes, within select crops, means to an overall world population increasing and needing to be fed. And, of course, you absolutely avoid the post I keep throwing back at you; you absolutely refuse to properly and completely address it. Of course you do... that would just get in the way of your blanket claims... your blanket unsubstantiated claims... of rising CO2 being a positive gain for the world in terms of, as you say, "an increase in global crop yields". Like I said, you're simply one of those (concern troll type) guys that talk of CO2 as if it's nothing more than plant food!

.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't really know how the real climate responds to the changes we are making now.

The "real" climate? As opposed to what?

Climate models of course.

so wait and see?

yes, of course! TimG, of the "do nothing, delay at all costs, mitigation is bad", Adapt-R-Us (only) school! To TimG, it doesn't matter that he's been shown some climate models have done relatively well in predicting temperature increases... he just sits back and takes easy unsubstantiated pot shots at climate models. TimG can't reconcile the consensus position that presumes on leveraging multiple strategies... anyone suggesting a combined mitigation and adaptation approach is just talking heresy! Yes, TimG says... let's just wait it out... he, without any kind of substantiation, repeatedly says the costs for adapting will be much less than throwing away any (mitigation focused) money that actually presumes to reduce fossil-fuel sourced emissions, to reduce dependencies on fossil-fuels.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not hard to do the calculations based on the amount of energy required and the technology and resources available today. All of the people claiming it is possible assume the magic technology fairy will appear and provide solutions which solve all of our problems - the only problem is the magic technology fairy is not real.

IOW - we know it can't be done. We know this with more certainty than we know that CO2 will be bad.

no - known technology gaps are addressed in the typical 40-50 year roadmap scenarios being posited. None of which precludes beginning to work today, within and towards, the end goals of those scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4) Adaption is local and no global agreement among countries with different interests is required.

So rationally, adaptation makes so much more sense it makes me wonder why people are so resistant to it as the preferred option.

ah yes, get rid of that nasty ole "world government, wealth transfer" thingee, hey! Every nation for itself! Let the polluters continue to pollute... cause, like... every nation has it's own isolated atmosphere, oceans and rivers! Let the poor(er) developing countries fend for themselves! And that lil' ditty where developed, "Consumer's-R-Us" countries, outsource significant levels of their emissions to developing countries, well... that's just the cost of doing business!

and no... of course, "(thinking) people are not resistant to adaptation measures; rather, (thinking) people realize that adaptation, along with mitigation, are both necessary strategies. People, thinking people, don't leverage one strategy/approach against the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to my position regarding climate change, it is explained fully in the opening post of the thread I linked on page 20. You may peruse it at your leisure.

aside from you improperly defining your described two camps positions/arguments... your personal position reads as nothing more than, "let's figure out the optimal and throw a geo-engineering crap-shoot at it... some we'll win, some we'll lose... but sooner or later, we'll get it right"! Spoken like a true solutions orientated engineer! I guess we'll call all those fails, prototype throwaways, hey!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ask you for the level of CO2 you associate with "pre-industrial"... and you come back with year references??? Why would you avoid identifying the actual CO2 level itself?

I meant the global temperatures and CO2 levels from 1850/1880. So that would be roughly 0.8 C below current global temperatures and a CO2 level of 270-280 ppm.

and no, your (relatively dated) article does not support your strawman. Given what's in the article, the journalist has taken liberty with the article title. What the scientist speaks to is the emphasis on the need to stabilize CO2 rise. The only related article commentary to your strawman, directly attributed/quoted to that scientist is the following:

You are making a strawman argument here. My claim was that some climate alarmists want to return to pre-industrial levels not that climate scientists (though that isn't to say scientists cannot be alarmists) want to return to pre-industrial levels. Science cannot want to do anything or tell us what to do. It merely helps us understand the reality of the universe we live in. In order to make decisions with respect to climate change, one must use economics, philosophy, etc.

notwithstanding the weekly averaged global CO2 level is now ~395ppm, the above quoted statement from the scientist in your linked article doesn't support your claim. As I've bold-highlighted, the above quote is most correctly putting the emphasis on uncertainties related to (longer-term) feedback mechanisms; positive feedbacks that will act to amplify the basic warming from just a doubling of CO2.

395 ppm is still well below the average for the past 600 million years. Heck, pretty much any point in time before 15 million years ago had higher CO2 levels than now. So we are still within the historic realm of CO2 concentrations.

in fact, it was you that made your belly-flop into this thread with your big-time fail over your warming projection claim. As was pointed out to you, repeatedly, you made an improper reference to the UNFCCC 2°C target goal aimed to minimize the worst impacts of warming/climate change... which, of course, has an accompanying CO2 (stabilization target) level (rightly or wrongly) generally associated to 450ppm. That target, those figures (rightly or wrongly) were arrived at by mandated climate scientists tasked to do so. And, of course, at today's levels, even if a stabilization on rising CO2 could be realized, given the accumulated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is suggested the earth would continue a warming increase for 50+ years.

What is difficult for you to understand? I claimed that there were projection models that showed a level of warming of 2 C. And yes these models exist, they are the ones that were used by the UNFCCC to make their 2 C target. Obviously, what will happen will depend on what humans do with respect to CO2 emission mitigation policies.

But somehow, making a comment which is correct is a 'belly-flop big-time fail' in your mind.

How is this scientific focused 450ppm... even 400ppm... even 350ppm...

This isn't a sentence that makes grammatical sense. You seem to have a habit of using sentences with poor, complex or incorrect grammar (sentences with many words ending in ing for example). Could you please try to use simple/correct grammar so that what you say is actually understandable?

how are any of those levels grounds for your claim that, as you stated, "climate alarmists have a premise that the pre-industrial CO2 and temperature levels in the mid 19th century towards the end of the little ice age are somehow optimal"... you know, 270ppm, the level associated with pre-industrial. Oh, I see... that's why you avoided providing the actual CO2 level, hey!

Are you implying that I claimed that the UNFCCC's target CO2 ppm is the same as that which climate alarmists believe is optimal for life on this planet? Because if that is true, you are performing a strawman argument (clearly the strawman argument is your favorite argument technique). Climate alarmists usually believe that pre-industrial levels (270 ppm) are the optimal CO2 levels for life on this planet, yes. The target CO2 of the UNFCCC is 450 ppm, yes. But why would they be the same, or why do you think I claimed that they were the same? Even if the UNFCCC were run completely by climate alarmists and they have the same premise as the climate alarmists about optimal CO2 levels, that doesn't mean their target will by 270 ppm. They have to factor in the costs of mitigation and they also have to set goals which are reasonable given the political situation across the planet, which is why their target of 450 ppm is higher than 270 ppm.

you started out claiming rising CO2 is a big positive for the world... and you finally begin to come around to, (on a most limited level), recognize and acknowledge influences on real-world crop growth yields, you still continue to bleat on about "an increase in global growth yields".

Again, strawman argument, yet again. My claim was that the CO2 fertilization effect was beneficial to crop yields everywhere (which it is), while acknowledging that indirect effects from higher CO2 levels via climate change will have varying effects on crop yields depending on location. My position has always been consistent. But given the number of times you used this strawman argument and ignore when I point out that it is a strawman argument, I expect your next response will be a simple repeat of your strawman argument.

you've provided nothing... ever... that speaks to specific latitudes associated with your anticipated crop growth increase. You've provided nothing... ever... to identify the actual type of staple crops associated with your anticipated crop growth increase.

With respect to the CO2 fertilization effect, this will affect ALL plants & crops at ALL latitudes in a positive way. It's basic biology.

You've provided nothing... ever... to quantify your claimed level of global crop yield increase - what level, 5% increase, 10% increase... what increase level?

To determine the level of crop yield increase you need to have the increase in CO2 levels and what kinds of crops we are growing in different locations as input parameters. I can't give you an exact number without relation to a certain CO2 level can I? Furthermore, as I have said multiple times in this thread, the total effect on crop yields depends largely on if we continue with current growing patterns, or if we adapt and grow crops that are better suited to the changed climate.

You've provided nothing... ever... that speaks to the regions/latitudes where growth yields are anticipated to decrease.....

That's because the CO2 fertilization effect is beneficial everywhere. Or are you talking about the indirect affects of CO2 on crop yields? I cannot know because you are purposely unclear and never distinguish if you are talking about the effect of the CO2 fertilization effect or if you are talking about the combined effect when including indirect factors such as temperature, precipitation and wind changes.

And, of course, you absolutely avoid the post I keep throwing back at you; you absolutely refuse to properly and completely address it.

You mean the post where you call me names? I've addressed that many times. Please see my previous posts.

Of course you do... that would just get in the way of your blanket claims... your blanket unsubstantiated claims... of rising CO2 being a positive gain for the world in terms of, as you say, "an increase in global crop yields".

Again, you are being unclear about which increase in crop yields in another attempt to strawman my position. Are we talking about the increase due to the CO2 fertilization effect or are we talking more generally about the net effect of climate change? Are we talking about the change in crop yields if we continue our current growing patterns or are we talking about changes in crop yields if we adapt to the new climate? How much climate change are we talking about? You merge all these different scenarios into one giant mess of ambiguity, and then strawman my position. So again my position on crop yields is as follows:

- The CO2 fertilization effect will cause increases in crop yields everywhere.

- Other effects such as changes to temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, wind and other weather effects will have varying effects on crop yields depending on location.

- If we do not change our geographical distribution of crops (our current crop distribution is roughly optimized for current climatic conditions) then the overall effect of climate change will have a slight negative impact on crop yields. Most climate studies that measure climate effects on crop yields assume that humans will not adapt to the new climate, which is nonsense.

- However, if we are reasonable and change our crop growing patterns such that we grow crops that are better suited to a warmer climate (and the amount of climate change is reasonable such as 3 C global temperature increase & 400 ppm CO2 increase) then crop yields will overall increase.

Which of the 4 points do you disagree with or want me to provide evidence for? Which ones do you agree with? When you are talking about changes in crop yields, can you please specific they scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitigation for what?

Mitigation of CO2 emissions... I thought that was implied in a climate change thread.

You have a situation where you know you will not be able to stop the process anywhere near what is optimum or any time in the future, because you have taken no steps to deal with the cause.

The premise that we should stop at the optimal climate for life on the earth is false; if we factor in the costs of mitigation and the possibility of alternative methods for countering higher global temperatures (such as sea water clouds or space mirrors), then it is reasonable that we should stop slightly higher than the optimum.

The second part of the sentence makes little sense. If you plan on the course of action (how much mitigation/adaptation we should do, what CO2 levels we should aim for, etc.) and you follow that plan, how could you have 'taken no steps to deal with the cause'?

Any time you are causing at situation that is likely not reversible, it is rational not to rush into it until you know what the eff you are doing.

All physical processes that increase entropy are irreversible. So whatever we do will be irreversible. Or are you talking about being unable to alter the climate back to current conditions? Of course we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere in the future and reverse climate change if we decide to. Here is a wiki entry on different CO2 removal techniques:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal

Having faith in science seems the prudent thing to do when issues of a technical or complicated nature need addressing, especially in the ongoing face of 95% or so consensus amongst scientists. Putting more faith in the government's political solutions seems more crazy than religious.

One should not have 'faith' in science, faith is for religions. Maybe you would prefer to use the words trust or confidence instead?

Will you stop being so thick.

What the hell is a layman to do when faced with the fact that 95% of scientists say PAY ATTENTION year after year after year? Do we ignore them or would you just have us pray that they're wrong?

Science doesn't tell people want to do. If you think otherwise then you do not understand science.

Science can give us a better understanding of the universe, but it alone does not tell us what actions we should take; to do that you also need economics, philosophy, etc.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant the global temperatures and CO2 levels from 1850/1880. So that would be roughly 0.8 C below current global temperatures and a CO2 level of 270-280 ppm.

was that so difficult for you to actually state the level... when you were asked to... state the level?

You are making a strawman argument here. My claim was that some climate alarmists want to return to pre-industrial levels not that climate scientists (though that isn't to say scientists cannot be alarmists) want to return to pre-industrial levels. Science cannot want to do anything or tell us what to do. It merely helps us understand the reality of the universe we live in. In order to make decisions with respect to climate change, one must use economics, philosophy, etc.

no - you were the one that made another of your broad sweeping "alarmists claim" statements... and then when challenged to substantiate that claim you proceeded to provide a reference/link that in no way supported your claim/statements.

395 ppm is still well below the average for the past 600 million years. Heck, pretty much any point in time before 15 million years ago had higher CO2 levels than now. So we are still within the historic realm of CO2 concentrations.

so what? As you've been repeatedly challenged on, what does the distant past (now you've gone back 600 million years), it's conditions, and presumed climate therein, have to do with today's relatively recent warming, related climate change and attributions therein? I expect you'll be throwing down the Venus mantle next, hey?

What is difficult for you to understand? I claimed that there were projection models that showed a level of warming of 2 C. And yes these models exist, they are the ones that were used by the UNFCCC to make their 2 C target. Obviously, what will happen will depend on what humans do with respect to CO2 emission mitigation policies.

But somehow, making a comment which is correct is a 'belly-flop big-time fail' in your mind.

BS! You spoke of expected warming, a projection of expected warming. What you kept calling, what you keep calling a projection, was and is not... it's a target, a goal. One presumed to be the level at which the most harmful effects of warming/climate change will begin to be realized. It assumes on actually tackling emissions with targeted reduction commitments/actions. It has absolutely nothing to do with expected warming... unless one buys into the need for mitigation and accepts that appropriate actions will be taken. This was not your underlying premise... again, you were speaking to how much warming, outright, could be expected with rising CO2. And you were doing so, only because you were pushed/prodded to come up with a figure (a benchmark) to associate with your alarmist labeling.

don't try to backpedal on your stooopid claim and your associated ignorance of the related discussion points. Stand up for your stated nonsense - be loud and proud of it!

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this scientific focused 450ppm... even 400ppm... even 350ppm... how are any of those levels, grounds for your claim that, as you stated, "climate alarmists have a premise that the pre-industrial CO2 and temperature levels in the mid 19th century towards the end of the little ice age are somehow optimal

Are you implying that I claimed that the UNFCCC's target CO2 ppm is the same as that which climate alarmists believe is optimal for life on this planet? Because if that is true, you are performing a strawman argument (clearly the strawman argument is your favorite argument technique).

you were the one that provided that article reference/link... and you did so when challenged to provide a basis for your claim that, "climate alarmists have a premise that the pre-industrial CO2 and temperature levels in the mid 19th century towards the end of the little ice age are somehow optimal". I've already highlighted your big-time fail with this reference/link. Are you in the habit of supplying unrelated linked references to requests for you to substantiate your nonsense claims?

Climate alarmists usually believe that pre-industrial levels (270 ppm) are the optimal CO2 levels for life on this planet, yes.

yes, that was your original strawman... the one you tried (and failed) to substantiate with your provided article reference/link. You now have 2 flushed out fails in regards your alarmist labeling. You failed in attempting to establish a projected temperature threshold benchmark, and you've now failed in attempting to substantiate your pre-industrial optimal level crapola. Of course, even if you were to cough up some guy out there who lines up with your alarmist bleating, does that qualify your broad based attachment to your catch all "alarmist labeling'.

you should really step back, take a deep breath and come back with a comprehensive accounting of all your qualifiers/quantifiers for your alarmist designation! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and, once again, your consistently displayed lack of comprehension rises to the top! You've shown nothing other than non-real world, enclosure 'greenhouse/chamber' type studies... you started out claiming rising CO2 is a big positive for the world... an increase in "global crop yields" you trumpeted, over and over and over again! Even when pressured and you finally begin to come around to, (on a most limited level), recognize and acknowledge influences on real-world crop growth yields, you still continue to bleat on about "an increase in global growth yields".

you've provided nothing... ever... that speaks to specific latitudes associated with your anticipated crop growth increase. You've provided nothing... ever... to identify the actual type of staple crops associated with your anticipated crop growth increase. You've provided nothing... ever... to quantify your claimed level of global crop yield increase - what level, 5% increase, 10% increase... what increase level? You've provided nothing... ever... that speaks to the regions/latitudes where growth yields are anticipated to decrease..... and, accordingly, what overall world impact any limited gains within select latitudes, within select crops, means to an overall world population increasing and needing to be fed. And, of course, you absolutely avoid the post I keep throwing back at you; you absolutely refuse to properly and completely address it. Of course you do... that would just get in the way of your blanket claims... your blanket unsubstantiated claims... of rising CO2 being a positive gain for the world in terms of, as you say, "an increase in global crop yields". Like I said, you're simply one of those (concern troll type) guys that talk of CO2 as if it's nothing more than plant food!

Again, strawman argument, yet again. ... But given the number of times you used this strawman argument and ignore when I point out that it is a strawman argument, I expect your next response will be a simple repeat of your strawman argument.

Again, you are being unclear about which increase in crop yields in another attempt to strawman my position. ...You merge all these different scenarios into one giant mess of ambiguity, and then strawman my position.

:lol: yes, you are... the strawman man!

again... you don't know what you're talking about - as before, as always:

no - the only ambiguity is yours... it's identified in the post you won't touch; again - here. The one I'll keep throwing back at you... until you speak to your own ambiguity. You know, come out from behind your blatant, broad and all encompassing claim of an increase in global crop yields, come out from behind your isolation to enclosure non-real world growth studies, come out from behind your refusal to speak to the myriad of considerations on any presumption of staple crop growth increase, on any staple crop, in any world region, at any geographic latitude level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you on pollution, plastics & mercury. Not quite sure what you mean by reducing carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a problem in urban environments and is a health problem because of car pollution. But it reacts pretty quickly with O2 to form CO2 so it isn't a global issue (rather a local one). Do you mean we should take measures to reduce car pollution in cities? If so then I would agree with you. For nuclear waste, i'm not quite sure where it is a significant problem. Nuclear energy is a very clean energy and produces a very small amount of waste (which is dealt with well in developed countries). Do you mean that we should recycle waste more?

We should be able to recylce everything. But many companies do not operate and cannot continue to make money if everything can be recycled. Mining operations will be reduced, oil exploration can stop, which can seriously reduce ths so called carbon foot print and CO2 emissions.

One problem with plastics and when recycling came about was and still is that there are several types of plastic and not ALL can be recycled. And really the current way we do recycling is a huge joke. How many recycle bins where the lid has 3 holes, one for plastic, one for cans, one for paper. But if you take off the lid, there is only one bag. That's brilliant. Perceived green. It's a joke.

As for the 'clean' meme of nuclear power, we only need to look at indicents like 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, San Onofre (california) Fort Calhoune (nebraska) Those two plants are closed and are offline forever. Check into both of those US nuke plants.

And where do you store all this nuclear material? How long does a fuel rod last, and how long do you need to store the waste?? Nuclear energy is not carbon neutral, and is NOT green energy. This is dangerous to hold the view that nuclear energy is safe.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-25/illinois-biggest-atomic-dump-as-u-s-fails-to-pick-site.html

Across the country, atomic power plants “have become de facto major radioactive waste-management operations,” Robert Alvarez, a former adviser to Energy Department secretaries during President Bill Clinton’s administration, said in a phone interview.

With no place to send their waste, power plants in 30 states -- which generate about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity -- are doubling as dumps for spent fuel that remains dangerous for thousands of years. Another four states without operating reactors store spent fuel at closed plants. It is an expensive and, according to some critics, unsafe practice for which the plants weren’t designed and that may end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

You aware of what has been happening in Somalia and the reason why hijacking of foreign ships is high in the area?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.html

Somali pirates have accused European firms of dumping toxic waste off the Somali coast and are demanding an $8m ransom for the return of a Ukranian ship they captured, saying the money will go towards cleaning up the waste.

The ransom demand is a means of "reacting to the toxic waste that has been continually dumped on the shores of our country for nearly 20 years", Januna Ali Jama, a spokesman for the pirates, based in the semi-autonomous region of Puntland, said.

"The Somali coastline has been destroyed, and we believe this money is nothing compared to the devastation that we have seen on the seas."

The pirates are holding the MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying tanks and military hardware, off Somalia's northern coast.

According to the International Maritime Bureau, 61 attacks by pirates have been reported since the start of the year.

While money is the primary objective of the hijackings, claims of the continued environmental destruction off Somalia's coast have been largely ignored by the regions's maritime authorities.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483484/Toxic-nuclear-waste-dumped-illegally-Mafia-blamed-surge-cancers-southern-Italy.html

The mafia family also disposed of contaminated waste in Lake Lucrino and all along the coast.

Operatives were equipped with real police and carabinieri uniforms, as well as firearms, and the clans raked in huge profits of up to 600 million of the old lire (£200,000) a month.

The industry became an officially clan-sanctioned ‘business’ in 1990 but had been going on long before.

Nuclear sludge, brought in on trucks from plants in Germany, was dumped in landfills, Schiavone said. The trucks would unload waste at night before earth was thrown over with a JCB.

He said: ‘I know that some is on land where buffalo live today, and on which no grass grows’

The cost of a clean up would run into billions, he said, describing several sites in the suburbs of Naples.

Schiavone revealed: ‘We buried 520 drums of toxic waste in a specially dug quarry near the town of Pure Villaricca. But we also did it in very populated places, outside towns- at Casal di Principe behind the sports field at the edge of the motorway.’

He added: ‘We disposed of 70 or 80 trucks from the north, millions and millions of tonnes.

‘To clean it up it would cost the entire Italian budget for a year I think.’

The lower house in the Italian Parliament had elected to make the documents public in the interests of transparency.

And we are not immune to it in Canada.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/10/11/science_hubris_and_ontarios_planned_lake_huron_nuclear_waste_dump_walkom.html

At low-key environmental hearings in southwestern Ontario, the arguments are technical to the point of distraction. But the fundamental question being addressed by a federal panel is alarmingly simple.

Should radioactive nuclear waste be buried next to Lake Huron, a remarkably pristine body of water that is one of the wonders of the world?

Common sense would say an emphatic no, particularly since some of the material slated to be buried 680 metres below ground near the picture-perfect town of Kincardine will remain dangerously radioactive for up to 100,000 years.

But after hearings finish this month, the panel will make its recommendations to Ottawa on the basis of science rather than common sense.

There is no way they can guarantee that this stuff will be safe on that time scale. Absolutely no f'n way.

In his testimony to the panel, Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility pointed out that Lake Huron has existed for only 15,000 years — the result of massive topographical shifts in the North American continent.

Yet OPG says its computer modelling predicts the waste it hopes to bury will remain substantially undisturbed for up to 100,000 years.

You have to laugh when people claim that nuclear energy is green and safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitigation of CO2 emissions... I thought that was implied in a climate change thread.

What CO2 emissions? Today's levels? 20% higher? 50% higher? 100% higher? 200% higher? Infinitely Higher? As you have no plan to curb or reduce emissions, please explain.

The premise that we should stop at the optimal climate for life on the earth is false; if we factor in the costs of mitigation and the possibility of alternative methods for countering higher global temperatures (such as sea water clouds or space mirrors), then it is reasonable that we should stop slightly higher than the optimum.

The second part of the sentence makes little sense. If you plan on the course of action (how much mitigation/adaptation we should do, what CO2 levels we should aim for, etc.) and you follow that plan, how could you have 'taken no steps to deal with the cause'?

Because the cause is the emissions that you are doing nothing to reduce. If you don't deal with that, you will not be stopping anything.

All physical processes that increase entropy are irreversible. So whatever we do will be irreversible. Or are you talking about being unable to alter the climate back to current conditions? Of course we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere in the future and reverse climate change if we decide to. Here is a wiki entry on different CO2 removal techniques:

http://en.wikipedia....dioxide_removal

So you propose to try and stick the genie back into the bottle after you have determined you have screwed up, but it is too expensive and inconvenient not to put yourself in that position in the first place. Brilliant. For this you need a physics degree?

It's clear to me that you have no plan other than we stick our heads in the sand until reality sticks its foot up our backsides, which is probably just what we will do.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One should not have 'faith' in science, faith is for religions. Maybe you would prefer to use the words trust or confidence instead?

Sure okay whatever you say.

Science doesn't tell people want to do. If you think otherwise then you do not understand science.

Science doesn't inform our decision and policy making? You've got to be kidding me.

Science can give us a better understanding of the universe, but it alone does not tell us what actions we should take; to do that you also need economics, philosophy, etc.

Yes and these schools of thought are well represented amongst the 95% or so of professionals and experts worldwide who have been recommending action on climate change for years and years now.

Is or has there ever been any issue whatsoever that has required more than a 95% consensus to warrant action? Is climate change the only technical challenge to exact such a high standard and level of trust and confidence in what science says before action is taken?

Skeptics sure must have an awful lot of faith in their beliefs.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is or has there ever been any issue whatsoever that has required more than a 95% consensus to warrant action?

Look I am getting sick and tired of you making crap up. The 95% consensus refers to the belief that human CO2 emissions have caused some of the warming. The 95% consensus is NOT that politicians should immediately spend billions trying to reduce CO2 emissions. When I looked I could not find a poll that even asked the questions that you claim have a 95% consensus which means your entire argument is a fabrication. If you disagree then provide a link to the exact poll which you are quoting. If you can't do that then admit you were making stuff up. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...