AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[Wilber]

You mean like......uh, facts? The very basic fact that humans, cattle, sheep, horses, pigs, cats, & dogs emit CO2? Facts that at least two pro-alarmist posters were blissfully unaware of? Indeed, the fact that you say this "derails" the thread says a lot about the Alarmist mindset - and of course, mindset is the intent of this thread.

This is all part of a closed system. Animals eat vegetation and each other, produce gases by breathing and decomposition which vegetation then uses to grow and maintain the cycle. No carbon is added or taken away. To say this is the same as digging carbon out of the ground and burning it to add more CO2 to the system without also providing the means to absorb it is just plain ignorant or dishonest.

[Keepitsimple]

This is all part of a closed system. Animals eat vegetation and each other, produce gases by breathing and decomposition which vegetation then uses to grow and maintain the cycle. No carbon is added or taken away. To say this is the same as digging carbon out of the ground and burning it to add more CO2 to the system without also providing the means to absorb it is just plain ignorant or dishonest.

What the heck is the insult for? You didn't know that CO2/carbon came out of humans and animals. Now you do. I never said that it was the same as "digging carbon out of the ground". You did. Seems like another contribution to the "mindset" of the Alarmist.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Mighty AC]

What the heck is the insult for? You didn't know that CO2/carbon came out of humans and animals. Now you do. I never said that it was the same as "digging carbon out of the ground". You did. Another contribution to the "mindset" of the Alarmist.

You just missed the distinction between carbon and CO2. The cycle can't handle the release of massive quantities of stored CO2. Even worse, the warming we've created thus far is now releasing methane, previously encased in the frozen ground. We can't even stop that.

[Wilber]

What the heck is the insult for? You didn't know that CO2/carbon came out of humans and animals. Now you do. I never said that it was the same as "digging carbon out of the ground". You did. Another contribution to the "mindset" of the Alarmist.

Then why even bring it up? Of course I know CO2 comes out of humans and animals. I also know it cannot increase the net amount of carbon in the earth's ecosystem. Humans cannot manufacture carbon or any other element. The only way human breathing or other bodily emissions can increase the amount of CO2 in the atmsophere is through a corresponding degradation of the earth's ability to absorb it by deforestation.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Wilber

[Keepitsimple]

You just missed the distinction between carbon and CO2. The cycle can't handle the release of massive quantities of stored CO2. Even worse, the warming we've created thus far is now releasing methane, previously encased in the frozen ground. We can't even stop that.

Haven't missed anything at all. It was a simple point that was in dispute. Humans emit CO2. Don't care if it came from lettuce, tomatoes, beef or water. The Carbon Cycle, fossil fuels and cow-farts are a saga in their own right.

[On Guard for Thee]

Did you not take grade 5 science. You know....we breath air that plants make and they breath air that people make.

I did take grade 5 science, and a few years more. Apparently so did Wilber. That's how he knows what he's talking about.

[Accountability Now]

I did take grade 5 science, and a few years more. Apparently so did Wilber. That's how he knows what he's talking about.

Apparently you don't....you said:

The comment that we produce cO2 by breathing has got to be one of the phoniest.

We do produce CO2 by breathing. Its called cellular respiration. Time to back to grade 5 I guess.

[On Guard for Thee]

Apparently you don't....you said:

We do produce CO2 by breathing. Its called cellular respiration. Time to back to grade 5 I guess.

We don't produce it we just re-cycle it. Go check your Gr. 5 textbook.

[Accountability Now]

We don't produce it we just re-cycle it. Go check your Gr. 5 textbook.

LMFAO....no we don't. We burn glucose by adding oxygen. This process (through Krebs cycle) produces CO2 as a by product.

Look up cellular respiration. Or better yet...I'll give you the picture to help you out.

[On Guard for Thee]

The CO2 comes to us from what we eat. We recycle it and put it back in the atmosphere from whence it came.

[Wilber]

LMFAO....no we don't. We burn glucose by adding oxygen. This process (through Krebs cycle) produces CO2 as a by product.

Look up cellular respiration. Or better yet...I'll give you the picture to help you out.

What's your point other than semantics. Yes, the body combines carbon and oxygen to produce CO2 but as part of a loop system. It doesn't introduce carbon into the ecosystem that wasn't already there, so its ability to increase CO2 levels is finite, providing we don 't degrade the planet's ability to absorbe it. Edited September 30, 2014 by Wilber

[Mighty AC]

We do produce CO2 by breathing. Its called cellular respiration. Time to back to grade 5 I guess.

We don't produce it we just re-cycle it. Go check your Gr. 5 textbook.

We produce carbon dioxide by recycling carbon. The fact that carbon, like many compounds and elements, is cycled through the environment is the important part of this discussion. By digging up and burning carbon containing materials thus releasing CO2 into the atmosphere we have overwhelmed the cycle. If CO2 wasn't so good at trapping heat we wouldn't care, unfortunately it is.

[eyeball]

So is it fair to say the mindset of right-wing politicians in this debate pretty much matches what right-wingers around here bring to it? I certainly can't tell the difference.

[On Guard for Thee]

We produce carbon dioxide by recycling carbon. The fact that carbon, like many compounds and elements, is cycled through the environment is the important part of this discussion. By digging up and burning carbon containing materials thus releasing CO2 into the atmosphere we have overwhelmed the cycle. If CO2 wasn't so good at trapping heat we wouldn't care, unfortunately it is.

Exactly. The CO2 we breath out was "breathed in" by the carrot we ate for dinner. The stuff we burn in our car comes from a sequestered source and is therefore "added" to the atmosphere. Big difference.

[-1=e^ipi]

Humans cannot manufacture carbon or any other element.

Uhh, yeah humans can. It is called a nuclear reactor.

[-1=e^ipi]

Carbon is a short hand for CO2 used in AGW policy discussions. It would be incredibly silly for someone to mean elemental carbon in this context.

To be honest, a lot of climate change alarmists and climate change deniers don't understand the distinction. Heck, many members of our senate don't understand the distinction.

Well, to begin with you could explain how our bodies manufacture carbon out of nothing.

You continue to surprise me with your terrible understanding of basic science.

There is no process on Earth that I know of that is manufacturing carbon. A Human body may convert carbon from 1 form to another (from glucose to CO2 for example), but it isn't manufacturing carbon.

[eyeball]

Well there seems to be process that the faux skeptics are aware of because they keep referring to one, along with the implication that alarmists should stop breathing if they expect to be taken seriously.

[Wilber]

To be honest, a lot of climate change alarmists and climate change deniers don't understand the distinction. Heck, many members of our senate don't understand the distinction.

You continue to surprise me with your terrible understanding of basic science.

There is no process on Earth that I know of that is manufacturing carbon. A Human body may convert carbon from 1 form to another (from glucose to CO2 for example), but it isn't manufacturing carbon.

I'm quite stinned at your lack of ability to understand the difference between recycling existing carbon in our ecosystem and intruducing massive completely new amounts of carbon into it.

[-1=e^ipi]

Oh come on, you know damn well breathing is part of the natural carbon cycle, not the intruduction of billions of tons of new carbon int the stmosphere. Breathing doesn't introduce one atom of new carbon into the atmosphere. Because our bodies are 18% carbon, we actually pull carbon out of the atmosphere.

Maybe go learn a little science. When we exhale we are just returning the CO2 to the air that was already there.

Wow, these have to be the two stupidest comments I have read all year. And I've read some pretty stupid comments.

As for the original question of mindsets.

Climate Change Alarmist - facilitated by lack of understanding of science.

Climate Change Denialism - also facilitated by a lack of understanding of science.

Climate Change Realism - only reasonable position to have.

[On Guard for Thee]

Wow, these have to be the two stupidest comments I have read all year. And I've read some pretty stupid comments.

As for the original question of mindsets.

Climate Change Alarmist - facilitated by lack of understanding of science.

Climate Change Denialism - also facilitated by a lack of understanding of science.

Climate Change Realism - only reasonable position to have.

You certainly sound like you must. You make so many.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm quite stinned at your lack of ability to understand the difference between recycling existing carbon in our ecosystem and intruducing massive completely new amounts of carbon into it.

There is no new carbon being created as you seem to think. All that carbon has existed for the past 4.5 billion years at least.

As for recycling, where was the majority of the carbon of the oil sands 150 million years ago? It wasn't in the oil sands because those didn't exist. It was in the atmosphere, when CO2 concentrations were over 2000 ppm. It is still being recycled, the time frame is merely longer.

[Accountability Now]

It doesn't introduce carbon into the ecosystem that wasn't already there, so its ability to increase CO2 levels is finite, providing we don 't degrade the planet's ability to absorbe it.

If humans weren't around then the carbon would still be in the trees and plant life. Our bodies are engines that produce CO2. If there are 3 billion people on earth then they will produce less CO2 than the 7 billion that we will see shortly. Just like if 3 billion people were burning hydrocarbons from the ground, it would be less than 7 billion people doing it. Either way, humans have an impact on CO2 output.

With that said it is obvious that our output of C02 by breathing is much less than our output by burning fossil fuels (10% I believe). But the reality is that shutting down fossil fuels to the point that 'alarmists' want is equivalent to asking humans to stop breathing as it would have the same effects in many areas where fossil fuels are the only reliable source of energy.

The point is hardly semantics.

[Accountability Now]

We produce carbon dioxide by recycling carbon. The fact that carbon, like many compounds and elements, is cycled through the environment is the important part of this discussion. By digging up and burning carbon containing materials thus releasing CO2 into the atmosphere we have overwhelmed the cycle. If CO2 wasn't so good at trapping heat we wouldn't care, unfortunately it is.

I agree with you but the point that seems to be lost is that burning fossil fuels in most cases is the reason that we have 7 billion people in this world. So shutting it down or reducing it to the point that 'alarmists' want is like asking people to stop breathing...which was the analogy presented.

How many people would actually be living in Canada (especially in the winter) if we were relying on solar panels and wind energy to heat our homes?

[jbg]

Why do you lock yourself in an air tight room for a few hours. It will give you a good chance to experience your personal CO2 production up close.

Sulfurous gases as well.

We are in an airtight room. I bet you think we produce water as well?

You certainly emit water.

Not kidding at all. How do our bodies manufacture carbon out of nothing? Where does the carbon come from that we combine with oxygen to turn into CO2 when we breath?

Then why do the enviros say we're reducing oxygen production be cutting down forests? Edited September 30, 2014 by jbg

[Wilber]

There is no new carbon being created as you seem to think. All that carbon has existed for the past 4.5 billion years at least.

As for recycling, where was the majority of the carbon of the oil sands 150 million years ago? It wasn't in the oil sands because those didn't exist. It was in the atmosphere, when CO2 concentrations were over 2000 ppm. It is still being recycled, the time frame is merely longer.

Wow you can be condescending. Of course there is no new carbon being created except in stars, the issue is where we are putting it. That carbon in the oil sands took a lot longer to get there than the 100 years or so we are taking to extract it. Most of it between 280 and 360 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period. How many humans were on earth when C02 concentrations were 2000 ppm?