A Fitting End to the Hottest Year on Record.....

[Lord of Planar]

And that's fine with me - focus on pollution, everyone is happy, everyone says they're for cleaner air, cleaner water, I doubt many of us want to waste $trillions more defending oil supplies in the ME, would rather tell the House of Saud to pound some of that sand that surrounds them, etc.

We don't spend money in the ME to defend oil. know your side loves that strawman, but if anyone is doing that when in office, it's the democrats. Think about that if you wish to maki it partisan, but also, please take that to another thread.

I agree we are doing too much in the ME.

I will leave you with these questions though.

Why are we still there and who is the commander in Chief?

Who signed the SOFA that got us out of Iraq?

 

[MrT]

I guess I fail to understand the current emphasis on lowering CO2 then, since plant life depends on it to survive. I'm apparently not understanding the problem in its entirety.....

So you liked my post about the benefits and problems associated with a small amount versus a lot of alcohol, so I assume you understand where I was going with that post.

Carbon Dioxide is necessary and beneficial to plant growth. Adding more CO2 is also more beneficial to SOME plants up to a point. There are some types of plants that will not benefit from a great deal of additional CO2 or will benefit less than other plants and get lose to the other plants.

Now, some will try to point out that greenhouses use a CO2 concentration that is really high compared to the current atmospheric concentration as proof for why we shouldn't worry. But they forget all of the other variables that greenhouses can control so that they don't have to worry about - like weather, drought, pests, disease, fertilizer, etc. Plants around the planet do not have that luxury.

So when the CO2 increase leads to more severe droughts or increased storm severity, then the net effect of the CO2 is bad for the plants. And this is true despite the fact that the initial increase of CO2 concentration is good for plants.

 

[flogger]

All I have to do to prove you wrong is find one proven link between increased CO2 and something besides an increased blooming of foliage in the deserts of the planet. Here you go:

You've got to be joking ! This stuff is pure comedy gold This taken from the first of your links

Presently, there are insufficient published data that relate concentrations of pCO2 and CO32− to in situ rates of reef calcification in natural settings to accurately predict the impact of elevated atmospheric pCO2 on calcification and dissolution processes.

Following on

C3: Xtra Catg: Are Oceans Becoming Acidic

Your second link

"In using these advanced statistical techniques to combine climate observations with model simulations, we've been able to better understand the ongoing drought in California,"

Following on

California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say - San Jose Mercury News

Your third link was so desperately comical it most certainly belongs here :lol:

warmlist

 

[flogger]

Ok, fair enough that you likely haven't seen all my posts in this thread on the topic but that's not all the burning of fossil fuels means to me.

Well the Germans currently pay three times what you do for their energy have yet to decomission a fossil fuel plant and now actually emit more pollutants than did before they started with massive renewable investment.

Is that the road you would prefer to go down ?

 

[flogger]

Carbon Dioxide is necessary and beneficial to plant growth. Adding more CO2 is also more beneficial to SOME plants up to a point. There are some types of plants that will not benefit from a great deal of additional CO2 or will benefit less than other plants and get lose to the other plants.

There are very few species of plants do not greatly benefit from added CO2

So when the CO2 increase leads to more severe droughts or increased storm severity, then the net effect of the CO2 is bad for the plants. And this is true despite the fact that the initial increase of CO2 concentration is good for plants.

And you might be right were increased CO2 proven to do any such thing

 

[flogger]

And? Did you know that weighing too much is as problematic as weighing too little? Come on.

There is no risk of too little CO2 when humans are producing 37 gigatons of CO2 ON TOP OF the naturally occurring (and naturally absorbed) 300 gigatons. So why even bother mentioning that fact?

Oh those big scary gigatons !

Just to put that into proper context the entire CO2 content of our atmosphere natural and man made represents 0.0004% of its volume yet its alleged that our tiny fraction of that already tiny percentage will make the sky fall.

Go figure ?

 

[Montecresto]

I guess I fail to understand the current emphasis on lowering CO2 then, since plant life depends on it to survive. I'm apparently not understanding the problem in its entirety.....

Hi Pol! There's a balance that produces a more ideal atmosphere for all would be the point. Of course we all know how well plants do in a hot house, particularly if the plants receive the necessary increased nitrogen and moisture along with the increased heat from CO2. And, too little CO2 and you can be pushed into an ice age, which would be no fun either.

 

[Montecresto]

I'm not concerned. That fairy tale has not developed.

I don't know anyone expressing fear. Anyway, it's developing. A good balance is a good bet.

 

[Montecresto]

And? Did you know that weighing too much is as problematic as weighing too little? Come on.

There is no risk of too little CO2 when humans are producing 37 gigatons of CO2 ON TOP OF the naturally occurring (and naturally absorbed) 300 gigatons. So why even bother mentioning that fact?

Lol. I never claimed we were at risk of too low CO2 levels. I merely pointed out that there is an optimum balance (not sure that science has even pegged that) but yes, CO2 in our atmosphere is a good thing and I don't think anyone does a service by treating any presence of it as pollution. And yes, being over weight or under weight is a health risk and should be avoided, I don't know what that dumb comment was suppose to mean. :roll:

 

[Montecresto]

Threegoofs, I have listened to the arguments presented by noted scientists from both sides. The "deniers," as people have called them, have made valid assertions that haven't been refuted. Just because some disagree with others doesn't necessarily mean that one side or the other is wrong, because the science itself is not absolute yet, and most agree that more research is needed, and I agree with them. Why this is being touted as something that needs to be handled immediately is causing many to question why, since climate has been changing ever since the earth was formed, and we do have proof of that. Events that have been predicted to happen have not occurred, and just pushing the time frame ahead to justify a mistaken prediction looks like nothing more than covering one's butt to save face. What exactly is your objection to hearing both sides of an argument that will affect everyone on earth?

Burning fossil fuels produces pollutants (not to be confused with CO2) that harm our rivers and lakes and our air. In Americas hey day of industrialization, before some smart person decided that it would take government enforcement :shock: to clean up the messes we were making, caustic wastes were dumped directly into waterways in the rust belt that killed Lake Erie!!!!!!!!! Growing up in Southern California, I remember LA with horrible smog pollution, that's not much the case any longer, Corporations care about the bottom line only, they must be forced to behave responsibly. The problems with fossil fuel is far more than just producing too much CO2.

 

[Montecresto]

And that's fine with me - focus on pollution, everyone is happy, everyone says they're for cleaner air, cleaner water, I doubt many of us want to waste $trillions more defending oil supplies in the ME, would rather tell the House of Saud to pound some of that sand that surrounds them, etc.

Yep, and that truth has been acknowledged repeatedly, here's but one example.

You might have seen that on Monday President Obama will likely nominate former Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, to be Secretary of Defense.

But what you probably haven't seen -- because everyone has forgotten -- is that back in 2007, Chuck Hagel went totally crazy and told the truth about our invasion of Iraq. Here's what he said:

People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.

Six Years Ago, Chuck Hagel Told the Truth About Iraq | Michael Moore

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yep, and that truth has been acknowledged repeatedly, here's but one example.

You might have seen that on Monday President Obama will likely nominate former Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, to be Secretary of Defense.

But what you probably haven't seen -- because everyone has forgotten -- is that back in 2007, Chuck Hagel went totally crazy and told the truth about our invasion of Iraq. Here's what he said:

People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.

Six Years Ago, Chuck Hagel Told the Truth About IraqÂ*|Â*Michael Moore

LOL...

From Michael Moore?

LOL..

That lying bag of horse puckey...

LOL...

 

[DaveFagan]

LOL...

From Michael Moore?

LOL..

That lying bag of horse puckey...

LOL...

Does that mean Hagel is a ventriloquist dummy for Michael Moore, or did he suffer serious episodes of misspeak allowing truth to penetrate the bozone layer. "Bozone ( n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future. "

 

[Montecresto]

LOL...

From Michael Moore?

LOL..

That lying bag of horse puckey...

LOL...

Um............................NO! It was from Chuck Hagel. :shrug:

"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are," said the Republican Senator from Nebraska Chuck Hagel to law students of Catholic University last September. "They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs."

Hagel: War for Oil | The Weekly Standard

 

[bubbabgone]

Explain.

What part?

 

[Threegoofs]

Does that mean Hagel is a ventriloquist dummy for Michael Moore, or did he suffer serious episodes of misspeak allowing truth to penetrate the bozone layer. "Bozone ( n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future. "

It means it's easier to dismiss the source than address the content.

It's a usual ploy from the usual suspects.

 

[bubbabgone]

Then why in the hell did you ask the question if all you were going to do was dissemble and whine about the answer?

The question I asked was of Monte in that I wanted to know what his objections to burning fossil fuels were if one of them wasn't this alleged climate change thingy.
I also mentioned that I could see some people objecting on grounds other than climate change.

Is that the question you're referring to?

Subsequently you posted a picture of something other than CO2, and given there are people like 3G who appear to think that CO2 is air pollution and tried to prove it with an article by some jamoke doing linguistic gymnastics by calling CO2 climate pollution.

So I figured if 3G got that badly suckered we can't assume you hadn't also.

Hey ... no need to thank me, I'm here to help

 

[Threegoofs]

The question I asked was of Monte in that I wanted to know what his objections to burning fossil fuels were if one of them wasn't this alleged climate change thingy.
I also mentioned that I could see some people objecting on grounds other than climate change.

Is that the question you're referring to?

Subsequently you posted a picture of something other than CO2, and given there are people like 3G who appear to think that CO2 is air pollution and tried to prove it with an article by some jamoke doing linguistic gymnastics by calling CO2 climate pollution.

So I figured if 3G got that badly suckered we can't assume you hadn't also.

Hey ... no need to thank me, I'm here to help

I'll also point out that the EPA now considers CO2 to be 'pollution'.

As the clean air act states:

"The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air."

Seems pretty inclusive to me.

Is CO2 a pollutant?

 

[bubbabgone]

I am aware of climategate which is an instance where folks scoured tens of thousands of emails from one group for a couple of lines of text they could take slightly unethical quotes out of context to prove some imaginary point about every other climate scientist.

[video]https://media.riffsy.com/videos/4fee195bb13ba63c253a5c2082596f6e/webm[/video]

 

[bubbabgone]

I'll also point out that the EPA now considers CO2 to be 'pollution'.

As the clean air act states:

"The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air."

Seems pretty inclusive to me.

Is CO2 a pollutant?

heh heh ... skeptical science - John Cook - what goes 'round comes 'round - Obama's EPA says exhalation is a pollutant.

Doesn't get any funnier than that.

 

[JasperL]

No, I don't see a climate threat from fossil fuels that burn clean.

However, wind has kinetic energy. When you use a windmill, you take some of this energy out of the wind. It is irrefutable that this will change climate.

OK, by how much?

 

[JasperL]

We don't spend money in the ME to defend oil. know your side loves that strawman, but if anyone is doing that when in office, it's the democrats. Think about that if you wish to maki it partisan, but also, please take that to another thread.

I agree we are doing too much in the ME.

I will leave you with these questions though.

Why are we still there and who is the commander in Chief?

Who signed the SOFA that got us out of Iraq?

It's been going on from admin to admin for decades, no break. And I don't think we NEED to spend money to defend our oil supplies either, but there is absolutely no doubt at all that we have meddled in their affairs for all those decades because they sit on all that oil.

I'll leave you to contemplate your own questions.

 

[JasperL]

Well the Germans currently pay three times what you do for their energy have yet to decomission a fossil fuel plant and now actually emit more pollutants than did before they started with massive renewable investment.

Is that the road you would prefer to go down ?

Goodness, you know damn well that at the same time they increased renewables, they took their nuclear plants offline.

 

[JasperL]

Oh those big scary gigatons !

Just to put that into proper context the entire CO2 content of our atmosphere natural and man made represents 0.0004% of its volume yet its alleged that our tiny fraction of that already tiny percentage will make the sky fall.

Go figure ?

That's a spectacularly stupid point. You should avoid that one in future discussions. Anyone with half a brain knows that even if your figure is true, it's totally irrelevant to anything. And for what it's worth I think your figure is off by a couple of decimal points. It's 0.0004 or 0.04%, so you can't even reliably repeat the talking point, which isn't a surprise since anyone who does is screaming their ignorance on the science.

 

[Threegoofs]

heh heh ... skeptical science - John Cook - what goes 'round comes 'round - Obama's EPA says exhalation is a pollutant.

Doesn't get any funnier than that.

Source immediately dismissed.