Phony op-eds about climate change

[Lord of Planar]

I have something to settle the debate: pollution is bad. Mmkay.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

Can you define pollution or will we just get a circular explaination?

Blackjack...

Since the alarmist pundits define CO2 as a pollutant, it is important to define what you think pollution is.

CO2 is not a pollutant at any future conceivable level.

 

[Threegoofs]

Blackjack...

Since the alarmist pundits define CO2 as a pollutant, it is important to define what you think pollution is.

CO2 is not a pollutant at any future conceivable level.

The EPA disagrees.

But then again, we know you know much more about this issue than:
The EPA
The National Academy of Sciences
the AAAS
most working scientists in the field

You even know more about them in the areas of paleoclimate, glaciology,atmospheric sciences, and population biology, despite having no qualifications in any of these fields at all (besides a single journal subscription).

We salute you, Renaissance Man.

 

[blackjack50]

Can you define pollution or will we just get a circular explaination?

How about: just tossing your garbage out the window of a car? Burning tires. Dumping your oil out into storm drains. As a Republican who enjoys hunting and the outdoors, and as a resident of Florida...I can say that the formal definition of pollution:

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light. Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants.

Is most assuredly bad for the environment. And it is most assuredly NOT something we should endorse. Reducing our "footprint" and protecting nature is GOOD. Our kids deserve a place to fish and hunt and camp.

Ps

This isn't a right left thing. You don't have to pick the "republican" or "democrat" position and adhere to it lock step just because you are a republican or democrat. It was turned into a left right thing by different groups of politicians, trying to score political points so they can appease their respective campaign donors, who also do not necessarily represent what is in the best interest of nature, progress, or the people as a whole.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

 

[blackjack50]

Blackjack...

Since the alarmist pundits define CO2 as a pollutant, it is important to define what you think pollution is.

CO2 is not a pollutant at any future conceivable level.

CO2 is not defined as a pollutant by any respectable scientist. It is a naturally occurring element that is required to produce a life sustaining environment as we know it.

That also is NOT the issue that the "alarmists" have. It is the presence of excessive CO2 amounts. That is the not the same as what you are saying. It is a proven fact that "global warming" (see climate change for the proper definition) exists as we have observed it in MULTIPLE planets. It is a NATURALLY occurring phenomenon. We also have records and scientific for this planet. And it demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt, that climate change DOES exist.

The ISSUE is that of anthropogenic climate change and the impact it has. Personally? I believe that anthropogenic climate change is not as rapidly occurring as we are told. Thus the measures to reduce it do not have to be broad sweeping legislation that provide loads of cash to major democrat campaign contributors.

Would you like evidence from history? Did you know that Egypt was the grain supplier for Ancient Rome? It was the "bread basket." I mean the entire Middle East was a major "bread basket" actually. The problem is that they had to constantly improve farming to deal with increasing aridity. Why would that happen?

Well. It happened for the same reason we had to change OUR farming habits here during the 1930s. Less water for the crops increased the amount of dust and changed the climate and made it dryer and more arid, which meant less plants, which meant more dust. You have no doubt heard of the dust bowl? Right?

As Bennett was finishing his remarks, the storm that he had been told was moving east descended on Washington. When the sky went dark outside the windows of the hearing, one member of the committee reportedly noted,
“It is getting dark. Perhaps a rainstorm is brewing.”
“Perhaps it is dust,” Another ventured.
“I think you are correct,” Bennett agreed. “It does look like dust.”
Willington Brink provides a dramatic look at how the scene played out in his 1950 biography of Bennett, Big Hugh: The Father of Soil Conservation.
The group gathered at a window. The dust storm for which Hugh Bennett had been waiting rolled in like a vast steel-town pall, thick and repulsive. The skies took on a copper color. The sun went into hiding. The air became heavy with grit. Government's most spectacular showman had laid the stage well. All day, step by step, he had built his drama, paced it slowly, risked possible failure with his interminable reports, while he prayed for Nature to hurry up a proper denouement. For once, Nature cooperated generously.

I know that is a long read. BUT...there is an interesting topic (and a great story) about how it took a dust storm so big in Oklahoma that it blew through DC during a speech on the topic to move congress. That storm settled about 200 miles out in the Atlantic. Crazy huh?

Climate change is real AND it can be anthropogenic. We have the evidence, scientific and historical. And that is the real argument.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

 

[Tim the plumber]

How about: just tossing your garbage out the window of a car? Burning tires. Dumping your oil out into storm drains. As a Republican who enjoys hunting and the outdoors, and as a resident of Florida...I can say that the formal definition of pollution:



Is most assuredly bad for the environment. And it is most assuredly NOT something we should endorse. Reducing our "footprint" and protecting nature is GOOD. Our kids deserve a place to fish and hunt and camp.

Ps

This isn't a right left thing. You don't have to pick the "republican" or "democrat" position and adhere to it lock step just because you are a republican or democrat. It was turned into a left right thing by different groups of politicians, trying to score political points so they can appease their respective campaign donors, who also do not necessarily represent what is in the best interest of nature, progress, or the people as a whole.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

Just to put it out there, I would describe my politics as liberal/socialist when compared to American opinion.

Whilst as you say throwing junk out of the car window is definately polution so is spreading shit on the road.

If, however, you allow the shit to rot down a bit and then spread it over farmer's fields it's nolonger polution it's fertilizer.

CO2 is the same. It is causing plants the world over to grow better than they used to. Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth' - BBC News

 

[blackjack50]

Just to put it out there, I would describe my politics as liberal/socialist when compared to American opinion.

Whilst as you say throwing junk out of the car window is definately polution so is spreading shit on the road.

If, however, you allow the shit to rot down a bit and then spread it over farmer's fields it's nolonger polution it's fertilizer.

CO2 is the same. It is causing plants the world over to grow better than they used to. Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth' - BBC News

Have you ever heard of run off?


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

 

[longview]

CO2 is not defined as a pollutant by any respectable scientist. It is a naturally occurring element that is required to produce a life sustaining environment as we know it.

That also is NOT the issue that the "alarmists" have. It is the presence of excessive CO2 amounts. That is the not the same as what you are saying. It is a proven fact that "global warming" (see climate change for the proper definition) exists as we have observed it in MULTIPLE planets. It is a NATURALLY occurring phenomenon. We also have records and scientific for this planet. And it demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt, that climate change DOES exist.

If we look at the data we have, CO2 appears to cause warming. The appearance is mostly because
no one can name any other suspects, or are ignored when they do.
But for the sake of discussion, let's us the IPCC's number for CO2 warming alone.
The IPCC says that if we double the CO2 level, it would create an energy imbalance of 3.71 Wm^2,
which would cause the surface-troposphere system to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
Through modeling they believe this 1.2°C will be amplified through feedbacks to cause additional warming.
The first part is somewhat accepted science, (the warming, if not the level).
The second part, is almost pure speculation, while they know feedbacks exists, the level is so poorly quantified
that the IPCC in AR5 did not give a best estimate for the enormous range (1.5 to 4.5°C)
The tough questions become, is adding CO2 to the environment bad?
The answer is very undecided, but the improvements to life around the planet from the use of
fossil fuels is beyond question.
From what we can see the added CO2 is causing greening around the planet.
What about all the other catastrophic events the warming is already causing?
Well the link between recent weather and any possible warming is even less scientific than the amplified feedback warming.
We live in a very chaotic weather environment, floods, droughts, storms, ect. better communications, and better
reporting, could make it appear like events are more common, when they are not.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Have you ever heard of run off?


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

What are you talking about???

You said that you opposed all pollution. You were asked to say what it is you call pollution. Well define it! Tell us what it is that makes CO2 a pollutant.

 

[Lord of Planar]

How about: just tossing your garbage out the window of a car? Burning tires. Dumping your oil out into storm drains. As a Republican who enjoys hunting and the outdoors, and as a resident of Florida...I can say that the formal definition of pollution:

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light. Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Hasn't any one told you Wikipedia is not always an accurate source for material? The footnote that applies to someones paraphrasing of the definion is this:

: the action or process of making land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use

: substances that make land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use

1
: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste; also : the condition of being polluted

2
: pollutant
​

Keep in mind, on any controversial topic, Wikipedia is not a good source to quote. Follow the footnotes claimed to be the source.

 

[Lord of Planar]

CO2 is not defined as a pollutant by any respectable scientist. It is a naturally occurring element that is required to produce a life sustaining environment as we know it.

You need to remind the likes of 3Goofs that please.

That also is NOT the issue that the "alarmists" have. It is the presence of excessive CO2 amounts. That is the not the same as what you are saying.

Punditry and activism has caused the EPA to define CO2 as a pollutant. I'm glad you disagree with them.

It is a proven fact that "global warming" (see climate change for the proper definition) exists as we have observed it in MULTIPLE planets. It is a NATURALLY occurring phenomenon. We also have records and scientific for this planet. And it demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt, that climate change DOES exist.

Yes, this is true.

The ISSUE is that of anthropogenic climate change and the impact it has. Personally? I believe that anthropogenic climate change is not as rapidly occurring as we are told. Thus the measures to reduce it do not have to be broad sweeping legislation that provide loads of cash to major democrat campaign contributors.

I see clear evidence that the gerrymandering of climate stations is part of the way that the alarmists keep up the ruse. We probably are still warming from the impacts of solar changes that peaked in 1958, but delayed by industrial pollution darkening the skies from the 40's into the 70's. When we started clearing the skies in the late 70's, the sun's impact on the surface was felt to a greater extent than when it peaked.

Climate stations are more and more being impacted by land use changes. This is now an artificial signal to the warming actually occurring.

Would you like evidence from history? Did you know that Egypt was the grain supplier for Ancient Rome? It was the "bread basket." I mean the entire Middle East was a major "bread basket" actually. The problem is that they had to constantly improve farming to deal with increasing aridity. Why would that happen?

I don't know what era you are speaking of, but I suspect Egypt, Syria, Persia, etc. were the cradle of human life because they were less arid coming out of the last ice age. Who knows how many thousands of years it took to dry the lands. there is still an immense amount of water under the desert.

Well. It happened for the same reason we had to change OUR farming habits here during the 1930s. Less water for the crops increased the amount of dust and changed the climate and made it dryer and more arid, which meant less plants, which meant more dust. You have no doubt heard of the dust bowl? Right?

Very true. Dust is a natural component that changes the transparency of the atmosphere. More transparent means more solar heating. Less transparent means less solar heating.

Climate change is real AND it can be anthropogenic. We have the evidence, scientific and historical. And that is the real argument.

I don't think you see any of us disagreeing that climate change is real. We only disagree on the amount of warming assigned to CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

 

[Jack Hays]

The warmist assault on free speech continues.

97% consensus / Climate ugliness
[h=1]Ugly: “Why climate denial should be a criminal offence”[/h]Christopher Smith writes in WUWT Tips and Notes: Dr Jarrod Gilbert: Why climate denial should be a criminal offence 5:00 AM Tuesday Jul 26, 2016 New Zealand Social Scientist Dr Jarrod Gilbert is calling for the Crime of Climate Change Denial to be adopted. There is no greater crime being perpetuated on future generations than…

 

[Threegoofs]

Another edition of:

 

[Jack Hays]

Another edition of:

Do you deny the facts as presented?

 

[Jack Hays]

Climate ugliness / Politics
[h=1]Bill McKibben Goes Full Jackboot on Climate Change[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Bill McKibben wants the world to wage war against Climate Change, by giving governments full wartime powers to seize private property and coerce businesses into supporting the effort, and with strict government control of the economy. A WORLD at WAR We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is…

 

[Threegoofs]

Climate ugliness / Politics
[h=1]Bill McKibben Goes Full Jackboot on Climate Change[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Bill McKibben wants the world to wage war against Climate Change, by giving governments full wartime powers to seize private property and coerce businesses into supporting the effort, and with strict government control of the economy. A WORLD at WAR We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is…

HotWhopper: SciAm article gets climate science deniers to shout denial about their denial...

"Thursday, August 18, 2016
SciAm article gets climate science deniers to shout denial about their denial...

Over at WUWT Eric Worrall has posted his take on an article in Scientific American (archived here). The article is by Margaret Hetherman, and she's written about climate change. Her article is about how we are reacting and coping with it, wondering how future generations will regard us, and speculates about why deniers think climate change is a hoax."....

 

[Jack Hays]

HotWhopper: SciAm article gets climate science deniers to shout denial about their denial...

"Thursday, August 18, 2016
SciAm article gets climate science deniers to shout denial about their denial...

Over at WUWT Eric Worrall has posted his take on an article in Scientific American (archived here). The article is by Margaret Hetherman, and she's written about climate change. Her article is about how we are reacting and coping with it, wondering how future generations will regard us, and speculates about why deniers think climate change is a hoax."....

I believe you are confused. Your post and link have nothing to do with anything in this thread.

 

[Threegoofs]

I believe you are confused. Your post and link have nothing to do with anything in this thread.

What?

A copy and pasted blog post only tangentially related to the material at hand?

And the poster adds nothing of substance to the post above his copy and paste?

Don't you HATE that?

LOL.

 

[Jack Hays]

What?

A copy and pasted blog post only tangentially related to the material at hand?

And the poster adds nothing of substance to the post above his copy and paste?

Don't you HATE that?

LOL.

So phony. McKibben's "jackboots" are directly related to the warmist offensive to criminalize dissent.

 

[Lord of Planar]

HotWhopper: SciAm article gets climate science deniers to shout denial about their denial...

"Thursday, August 18, 2016
SciAm article gets climate science deniers to shout denial about their denial...

Over at WUWT Eric Worrall has posted his take on an article in Scientific American (archived here). The article is by Margaret Hetherman, and she's written about climate change. Her article is about how we are reacting and coping with it, wondering how future generations will regard us, and speculates about why deniers think climate change is a hoax."....

Blogger vs. blogger.

Threegoofs says: "my daddy [blogger] can beat up your daddy [blogger]."