The new religious order of climate change.Believe or Deny!

[TimG]

No. I said the exact oil backed experts said doing something about CFCs would be futile, just like they do today.

Except you are changing history to suit what you want to believe. They had viable alternatives BEFORE the regulations were brought in. For that reason there is absolutely no comparisons to be made with CO2 where we have no viable alternatives. Edited January 12, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

If I were caught dumping an unknown substance into the water supply, I'd likely be arrested.

The substance is this case not unknown - it is the fundamental by product of animal life. More importantly, the substance is not toxic by any stretch of the imagination at the levels we are discussing. The only negative thing about this substance is there may be a slight increase in temperature - an increase which will have benefits as well as downsides.

Whatever happened to the precautionary principle?

Feel free to stop breathing. See how that works for you. What? You can't? What happened to the precautionary principle?

The precautionary principle is meaningless when the hypothetical negative effects of the action can be managed while the costs of not emitting are astronomical. You could also say the "precautionary principle" should apply because great harm is likely to be caused if humans actually tried to stop using fossil fuels. Why does the "precautionary principle" only apply one way?

Edited January 12, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The parts of this thread that deal with discussing the problem presuppose that the OP is rightfully garbage. TimG and others don't deny that warming is happening, therefore the OP's point is null.

If anybody on here believes that warming isn't happening, as the OP seems to, then just agree with it and say so. Climate Science isn't a religion if it's based on data.

[-1=e^ipi]

Y' know - in a way you're right. The climate is a complex system. Nobody can possibly know for certain what the long term effects of changing the atmosphere will be. But here's the thing. You have 95% of the scientists on one side and 5% on the other. And many of the holdouts have established ties to oil companies. So, who are the real "true believers" in this equation - those who accept that the 95% are more likely to be right or those who desperately look for the few scientists who tell them what they want to believe?

Appeal to authority and/or ad populism fallacy.

There is one undeniable fact and that is that we are changing the composition of the atmosphere, the very thin, very finite, very precious layer of gas that all life depends upon.

Yes we are changing it to make the planet better suited for life and more similiar to the atmosphere of the planet for the past 590 million years since the Cambrian explosion. Oh the horror!

If I were caught dumping an unknown substance into the water supply, I'd likely be arrested. And likely so.

I'm pretty sure that if someone tried to dump beta-carotene into the water supply of children that suffer from vitamin A deficiency, it would not be so bad. Anyway, CO2 is not an 'unknown' substance. It's a colourless, odourless inert gas that is essential for life on this planet.

And yet, you are insisting that it is your God-given right to keep on changing the composition of the atmosphere upon which all life depends.

I don't believe in god, sorry.

And somehow, it is up to those of us who object to prove that there is harm rather than on you to prove there isn't.

Yes, the people that want all of society to stop emitting CO2 have the burden of proof.

Whatever happened to the precautionary principle?

It's as dumb principle that allows eco-luddites to stop human progress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Criticisms

Edited January 12, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

The parts of this thread that deal with discussing the problem presuppose that the OP is rightfully garbage. TimG and others don't deny that warming is happening, therefore the OP's point is null.

If anybody on here believes that warming isn't happening, as the OP seems to, then just agree with it and say so. Climate Science isn't a religion if it's based on data.

TimG doesn't deny that it's happening; he just thinks we should do nothing about it until our environment is destroyed.

[Michael Hardner]

TimG doesn't deny that it's happening; he just thinks we should do nothing about it until our environment is destroyed.

Right, so he should probably come on here soon and clearly admonish the OP. Any second now... I'll just keep hitting F5 on this page until I see it...

[TimG]

TimG doesn't deny that it's happening; he just thinks we should do nothing about it until our environment is destroyed.

Spare me the rhetoric. Unlike real pollution like chemical waste dumped in a river, a CO2 induced temperature rise is NOT bad for the environment. The only potential problem is it will create inconveniences for humans that have to adapt to a different climate. The environment will be fine.

[ReeferMadness]

The substance is this case not unknown - it is the fundamental by product of animal life. More importantly, the substance is not toxic by any stretch of the imagination at the levels we are discussing. The only negative thing about this substance is there may be a slight increase in temperature - an increase which will have benefits as well as downsides.

This is true only according to a handful of scientists who you've chosen to listen to because they've told you what you wanted to hear. The fact is that we are changing the composition of our one and only atmosphere at rates that are unprecedented in human history. Now, if only you and and people like you were going to suffer the results, I'd say go ahead and bury your head deep in the sand. But you don't have the right to risk the safety and well-being of my children and their children.

Feel free to stop breathing. See how that works for you. What? You can't? What happened to the precautionary principle?

I'm sure I've seen dumber statements on the internet but I can't quite remember when.

The precautionary principle is meaningless when the hypothetical negative effects of the action can be managed while the costs of not emitting are astronomical. You could also say the "precautionary principle" should apply because great harm is likely to be caused if humans actually tried to stop using fossil fuels. Why does the "precautionary principle" only apply one way?

You're presenting a false dilemma. Nobody has suggested that humans stop using fossil fuels, at least not immediately. There are a myriad proven ways to reduce CO2 emissions and many of them are much cheaper than the current behaviour. Smaller cars, smaller houses, better insulation, public transit. There are other things that would require lifestyle adjustments but are still well within the realm of reason - like living closer to work. And as for the ultimate goal of eliminating fossil fuels, that may never happen completely but there are lots of ways to drive the usage way down.

[cybercoma]

Spare me the rhetoric. Unlike real pollution like chemical waste dumped in a river, a CO2 induced temperature rise is NOT bad for the environment. The only potential problem is it will create inconveniences for humans that have to adapt to a different climate. The environment will be fine.

Sure, Tim. We can survive any climate. That's why we're currently colonizing Mars.

[-1=e^ipi]

Nobody has suggested that humans stop using fossil fuels, at least not immediately. There are a myriad proven ways to reduce CO2 emissions and many of them are much cheaper than the current behaviour. Smaller cars, smaller houses, better insulation, public transit. There are other things that would require lifestyle adjustments but are still well within the realm of reason - like living closer to work. And as for the ultimate goal of eliminating fossil fuels, that may never happen completely but there are lots of ways to drive the usage way down.

See, the thing is you actually have to prove/justify that reducing CO2 emissions is good and worth the implementation costs of policies that would encourage such behavior. You cant just go CO2 is rising -> therefore we must implement mitigation policies.

[ReeferMadness]

Spare me the rhetoric. Unlike real pollution like chemical waste dumped in a river, a CO2 induced temperature rise is NOT bad for the environment. The only potential problem is it will create inconveniences for humans that have to adapt to a different climate. The environment will be fine.

You're right - the environment will be just fine. It may not support 7 billion humans as it goes through these changes but the environment will be fine.

Now, you just go back to enjoying your warmed seats in that gargantuan SUV of yours. And don't worry about a thing.

[ReeferMadness]

See, the thing is you actually have to prove/justify that reducing CO2 emissions is good and worth the implementation costs of policies that would encourage such behavior. You cant just go CO2 is rising -> therefore we must implement mitigation policies.

Oh, I see.

So, I guess you wouldn't mind if I start dumping chemicals in your backyard. I'll stop as soon as you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are harmful.

[ReeferMadness]

TimG doesn't deny that it's happening; he just thinks we should do nothing about it until our environment is destroyed.

Now, that's just unfair.

Tim is in his happy place and doesn't like all of this negativity about rising sea levels and ocean acidification and changing climates. In fact, he has clearly done his homework in reading the research of oil company shills so that he can "educate us" and the rest of us can all stick our heads in the sand too.

So, be grateful. And don't worry, be happy.

Edited January 13, 2014 by ReeferMadness

[TimG]

This is true only according to a handful of scientists who you've chosen to listen to because they've told you what you wanted to hear.

No, I am looking at the science according to the IPCC. Nothing in the IPCC reports contradicts this statement:

The only negative thing about this substance is there may be a slight increase in temperature - an increase which will have benefits as well as downsides.

You only disagree because instead of looking at the science you only listen to fanatical enviro-cultists.

Nobody has suggested that humans stop using fossil fuels, at least not immediately. There are a myriad proven ways to reduce CO2 emissions and many of them are much cheaper than the current behaviour. Smaller cars, smaller houses, better insulation, public transit. There are other things that would require lifestyle adjustments but are still well within the realm of reason - like living closer to work.

Ah yes - all good religion requires moral puritanism. Don't forget the weekly blue box with it's sacrifices to Gaia.

We will just ignore the annoying detail that even if people bought into your moral puritanism it will make no difference in the long run. What matters to the future is the ability of society to adapt to change and that requires access to cheaper and reliable power - not more expensive unreliable power.

Edited January 13, 2014 by TimG

[Shady]

This whole obsession over co2 is ridiculous. Technology will evolve to such a degree that co2 emissions will be a thing of the past. Or do people actually think we'll still be using the combustion engine 20 years from now? Technology will take care of the problem by itself. Besides, the dire predictions, if one actually believes them is for an increase in global temperatures of like one degree 50 years from now. Technology will have advanced well before then. So chill out. Pun intended.

[gunrutz]

Sure, Tim. We can survive any climate. That's why we're currently colonizing Mars.

With reasonable responses like that who could argue.

[-1=e^ipi]

Oh, I see.

So, I guess you wouldn't mind if I start dumping chemicals in your backyard. I'll stop as soon as you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are harmful.

Of course I would mind, the backyard is my property.

Though a better comparison would be if I'm BBQ'ing food in my own backyard and my neighbor tries to take me to court and ban BBQs because they have a religious belief that BBQs will cause the sky to fall.

Or do people actually think we'll still be using the combustion engine 20 years from now?

I do. Why would we not use internal combustion engines?

[Bob Macadoo]

This whole obsession over co2 is ridiculous. Technology will evolve to such a degree that co2 emissions will be a thing of the past. Or do people actually think we'll still be using the combustion engine 20 years from now? Technology will take care of the problem by itself. Besides, the dire predictions, if one actually believes them is for an increase in global temperatures of like one degree 50 years from now. Technology will have advanced well before then. So chill out. Pun intended.

I was supposed to have my jetpack by now according to the scientists 40 years ago.......don't hold your breath, we only evolve from neccesity, not for shytes and giggles.

[On Guard for Thee]

 

TimG doesn't deny that it's happening; he just thinks we should do nothing about it until our environment is destroyed.

 

Or until industry comes along with a cure. Maybe Exxon Mobil will do it.

[On Guard for Thee]

 

This whole obsession over co2 is ridiculous. Technology will evolve to such a degree that co2 emissions will be a thing of the past. Or do people actually think we'll still be using the combustion engine 20 years from now? Technology will take care of the problem by itself. Besides, the dire predictions, if one actually believes them is for an increase in global temperatures of like one degree 50 years from now. Technology will have advanced well before then. So chill out. Pun intended.

 

Got news for ya. We've already passed the one degree. NASA predicts somewhere between 2 and 6 degrees by end of the century.

[Boges]

I was supposed to have my jetpack by now according to the scientists 40 years ago.......don't hold your breath, we only evolve from neccesity, not for shytes and giggles.

The neccesity will be the price of oil, we saw it in 2008 when oil prices reached a record high. Auto companies quickly moved towards fuel efficiency as a selling point.

We're moving towards Natural Gas as a main source of energy, which is cheaper, cleaner and still quite plentiful. It's beyond me why cars aren't available that run on it. But people vigorously and sometimes violently protest that too? I wonder how these protesters heat their homes at night?

When we have a major ice storm and power is lost; the energy we use is seen as a civil right yet people still feel the need to vigorously protest how the energy is extracted.

I'm sure at some point R&D will develop a form of solar or wind power that can provide a base load of electricity, but until that day happens we need fossil fuels to maintain civilization.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Boges

[WWWTT]

Well if you don't believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 in the atmosphere (by a few hundred ppm) from burning fossil fuels increases global temperatures (since CO2's absorption spectra is more opaque to black body radiation from then earth than the black body radiation from the sun) then you are a denier.

Just so that we're clear here, you're saying that a few hundred ppm of CO2 can raise the temperature of the other 999,700 ppm?

When does the mass of CO2 300ppm= or > 999,700ppm N2,O2????

And why isn't this incredible property being harnessed/exploited in any of our technologies???

Oh sorry, I just committed heresy!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

On what do you base your reasoning?

I don't see the planet warming.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

So, go ahead. Be a useful idiot to the oil companies. Keep on driving your SUV. Hopefully, you have no kids or grandkids who will pay for your arrogance, your wastefulness, your thoughtlessness.

Prophesy.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Y' know - in a way you're right. The climate is a complex system. Nobody can possibly know for certain what the long term effects of changing the atmosphere will be. But here's the thing. You have 95% of the scientists on one side and 5% on the other. And many of the holdouts have established ties to oil companies. So, who are the real "true believers" in this equation - those who accept that the 95% are more likely to be right or those who desperately look for the few scientists who tell them what they want to believe?

Are you saying that 95% of the scientists are completely "independent"? (priests, bishops)

WWWTT