• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Carbon dioxide causes 80% of global warming

longview said:
As for peer review, that was not a primary consideration, intellectual property protection
was given a little higher priority.
Click to expand...

I definitely get that. I used to publish then when I entered industry everything is now in the form of patents.
 
watsup said:
Again: does increased warmth in the Gulf and elsewhere in the ocean add to the strength of hurricanes? Does increased warmth in the air allow clouds to retain more moisture and thus potentially DROP more moisture in a particular area? "Triggering", per se, is not the problem, but how air and ocean warmth then affects said systems.
Click to expand...

Show me that by modulating 0.01% of our atmosphere at huge economic expense of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas in our atmospheric envelope we can control climate ..... irrespective of the fact that we have no idea of the effect of doing so and that we have no empirically established idea of the climate sensitifety of said gas ?

Its variation in that big ball in the sky that controls climate. Everything else is just politics :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
Show me that by modulating 0.01% of our atmosphere at huge economic expense of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas in our atmospheric envelope we can control climate ..... irrespective of the fact that we have no idea of the effect of doing so and that we have no empirically established idea of the climate sensitifety of said gas ?

Its variation in that big ball in the sky that controls climate. Everything else is just politics :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

“It’s the sun”. Same old denier talking point.
 
flogger said:
Same alarmist refusal to answer :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I was trying to think of a clever analogy to describe how the Sun could remain nearly constant, when the energy that reached the
Earth actually increased. The best I can come up with is a light bulb behind a window with a venetian blind.
If we start some time in the mid 1700's with the blind allowing in the maximum amount of light,
and gradually reduce the light passing the blind, (like the aerosols from coal burning).
Laws changed globally in the 1970's and 80's limiting aerosols, rapidly corrected nearly two centuries of gradual dimming.
So we have ~ 200 years of slowing closing the blind, and 40 years of opening it back to near maximum light.
The light from the light bulb never changed, but the light getting past the blind changed quite a bit.
It might even look a bit like a hockey stick!:eek:
 
flogger said:
Same alarmist refusal to answer :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's not the sun that is the primary cause of today's global warming, it's human-produced CO2. Show a study that shows otherwise. You can't.
 
watsup said:
It's not the sun that is the primary cause of today's global warming, it's human-produced CO2. Show a study that shows otherwise. You can't.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one claiming there is anything wrong with our climate so the burden of proof is all yours.

Show me the empirical math whereby moderating 0.01% (100PPM CO2 supposedly attributable to humanity) of our atmosphere at colossal economic cost will make anything better and why would it be better than what we have today and for whom ?
 
flogger said:
I'm not the one claiming there is anything wrong with our climate so the burden of proof is all yours.

Show me the empirical math whereby moderating 0.01% (100PPM CO2 supposedly attributable to humanity) of our atmosphere at colossal economic cost will make anything better and why would it be better than what we have today and for whom ?
Click to expand...

You were speculating on the causes of the present global warming. I merely corrected your wrong information by noting what the experts in the field, climate scientists, say.
 
watsup said:
You were speculating on the causes of the present global warming. I merely corrected your wrong information by noting what the experts in the field, climate scientists, say.
Click to expand...

So what kind of climate is it that you want and without impoverishing billions how will you achieve it ? :rolleyes:
 
flogger said:
So what kind of climate is it that you want and without impoverishing billions how will you achieve it ? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What makes you say that it will impoverish millions? It might be that NOT doing anything about it will be far worse economically for "millions" in the long run because of the potential weather effects of a climate that is getting warmer. Do hurricanes gain more strength in warmer waters? Do storm clouds hold more water and thus are able to dump more water, thereby causing flooding, when the atmosphere is warmer? What would be the effects of such instances?
 
watsup said:
What makes you say that it will impoverish millions? It might be that NOT doing anything about it will be far worse economically for "millions" in the long run because of the potential weather effects of a climate that is getting warmer. Do hurricanes gain more strength in warmer waters? Do storm clouds hold more water and thus are able to dump more water, thereby causing flooding, when the atmosphere is warmer? What would be the effects of such instances?
Click to expand...

By all means show evidence that doing what you want (whatever that is ?) will save more lives by artificially impoverishing and foreshortening the lives of billions ?

Your the guy that hates us humans right (well the rich ones I'm guessing?). You do realise that the cost of economically punishing those few you envy using this fabricated AGW stick will in actuality be an absolute catastrophe for the poorest
 
Last edited:
watsup said:
What makes you say that it will impoverish millions? It might be that NOT doing anything about it will be far worse economically for "millions" in the long run because of the potential weather effects of a climate that is getting warmer. Do hurricanes gain more strength in warmer waters? Do storm clouds hold more water and thus are able to dump more water, thereby causing flooding, when the atmosphere is warmer? What would be the effects of such instances?
Click to expand...
And why do you see only the negative in global warming?
For example, in my life I observe how regions that used to belong to the zones of risky farming and nothing but potatoes could not be grown, now grow watermelons, corn, hops.
For Russia, a northern sea route has opened up, many times safer and without pirates than the well-known alternative.

There are many factors... but you miss the main nuance... Why did you decide that the world would follow the example of the United States?
An industrial country, the first economy in the world with an economically spoiled population, can afford any game of green energy, but developing countries can not afford it, for them green energy means that their poverty is eternal.
Sit and talk with a haughty air about bunnies who have nowhere to poop... this is infantilism.
There are many countries in the world where people have nothing to eat and just feed them is not an option, they need work, they need industry. In the United States, half of the population can work in the service sector, if you do the same in Turkmenistan, in 7 years, half of them will die of starvation... grow up... or play your green games, but know that the world is not with you, often, people abroad in the United States have to survive, not live...
 
Fabiusbile said:
And why do you see only the negative in global warming?
For example, in my life I observe how regions that used to belong to the zones of risky farming and nothing but potatoes could not be grown, now grow watermelons, corn, hops.
For Russia, a northern sea route has opened up, many times safer and without pirates than the well-known alternative.

There are many factors... but you miss the main nuance... Why did you decide that the world would follow the example of the United States?
An industrial country, the first economy in the world with an economically spoiled population, can afford any game of green energy, but developing countries can not afford it, for them green energy means that their poverty is eternal.
Sit and talk with a haughty air about bunnies who have nowhere to poop... this is infantilism.
There are many countries in the world where people have nothing to eat and just feed them is not an option, they need work, they need industry. In the United States, half of the population can work in the service sector, if you do the same in Turkmenistan, in 7 years, half of them will die of starvation... grow up... or play your green games, but know that the world is not with you, often, people abroad in the United States have to survive, not live...
Click to expand...
I wish it were only the US, but the EU is very much involved.
On the plus side, some of the spin offs from the flawed concept that is AGW, could have global good consequences for the worlds poor.
It is now possible to store solar energy, by creating natural gas, or other liquid hydrocarbons.
This could convert long summer days of sunshine, to fuel for winter heating, or tractor fuel, ect.
 
flogger said:
By all means show evidence that doing what you want (whatever that is ?) will save more lives by artificially impoverishing and foreshortening the lives of billions ?

Your the guy that hates us humans right (well the rich ones I'm guessing?). You do realise that the cost of economically punishing those few you envy using this fabricated AGW stick will in actuality be an absolute catastrophe for the poorest
Click to expand...

I already answered that in post #186. Read it again and respond to it rather than simply reposting the very same FALSE denier talking point as before.
 
longview said:
I wish it were only the US, but the EU is very much involved.
On the plus side, some of the spin offs from the flawed concept that is AGW, could have global good consequences for the worlds poor.
It is now possible to store solar energy, by creating natural gas, or other liquid hydrocarbons.
This could convert long summer days of sunshine, to fuel for winter heating, or tractor fuel, ect.
Click to expand...

Only if its at extremely low cost and that is still some way off. Until then the global warming junkies in the west are quite happy to let the third world continue in poverty in order to bolster their virtue signalled utopian fantasies :(
 
9
flogger said:
Only if its at extremely low cost and that is still some way off. Until then the global warming junkies in the west are quite happy to let the third world continue in poverty in order to bolster their virtue signalled utopian fantasies :(
Click to expand...

Right wing emotion-based talking points that mean nothing in terms of real debate.
 
flogger said:
Only if its at extremely low cost and that is still some way off. Until then the global warming junkies in the west are quite happy to let the third world continue in poverty in order to bolster their virtue signalled utopian fantasies :(
Click to expand...
The costs only has to be lower than the costs of making the same fuel from oil, and the trend curves are already in motion.
Some of the irony is that the rules on solar feed in tariffs and net metering, are slowing the pace.
Also when man made carbon neutral fuel shows up at the pumps, those same virtue signalers,
will be the ones who keep the price artificially high to slow wide adoption.
If actually lowering CO2 emissions were the goal, many countries in Europe could lower their
fuel tax on carbon neutral fuels to make them the least expensive at the pump,
but climate be dammed if it means lowering the revenue.
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
Only if its at extremely low cost and that is still some way off. Until then the global warming junkies in the west are quite happy to let the third world continue in poverty in order to bolster their virtue signalled utopian fantasies :(
Click to expand...

Developing countries are already feeling the devastating effects of fossil fuels.

Unprecedented Impacts of Climate Change Disproportionately Burdening Developing Countries, Delegate Stresses, as Second Committee Concludes General Debate | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Describing climate change as one of the greatest threats facing humanity in their time, delegates urged the international community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve forests, monitor water sources and honour pledges made in the Paris Agreement, as the Second Committee (Economic and...
www.un.org www.un.org

www.theguardian.com

Rapid global heating is hurting farm productivity, study finds

Research shows rising temperatures since 1960s have acted as handbrake to agricultural yield of crops and livestock
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.who.int

More than 90% of the world’s children breathe toxic air every day

Every day around 93% of the world’s children under the age of 15 years (1.8 billion children) breathe air that is so polluted it puts their health and development at serious risk. Tragically, many of them die: WHO estimates that in 2016, 600,000 children died from acute lower respiratory...
www.who.int www.who.int

That at the same time there can be great opportunities for developing countries with a transition away from fossil fuels.

www.ioes.ucla.edu

Making solar power affordable in developing countries

Globally, over 1 billion people are still not connected to the grid. Every year, this consumer base burns over $30 Billion (USD) of their hard-earned income on candles…
www.ioes.ucla.edu www.ioes.ucla.edu


www.weforum.org

Renewables are increasingly cheaper than coal

Renewables are becoming more and more cost-effective than fossil fuels, which means not only are they saving the planet, but saving money too.
www.weforum.org www.weforum.org
 
watsup said:
9


Right wing emotion-based talking points that mean nothing in terms of real debate.
Click to expand...

One day I'll actually get an answers from you to the very pertinent questions I've put to you multiple times now ..... I'm not holding my breath :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
flogger said:
One day I'll actually get an answers from you to the very pertinent questions I've put to you multiple times now ..... I'm not holding my breath :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's typical enviro-nut false logic. They keep claiming they have facts and science to back their loopy beliefs but when pressed to show them they fail to produce facts of any kind.
 
PoS said:
It's typical enviro-nut false logic. They keep claiming they have facts and science to back their loopy beliefs but when pressed to show them they fail to produce facts of any kind.
Click to expand...

Do you ever read? Just curious because the science is EASILY available. It's not easy to understand but you can find it. And I suspect you already have been shown COUNTLESS times the science behind AGW. But you don't like it (not that you understand it but disagree with it, just that you don't like it) so you demand yet another person to explain it to you and when they get exasperated showing you how to look up information on your own you get to say "See, they didn't explain it to me! They must not have anything!"

It's like standing outside the library and complaining that no one has ever shown you a book.
 
flogger said:
Only if its at extremely low cost and that is still some way off. Until then the global warming junkies in the west are quite happy to let the third world continue in poverty in order to bolster their virtue signalled utopian fantasies :(
Click to expand...

Actually you are quite wrong. Many of us actually want more economic assistance to these third world countries but we aren't allowed that because the various conservative parties in our countries won't allow it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom