24 Hours of Reality

[Catawba]

Even if there was aboslutley no polution we'd still have CO2 in the atmosphere, and in that little experiment he didn't put any CO2 in one of the bottles, so that didn't really prove anything.

Also check this out regarding CO2 levels: ICECAP

And this regarding warming on other planets in the solar system: DailyTech - Global Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune

Thanks for the insight from the blogosphere, I think I will stick with the science!

 

[Whoppletraps]

What about Bill Nye's obvious mistake with the little experiment?

 

[Catawba]

What about Bill Nye's obvious mistake with the little experiment?

Nye was demonstrating known principles of science. What mistake did he make in his demonstration?

 

[BmanMcfly]

No. They support the idea that some people may have starved as a result of rising food prices, and that some of the rise in food prices has been caused by ethanol production.

Nowhere does a number of deaths appear in these articles. None of your articles mention an attempt to calculate exactly how many people this might be. For all you know, the actual number of deaths attributable to ethanol is four.

Define "exclusively?" Are you really suggesting that those are the only methods anyone has ever suggested?

Ok, fine... it's only CAUSED a singular person to die... happy now?? How many deaths is "appropriate" for you to still consider a venture a success??

I don't get why you are dancing around this, because the fact is that the higher prices, that is in part a result of ethanol / VAST MAJORITY of biofuels (aquaculture seemed to be something promising however), has led to people going from a subsistence level existence to a starvation level of existence where most die from the malnutrition and succumbing to something like the common cold. That this is directly attributable as a FACTOR... in AGW speak, there is a consensus that it is the cause of starvation in the world.

We've been over this. YOUR PERSONAL OPINION is that the benefits of CO2 outweigh the positives. I disagree. Therefore, I should care about CO2, right?

Also, if you want to talk about something other than global warming, start a thread on whatever topic you like. Don't complain just because people haven't mentioned something off-topic. I care about arsenic finding its way into drinking water, but I see no reason to talk about it in a thread about football. The idea that environmentalists can only care about one thing is just idiotic. What, you haven't read about those guys who chase whaling ships or try to stop some forest from being cut down because there's some rare frog in it? You've never heard anyone talking about acid rain or CFCs?

Ya, they were talking about that up until, what 10 years ago, 15? Now, all these greenies ever want to discuss is CO2. There was actually some level of validity to the concerns about acid rain (which is a result of SULFUR NOT CARBON, btw), and CFC's have since been banned (side issue, that had more to do with protecting patents and standards for monopoly reasons than it did actual damage), because of the damage it did cause (because CFC's were bad news)... it should have went to dioxins next, but instead we are now stuck with a blanket issue of CO2, and then government can arbitrarily shut off societies... or like the post you conveniently skipped... kill farmers whose land was being taken in order to plant trees so that companies like Al Gore's company can then sell the carbon offsets.

Whatever GOOD there is in environmentalism as it's being pushed is only there to gloss over then genocidal intentions of those that are the largest investors and pushers, ie; those that have the most to gain from installing their "solutions"...

 

[Whoppletraps]

Nye was demonstrating known principles of science. What mistake did he make in his demonstration?

He did not put CO2 in one of the bottles, and the earth would have CO2 regardless of pollution. Of course the only bottle with CO2 would get warmer.

 

[Catawba]

He did not put CO2 in one of the bottles, and the earth would have CO2 regardless of pollution. Of course the only bottle with CO2 would get warmer.

You are incorrect. Air, which contains CO2, was in both bottles before additional CO2 was added to the one bottle.

"Here are 10 gases that make up clean air: In order of highest to lowest concentration they are Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Carbon dioxide, Neon, Helium, Methane (CH4), Krypton, Hydrogen, and Xenon."
Air we breathe: Air Composition

 

[Ockham]

You are incorrect. Air, which contains CO2, was in both bottles before additional CO2 was added to the one bottle.

"Here are 10 gases that make up clean air: In order of highest to lowest concentration they are Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Carbon dioxide, Neon, Helium, Methane (CH4), Krypton, Hydrogen, and Xenon."
Air we breathe: Air Composition

But but but.... CO2 is a pollutant now.

 

[What if...?]

But but but.... CO2 is a pollutant now.

And you can die from drinking too much water.

Your point?

 

[Ockham]

And you can die from drinking too much water.

Your point?

My point is the politics of CO2 is a difficult one. While yes, it is a main source of the air that we breathe is nitrogen, CO2 has varied between 280ppm 400 ppm in our history. My point is, that CO2 being declared a pollutant is a red herring... it's meant to move forward a political and environmental policy - nothing more.

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

 

[Catawba]

My point is the politics of CO2 is a difficult one. While yes, it is a main source of the air that we breathe is nitrogen, CO2 has varied between 280ppm 400 ppm in our history. My point is, that CO2 being declared a pollutant is a red herring... it's meant to move forward a political and environmental policy - nothing more.

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

Your source is an outdated draft that has the specific disclaimer that it is not to be cited:

"This is an unofficial extract of E-G Beck's comprehensive draft paper and is for discussion not citing"

 

[Catawba]

But but but.... CO2 is a pollutant now.

So is methane, and all the other gases in air, in too high of concentrations. What is your point?

 

[Ockham]

Your source is an outdated draft that has the specific disclaimer that it is not to be cited:

"This is an unofficial extract of E-G Beck's comprehensive draft paper and is for discussion not citing"

Aren't we discussing it? :lol:

 

[Ockham]

So is methane, and all the other gases in air, in too high of concentrations. What is your point?

Huh.. I even pointed out my point very clearly 2 posts ago. Here it is again...

Post #209

 

[Catawba]

Aren't we discussing it? :lol:

It looks like you are the only one claiming that an outdated draft somehow proves your point that excess CO2 is not a pollutant.

 

[Catawba]

Huh.. I even pointed out my point very clearly 2 posts ago. Here it is again...

Post #209

So the outdated draft is all you have???

 

[Ockham]

It looks like you are the only one claiming that an outdated draft somehow proves your point that excess CO2 is not a pollutant.

So does that now mean you understand my point or are you changing the topic because you don't want to discuss the topic any longer?

 

[Ockham]

So the outdated draft is all you have???

If you're interested you could Google it and find the updated version - I'm content with the draft as it's enough to make my point--- do you want the point again? Here it is:

Post #209

 

[Deuce]

1. The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past, long before the industrial age. Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.

Lung cancer existed before cigarettes existed. This is not evidence in itself that cigarettes are safe. The past cycles were obviously natural, but this one is not.

2. Global Warming alarmist have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:

And just about every one of those so-called scandals turns out to not actually be a scandal once you actually investigate.

3. Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was full of bald faced lies. Like the Polar Bears were drowning, or the Ice Caps were melting, or the oceans were rising --- all lies. In fact a court of England ruled the movie was so flawed that it could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer.

Al Gore is not a scientist. He can lie all he wants and it doesn't impact the science.

4. The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.

Climategate allegations were disproven by multiple independent investigations. "The decline" wasn't a reference to global temperatures, but you went ahead and assumed it was because some blogger or radio talk show host told you. Similar investigation of the context behind what appeared to be peer-review problems proves that the scientists involved wanted to keep a paper out because they thought it was a crappy paper that made several serious technical errors, not merely because its conclusion disagreed with theirs.

5. Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2001 time frame was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.

This "fact" you cite is false. The world is still warming. You were tricked by people who counted on the assumption that you never took a statistics class. (or never bothered to read beyond the blog article and actually check the statistics for yourself)

6. During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.

The sun has not increased its overall output in the last 50 years. Also, climate is a complex system as any skeptic would agree. Why would you assume the only variable affecting Mars is the sun? Of course, the idea that other planets are warming isn't even all that well-established: we don't actually have a lot of data to go on with Mars, let alone Neptune. Mars, for example, had some apparent melting of part of the northern ice caps, but can you necessarily extrapolate that to a global increase in temperature? It could very well be regional, or not even related to temperature at all.

7. Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none. (Game Over)

Love the game over comment. It's true that there was no statistically significant global warming from the period 1995-2009. This is not the same thing as saying there was no warming. Incidentally, if you expand that period even one year in either direction (1994-2009 or 1995-2010) you once again have statistically significant warming.

There has now been statistically significant global warming since 1995. (since 2010 is over we can now add that data to the set) This is another case of them hoping you never took a statistics class. For a more detailed explanation from a college professor, check out this video. He explains this pretty well:

Fool Me Once: "Global warming has stopped"

8. Warmist like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big . Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.

Lord Monckton knows how to do his homework and debate along a line that the scientists he debates against is not an expert in. He also knows how to falsely cite information. In a live debate, he can say whatever he wants and the sources he supposedly cites cannot be checked until later. Lord Monckton has literally fabricated data and attributed it to the IPCC. He has been caught in several lies.

He knows how to "win" a debate, but he does so by lying in a manner that can't be immediately called out.

I started a thread on Monckton a while back. Check it out.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-good-video-series-moncktons-distortions.html

9. Al Gore and other Warmist have said time and again that they want to make CO2 the object of a global tax. CO2 is the perfect object for a tax for their revenue purposes because you literally cannot live without making CO2. And current science has shown clearly that there is no correlation between the planet’s mean temperature and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Demonizing CO2 is all about the tax dollars --- and that’s all its about.

Again with the Gore straw man. Whether or not Gore benefits from CO2 policy does not affect the scientific reality.

 

[Catawba]

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr[SUP]-1[/SUP] since 2000. The global concentration of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

 

[BmanMcfly]

I thought I had shut you up for a change, but once again like usual when your position shows yourself to be aligned with genocidal ventures you tuck your tail and run, but let's go over more of your nonsense.

Lung cancer existed before cigarettes existed. This is not evidence in itself that cigarettes are safe. The past cycles were obviously natural, but this one is not.

Ok, PROVE IT!!

Nature handled the climate for 5 + BILLION years and suddenly in the past 150 years (or 3 X 10^-7 % of the earths existence) CO2 becomes the driving factor.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof... and the best you got to offer is to show a few graphs showing a CORRELATION and say "what else could it be". THAT IS NOT PROOF by any standard.

Sorry to crush your hubris, but man AT MOST has a NEGLIGIBLE influence on the climate; that's not to say there is not pollution that is a concern, but I think that adding something to the atmosphere that will only cause plants to grow faster is NOT going to be a productive venture, and actually, when you try to "stop" this non-problem, you end up creating a situation that winds up costing the lives of those who are most vulnerable (those already poor and on the verge of starvation).

And just about every one of those so-called scandals turns out to not actually be a scandal once you actually investigate.

Because you love corrupt people that won't recuse themselves when there is a clear and demonstrable conflict of interest. We know, they are self-proclaimed "eco-fascists" for a reason.

Al Gore is not a scientist. He can lie all he wants and it doesn't impact the science.

Ya, all the science that showed that virtually every point made in the documentary (which was based on the IPCC's documents) was demonstrably false... to the extent that in many countries a warning concerning the "solely for entertainment value" must be added prior to the movie in some countries.

Climategate allegations were disproven by multiple independent investigations. "The decline" wasn't a reference to global temperatures, but you went ahead and assumed it was because some blogger or radio talk show host told you. Similar investigation of the context behind what appeared to be peer-review problems proves that the scientists involved wanted to keep a paper out because they thought it was a crappy paper that made several serious technical errors, not merely because its conclusion disagreed with theirs.

LMAO... coming from the guy who still thinks that this was the result of a hacker, when the reality was that one of those people was a silent whistleblower, which the media helped cover up until the story got too big. It took 6 investigations ALL of them involving conflicts of interests (which you are clearly in approval of) where people that had vested interests in the success of the AGW agenda "vindicated" these scientists.

This "fact" you cite is false. The world is still warming. You were tricked by people who counted on the assumption that you never took a statistics class. (or never bothered to read beyond the blog article and actually check the statistics for yourself)

Unsourced claim...

The sun has not increased its overall output in the last 50 years. Also, climate is a complex system as any skeptic would agree. Why would you assume the only variable affecting Mars is the sun? Of course, the idea that other planets are warming isn't even all that well-established: we don't actually have a lot of data to go on with Mars, let alone Neptune. Mars, for example, had some apparent melting of part of the northern ice caps, but can you necessarily extrapolate that to a global increase in temperature? It could very well be regional, or not even related to temperature at all.

Solar activity is cyclical in both long and short cycles... and is STILL only a SINGULAR factor in the climate. The fact that other planets who are not adding artificial CO2 into their atmospheres were seeing warming and cooling trends coinciding with what we are seeing on earth ALONE is proof that the AGW "science" is not much better than the 50 years of tobacco science that showed that there was no problems.

Love the game over comment. It's true that there was no statistically significant global warming from the period 1995-2009. This is not the same thing as saying there was no warming. Incidentally, if you expand that period even one year in either direction (1994-2009 or 1995-2010) you once again have statistically significant warming.

There has now been statistically significant global warming since 1995. (since 2010 is over we can now add that data to the set) This is another case of them hoping you never took a statistics class. For a more detailed explanation from a college professor, check out this video. He explains this pretty well:

Fool Me Once: "Global warming has stopped"

Oh, it's gotta be true, I saw it on someones BLOG somewhere. Damn, for a "scientist" you're really dropping your standards... of course you also have a demonstrable confirmation bias, but, I won't bore everyone.

Lord Monckton knows how to do his homework and debate along a line that the scientists he debates against is not an expert in. He also knows how to falsely cite information. In a live debate, he can say whatever he wants and the sources he supposedly cites cannot be checked until later. Lord Monckton has literally fabricated data and attributed it to the IPCC. He has been caught in several lies.

He knows how to "win" a debate, but he does so by lying in a manner that can't be immediately called out.

I started a thread on Monckton a while back. Check it out.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-good-video-series-moncktons-distortions.html

You mean he wins the debates every single time and nobody will debate him even, that is, when people actually have the fortitude to actually debate him.

The funny thing though, even when you "correct" whatever "fabrications" monkton makes, it actually just goes to serve the point he was making anyway, because the points he's making don't even really change much. I remember that one "correction" of monktons that instead of being below the projections almost completely, was just scraping the bottom end of the projections.

Again with the Gore straw man. Whether or not Gore benefits from CO2 policy does not affect the scientific reality.

Again, this is a diversion of the topic, you know as well as everyone else here that the ONLY proposals for solutions are CO2 taxes or carbon trading schemes... and we've already gone over how "team green" has been going around evicting people from their homes and / or killed in the name of these schemes... so the land stolen can be used to plant trees for the purpose of selling carbon offsets through Al Gores company.

It must be nice when you selectively live in denial as you do.

 

[Catawba]

So does that now mean you understand my point or are you changing the topic because you don't want to discuss the topic any longer?

It is settled science today, what is to discuss???

 

[Whoppletraps]

If I could get grant money to research it like those scientists do I would probably believe in this liberal doomsday theory as well.

 

[Catawba]

If I could get grant money to research it like those scientists do I would probably believe in this liberal doomsday theory as well.

Ah, full circle now, to a world wide conspiracy dating back a century.

 

[Muhammed]

No, it really doesn't. The hard science proves nothing of the sort.

Yes it does. Actual hard physical science indicates that CO2 is an essential trace gas that is very beneficial to our environment.



CO2 leads to a greener environment for everyone.

 

[Catawba]

Yes it does. Actual hard physical science indicates that CO2 is an essential trace gas that is very beneficial to our environment.
Seeing is Believing - YouTube

CO2 leads to a greener environment for everyone.

Only if you ignore all the negatives:

"Here’s a list of cause and effect relationships, showing that most climate change impacts will confer few or no benefits, but may do great harm at considerable cost.

Agriculture

While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that higher latitudes – Siberia, for example – may become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock. Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields reduce or crops fail – in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for example.

Health

Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heatwaves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn’t been seen before.

Polar Melting

While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would confer some commercial benefits, these are considerably outweighed by the negatives. Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and increased mobile ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean to absorb more heat, is also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier and Greenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of Arctic tundra, which then releases methane, a very potent greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise with no benefits accruing.

Ocean Acidification

A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe destabilising effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.

Melting Glaciers

The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of the world’s population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies – drinking water, agriculture – may fail.

Sea Level Rise

Many parts of the world are low-lying and will be severely affected by modest sea rises. Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater is contaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers are becoming polluted. Given that the IPCC did not include melt-water from the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps due to uncertainties at that time, estimates of sea-level rise are feared to considerably underestimate the scale of the problem. There are no proposed benefits to sea-level rise.

Environmental

Positive effects of climate change may include greener rainforests and enhanced plant growth in the Amazon, increased vegitation in northern latitudes and possible increases in plankton biomass in some parts of the ocean. Negative responses may include further growth of oxygen poor ocean zones, contamination or exhaustion of fresh water, increased incidence of natural fires, extensive vegetation die-off due to droughts, increased risk of coral extinction, decline in global photoplankton, changes in migration patterns of birds and animals, changes in seasonal periodicity, disruption to food chains and species loss.

Economic

The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. The Stern report made clear the overall pattern of economic distress, and while the specific numbers may be contested, the costs of climate change were far in excess of the costs of preventing it. Certain scenarios projected in the IPCC AR4 report would witness massive migration as low-lying countries were flooded. Disruptions to global trade, transport, energy supplies and labour markets, banking and finance, investment and insurance, would all wreak havoc on the stability of both developed and developing nations. Markets would endure increased volatility and institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies would experience considerable difficulty.

Developing countries, some of which are already embroiled in military conflict, may be drawn into larger and more protracted disputes over water, energy supplies or food, all of which may disrupt economic growth at a time when developing countries are beset by more egregious manifestations of climate change. It is widely accepted that the detrimental effects of climate change will be visited largely on the countries least equipped to adapt, socially or economically."
Positives and negatives of global warming