Uh oh! The planet is cooling

Superfreak said:
Exactly. What is it going to take to get these "consensus" global warming individuals to focus on pollution rather than wasting so much time on who can be blamed.
Click to expand...


CO2 isn't a pollutant in the traditional sense. At any conceivable atmospheric concentration its not toxic, its not carcinogenic, its not even an odor nuisance.

The only conceivable reason to do anything about CO2 is by recognizing that its heat-trapping properties is a long term threat to human and environmental health. And that would require you to recognize its role in global warming.

Otherwise, if you don't recognize that, there's no reason to reduce CO2 emisssions.


But, I suspect the rightwing simply doesn't want to admit they've been wrong for twenty years, while still proclaiming we need to do something about it.
 
Cypress said:
CO2 isn't a pollutant in the traditional sense. At any conceivable atmospheric concentration its not toxic, its not carcinogenic, its not even an odor nuisance.

The only conceivable reason to do anything about CO2 is by recognizing that its heat-trapping properties is a long term threat to human and environmental health. And that would require you to recognize its role in global warming.

Otherwise, if you don't recognize that, there's no reason to reduce CO2 emisssions.


But, I suspect the rightwing simply doesn't want to admit they've been wrong for twenty years, while still proclaiming we need to do something about it.
Click to expand...
There is reason. Our dependence on foreign sources of energy, and the fact that it puts other pollutants into the air, belies that we would get no benefit of such a change.
 
Damocles said:
There is reason. Our dependence on foreign sources of energy, and the fact that it puts other pollutants into the air, belies that we would get no benefit of such a change.
Click to expand...


but that's not the reason SF said. He said we should address it as a pollution problem.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, under any traditional definition. If you want to consider it a pollutant, you have to recognize it's heat trapping properties are warming the climate.
 
Cypress said:
but that's not the reason SF said. He said we should address it as a pollution problem.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, under any traditional definition. If you want to consider it a pollutant, you have to recognize it's heat trapping properties are warming the climate.
Click to expand...
Your argument is dependent on CO2 being the only emission from the burning of fossil fuels that could possibly be considered a pollutant. Mine, and it appears SF's as well simply depends on cleaning up the air regardless of CO2 emissions.

Any less emissions = good under our plan. Under yours, they are foolishly limited for no apparent reason other than everybody must understand it your way.
 
Gotcha.

So your argument is that the reason to reduce foreign oil dependence, is because of the sulfur compounds and particulate matter.

You see no need to reduce CO2 emissions.

This is why the republican party is viewed as hostile to science. Every single major scientific body and organization on the planet, with expertise in climate science, blames CO2 at least in part, for the global warming trend.
 
Cypress said:
Gotcha.

So your argument is that the reason to reduce foreign oil dependence, is because of the sulfur compounds and particulate matter.

You see no need to reduce CO2 emissions.

This is why the republican party is viewed as hostile to science. Every single major scientific body and organization on the planet, with expertise in climate science, blames CO2 at least in part, for the global warming trend.
Click to expand...
I said mine is not dependent on only CO2 emissions, yours is. It is a pale argument in comparison and can be lost with new information. While ours stands regardless.

This is why people think it is almost a religion to you, any other reason must be dismissed even if it makes sense. If the reason says, "wow, innovation and drive can beat this and we can make ourselves less dependent on others and safer at the same time!" instead of saying "Wow, we are bad and at fault for global warming..." it must be "wrong" even if it leads to exactly what you want. Even if it creates exactly what you want because of the other reason...

It's sad really.
 
Damocles said:
What I fear is that if they are shown to be incorrect and that the effects of human action are not as strong as that of nature itself they will lose focus, or seek some new punishment for America rather than logically thinking it through. You don't resolve this issue with Kyoto, if every step of Kyoto was totally followed without flaw it still wouldn't have more than 1% effect on the "change" predicted.

The only way to solve this one is with real ingenuity. Not only could it solve the issue, but it can set us up for the next century all while protecting us from terrorists.

Having the resolution be punitive and exhaustive, taking much of the wind from the sails of the very people who will likely solve it is counter productive and based in revenge rather than reality.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

side note.... Shell's eco races this week have been interesting as usual.
 
Cypress said:
Gotcha.

So your argument is that the reason to reduce foreign oil dependence, is because of the sulfur compounds and particulate matter.

You see no need to reduce CO2 emissions.

This is why the republican party is viewed as hostile to science. Every single major scientific body and organization on the planet, with expertise in climate science, blames CO2 at least in part, for the global warming trend.
Click to expand...

Tell me Cypress...

If you reduce the amount of fossil fuels burned, do you increase or decrease CO2 emissions?
 
tinfoil said:
Looks like the global warmers ran out of time.
7390_large_hadcrut.jpg


http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm


LOL I called it 2 years ago. I knew the temps had peaked in 98 and that we are trending downward. The graph proves it.
Click to expand...

ZOMG??!

Anyone else wish Tinfoil is the first one to die?
 
As someone with no agenda on global warming, because I could care less either way.. I'll be long since dead if there is a problem. You can't gather much from that chart. Look at the other sharp drops they were mostly all proceeded by just as quick rises to at or above where the temps were before the drops.

It would take a few years worth of data then some conclusions could maybe be drawn.
 
Superfreak said:
Tell me Cypress...

If you reduce the amount of fossil fuels burned, do you increase or decrease CO2 emissions?
Click to expand...

SF: Exactly. What is it going to take to get these "consensus" global warming individuals to focus on pollution rather than wasting so much time on who can be blamed.
Click to expand...


Why would we care about reducing CO2 emissions, if you and Damo are right, and the world scientific consensus is wrong? This thread was about CO2, not sulfur compounds or particulate matter from burning fossil fuels. Its obvious to me that until Damo threw you a life line, you were refering to reducing CO2 in the context of atmospheric pollution, rather than reducing it because of its global warming properties. We already know how to reduce sulfur and particulate matter pollution; we've had laws on the books for 30 years to deal with those pollutants. No one is looking for who to "blame" for that; we know the orgin, scope, and extent of that problem.

If you don't accept the scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are warming the planet, there's no need to worry about CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. CO2 at atmospheric concentrations is neither toxic or carcinogenic to humans, and its not even an odor nuisance. There would be no need to regulate it under the standard definition of a pollutant.

What this thread shows is how extremist you and Damo are. Every government on the planet (Including both McCain and Bush), and every major scientific body on the planet with expertise in climate science, have concluded that that CO2 emissions are helping to warm the planet. The fact that you and Damo continue to deny it, erodes your stature as self-proclaimed moderate, sensible conservatives. You are ensconsed firmly in the rhetoric of the extreme right wing, and global warming denialists.
 
Blackflag said:
As someone with no agenda on global warming, because I could care less either way.. I'll be long since dead if there is a problem. You can't gather much from that chart. Look at the other sharp drops they were mostly all proceeded by just as quick rises to at or above where the temps were before the drops.

It would take a few years worth of data then some conclusions could maybe be drawn.
Click to expand...
Of course.

But it is fun to speculate and to poke at the true believers. I've always found it intersting that we wind up with the same goals in reality, yet I am somehow evil because I can consider a chance that the consensus may be mistaken and therefore must be taken to task for being a "witch"....
 
Cypress said:
Why would we care about reducing CO2 emissions, if you and Damo are right, and the world scientific consensus is wrong? This thread was about CO2, not sulfur compounds or particulate matter from burning fossil fuels. Its obvious to me that until Damo threw you a life line, you were refering to reducing CO2 in the context of atmospheric pollution, rather than reducing it because of its global warming properties. We already know how to reduce sulfur and particulate matter pollution; we've had laws on the books for 30 years to deal with those pollutants. No one is looking for who to "blame" for that; we know the orgin, scope, and extent of that problem.

If you don't accept the scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are warming the planet, there's no need to worry about CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. CO2 at atmospheric concentrations is neither toxic or carcinogenic to humans, and its not even an odor nuisance. There would be no need to regulate it under the standard definition of a pollutant.

What this thread shows is how extremist you and Damo are. Every government on the planet (Including both McCain and Bush), and every major scientific body on the planet with expertise in climate science, have concluded that that CO2 emissions are helping to warm the planet. The fact that you and Damo continue to deny it, erodes your stature as self-proclaimed moderate, sensible conservatives. You are ensconsed firmly in the rhetoric of the extreme right wing, and global warming denialists.
Click to expand...
I am not extreme. I agree that we should do something. Extreme is a person who insists that I must think exactly as they do, even in agreement, or I am a "heathen" and must be burned at the proverbial stake.
 
Damocles said:
Of course.

But it is fun to speculate and to poke at the true believers. I've always found it intersting that we wind up with the same goals in reality, yet I am somehow evil because I can consider a chance that the consensus may be mistaken and therefore must be taken to task for being a "witch"....
Click to expand...

My bad then. I mistook this for a serious discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top