Poll: More practical way to deal with Climate Change

[stevoh]

The fact is it had no effect in the past when it was much much higher. To assume that it does now is not just unscientific but absolutely ridiculous.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html

Whew! What a relief! The last time the planet had a large concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere, there was a mass extinction! I feel better already.

We can't be sure what the effect is. Sure, I'll buy that. But we also know that at historic concentrations, like the last million years or so, humans can thrive. Why would we turn a blind eye to the effects of changing that concentration?

[B. Max]

The fact is it had no effect in the past when it was much much higher. To assume that it does now is not just unscientific but absolutely ridiculous.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html

Whew! What a relief! The last time the planet had a large concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere, there was a mass extinction! I feel better already.

We can't be sure what the effect is. Sure, I'll buy that. But we also know that at historic concentrations, like the last million years or so, humans can thrive. Why would we turn a blind eye to the effects of changing that concentration?

Temperatures have nothing to do with CO2 which can clearly be demonstrated from looking at the historical records.

[stevoh]

Temperatures have nothing to do with CO2 which can clearly be demonstrated from looking at the historical records.

So increasing the concentration without understanding what the effects are is fine? Its one thing to say that temperature and CO2 concentration are not related. Quite another to say, no matter what concentration of CO2 is in the atmosphere, there will be no detrimental effects.

[ScottSA]

Temperatures have nothing to do with CO2 which can clearly be demonstrated from looking at the historical records.

So increasing the concentration without understanding what the effects are is fine? Its one thing to say that temperature and CO2 concentration are not related. Quite another to say, no matter what concentration of CO2 is in the atmosphere, there will be no detrimental effects.

Is making huge detrimental economic decisions a good idea without understanding whether they are needed or will have any effect whatsoever? Don't be daft.

Oh, and btw, as someone else has mentioned, correlation between CO2 and extinctions does not equal causation, even if there had been mass extinctions at the same time as the last high concentration of CO2. Given the 800 year lag, it's highly doubtful that Co2 could have caused the warming that took place 800 years earlier, eh wot?

[stevoh]

Is making huge detrimental economic decisions a good idea without understanding whether they are needed or will have any effect whatsoever? Don't be daft.

Its just as daft to ignore the increasing concentration and assume it will have no effect. Equivalent to sticking ones fingers in the ears and shouting "La la la".

Oh, and btw, as someone else has mentioned, correlation between CO2 and extinctions does not equal causation, even if there had been mass extinctions at the same time as the last high concentration of CO2. Given the 800 year lag, it's highly doubtful that Co2 could have caused the warming that took place 800 years earlier, eh wot?

Why is it that the same science people so easily dismiss surrounding global warming is then used to prove that there is no correlation between CO2 and warming? "I believe this chart that shows an 800 year lag, but I don't believe this chart that shows a correlation". A bit too convenient really. Sounds like you are seeking the science that supports your bias, over seeking the truth.

I know from history that simply increasing the concentration of certain elements in the atmosphere can have a detrimental effect. Once assumed "safe" concentrations of mercury, lead, CFCs etc have been proven to be quite otherwise. How many times do we have to learn this same lesson before someone finally figures it out!

[B. Max]

So increasing the concentration without understanding what the effects are is fine? Its one thing to say that temperature and CO2 concentration are not related. Quite another to say, no matter what concentration of CO2 is in the atmosphere, there will be no detrimental effects.

Is making huge detrimental economic decisions a good idea without understanding whether they are needed or will have any effect whatsoever? Don't be daft.

Oh, and btw, as someone else has mentioned, correlation between CO2 and extinctions does not equal causation, even if there had been mass extinctions at the same time as the last high concentration of CO2. Given the 800 year lag, it's highly doubtful that Co2 could have caused the warming that took place 800 years earlier, eh wot?

Equating temperature rise and C02 as the alarmists would have us believe, is like believing the sun comes up because the rooster crows.

[shoggoth]

Given the 800 year lag, it's highly doubtful that Co2 could have caused the warming that took place 800 years earlier, eh wot?

But it must have caused some of the 4000 years of warming that occured after the co2 started rising...