Bad logic on climate deal

O

Onceler

New member
For the sake of this thread, I want to set aside AGW. Let's accept that AGW is real, and go even further, and accept that man is pretty much the sole cause of global warming.

What is the point of the climate deal, in that case? They are talking about a reduction in emissions which will result in nothing more than a token, symbolic reduction in atmospheric CO2. It will be negligible, by any scientific measurement you could use, and probably wouldn't even amount to a reduction with population increase.

Beyond that, if they accept their own rhetoric on climate change, they should understand that natural triggers kick in at a certain point anyway, adding to the output of greenhouse gases for the planet as a whole.

Even if AGW was real, the world would basically have to go cold turkey now to make any difference at all 100 years from now, and that ain't happening. It's certainly not happening in this climate deal.

Reducing carbon emissions is a noble goal, and - as most seem to agree on - accelerating the development of domestic renewables is something we should do anyway, for a variety of reasons. For all that they are putting into the current climate deal, however, it would be nice to hear them address what the thing would actually accomplish in real climate terms (that is, nothing)...
 
Onceler said:
For the sake of this thread, I want to set aside AGW. Let's accept that AGW is real, and go even further, and accept that man is pretty much the sole cause of global warming.

What is the point of the climate deal, in that case? They are talking about a reduction in emissions which will result in nothing more than a token, symbolic reduction in atmospheric CO2. It will be negligible, by any scientific measurement you could use, and probably wouldn't even amount to a reduction with population increase.

Beyond that, if they accept their own rhetoric on climate change, they should understand that natural triggers kick in at a certain point anyway, adding to the output of greenhouse gases for the planet as a whole.

Even if AGW was real, the world would basically have to go cold turkey now to make any difference at all 100 years from now, and that ain't happening. It's certainly not happening in this climate deal.

Reducing carbon emissions is a noble goal, and - as most seem to agree on - accelerating the development of domestic renewables is something we should do anyway, for a variety of reasons. For all that they are putting into the current climate deal, however, it would be nice to hear them address what the thing would actually accomplish in real climate terms (that is, nothing)...
Click to expand...


Reducing emission is just one single element is a strategy to reduce human impact on climate. The CO2 cycle is a mass balance phenomena; emissions are only one single part of that mass balance. It's not a one-way street, there is a carbon cycle that involves not only sources (emmissions), but sinks,and sequestration.

As I understand it, the only viable strategy is to address the whole carbon cycle, which pertains not only to emissions, but deforestation and other carbon sinks, sequestration, and energy efficiency.

However, it's a valid point that these climate talks are a weak brew for addressing climate change. It's a dog and pony show to represent financial and corporate interests. The EPA does, and should have the authority to regulated CO2 as a pollutant. There's no reason why it shouldn't, the science on CO2 is as good as the science on other natural pollutants. The problem with that, is that the financial powers that be, and their bought and paid for politicians, don't want CO2 regulated as a pollutant, hence the dog and pony show for public consumption
 
Onceler said:
For all that they are putting into the current climate deal, however, it would be nice to hear them address what the thing would actually accomplish in real climate terms (that is, nothing)...
Click to expand...

Interesting....that's exactly what conservatives have been arguing for the last fifteen years......
 
So the alarmist can take advatage of thier Smugablility to the fullest as they fly around the world polluting 1,000 the average Joe's carbon footprint.
 
leaningright said:
Lorax, they need to put you and me in charge of this. :)
Click to expand...

No doubt; really, though, common sense has kind of left the building on this issue.

Much more progress could be made if they would pursue solid measures that would make a real difference, particular when it comes to technology. They seem to still be putting all of their eggs in the AGW basket, and even with that, are stopping short of fully understanding the science & implications of what they are doing...
 
It's been fascinating to watch the ever-evolving teabagger arguments on climate of the last ten years.

From "there is NO global warming", to "well, maybe there's global warming, but its not man's fault", to "More CO2 will be great for us!", to "well, there's nothing we can do about it anyway..."

Clearly teabaggers are completely devoid of any principle or consistency on this. As I believe Oncelear said, teabagger just react emotionally on this: if liberals are for it, teabaggers by default, have to be against it.


I can tell who on here understands science at the most rudimentary level, and it's easy for me to spot those who parrot "science" talking points they read on rightwing blogs.

Seriously, if you don't know anything about a topic, just don't comment. I try to keep my pie hole shut on any thread about stocks or porn. HaHa. It's obvious who doesn't understand science or environmental policy, and its just embarrassing to watch Dixie and his flat earther gang of teabaggers pontificate on the science of climate change.
 
if man is responsible for the adverse climate change and warming, maybe they should do something serious about it......like population control.

in the USA, maybe we should start terminating the lives of everyone over the age of 65 for starters. Then, anyone between the ages of 18 and 65 with terminal illnesses should be humanely euthanized. Children 18 and under with long term illnesses and no hope of recovery should also be euthanized.

This should be done in every single nation.
 
Hillary promised 100billion to poor countries to go along with the program.
I'm shocked nobody's pissed about this in the middle of the worse recession in our lives.
 
Topspin said:
Hillary promised 100billion to poor countries to go along with the program.
I'm shocked nobody's pissed about this in the middle of the worse recession in our lives.
Click to expand...

lots of people are pissed. problem is, the tax and spenders who want to bankrupt america are all for this and getting the only press. It's a 'humanitarian' effort that the MSM loves.
 
Onceler said:
No doubt; really, though, common sense has kind of left the building on this issue.

Much more progress could be made if they would pursue solid measures that would make a real difference, particular when it comes to technology. They seem to still be putting all of their eggs in the AGW basket, and even with that, are stopping short of fully understanding the science & implications of what they are doing...
Click to expand...

:good4u:

Agreed. That is what is so frustrating.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if man is responsible for the adverse climate change and warming, maybe they should do something serious about it......like population control.

in the USA, maybe we should start terminating the lives of everyone over the age of 65 for starters. Then, anyone between the ages of 18 and 65 with terminal illnesses should be humanely euthanized. Children 18 and under with long term illnesses and no hope of recovery should also be euthanized.

This should be done in every single nation.
Click to expand...

clearly what we should do is ask those who believe CO2 is a pollutant to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the world.

Lorax understands what we need to do...

The lil leg humper on the other hand just wants to run around like chicken little and pretend the sky is indeed falling. Really... he isn't kidding this time...

http://wallstreetpit.com/12973-the-nyt-has-been-predicting-polar-ice-melt-for-128-years
 
Cypress said:
It's been fascinating to watch the ever-evolving teabagger arguments on climate of the last ten years.

From "there is NO global warming", to "well, maybe there's global warming, but its not man's fault", to "More CO2 will be great for us!", to "well, there's nothing we can do about it anyway..."

Clearly teabaggers are completely devoid of any principle or consistency on this. As I believe Oncelear said, teabagger just react emotionally on this: if liberals are for it, teabaggers by default, have to be against it.


I can tell who on here understands science at the most rudimentary level, and it's easy for me to spot those who parrot "science" talking points they read on rightwing blogs.

Seriously, if you don't know anything about a topic, just don't comment. I try to keep my pie hole shut on any thread about stocks or porn. HaHa. It's obvious who doesn't understand science or environmental policy, and its just embarrassing to watch Dixie and his flat earther gang of teabaggers pontificate on the science of climate change.
Click to expand...

If you want to watch something that was "ever evolving", then you should have paid attention to what the Liberals (like you) have been doing.

It started as:
1. DOOMSDAY-GLOBAL WARMING: MANKIND IS TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE
then it was
2. DOOMSDAY-GLOBAL WARMING: MANKIND IS THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTER
then
3. DOOMSDAY-GLOBAL WARMING: MANKIND IS CONTRIBUTING
then
4. DOOMSDAY-CLIMATE CHANGE: MANKIND HAS A RESPONSIBILITY
then
5. DOOMSDAY-CLIMATE CHANGE: MANKIND HAS TO DO SOMETHING
then
6. DOOMSDAY-CLIMATE CHANGE: MANKIND SHOULD DO SOMETHING, JUST BECAUSE IT FEELS GOOD.

:facepalm:
 
Onceler said:
For the sake of this thread, I want to set aside AGW. Let's accept that AGW is real, and go even further, and accept that man is pretty much the sole cause of global warming.

What is the point of the climate deal, in that case? They are talking about a reduction in emissions which will result in nothing more than a token, symbolic reduction in atmospheric CO2. It will be negligible, by any scientific measurement you could use, and probably wouldn't even amount to a reduction with population increase.

Beyond that, if they accept their own rhetoric on climate change, they should understand that natural triggers kick in at a certain point anyway, adding to the output of greenhouse gases for the planet as a whole.

Even if AGW was real, the world would basically have to go cold turkey now to make any difference at all 100 years from now, and that ain't happening. It's certainly not happening in this climate deal.

Reducing carbon emissions is a noble goal, and - as most seem to agree on - accelerating the development of domestic renewables is something we should do anyway, for a variety of reasons. For all that they are putting into the current climate deal, however, it would be nice to hear them address what the thing would actually accomplish in real climate terms (that is, nothing)...
Click to expand...

Your right. Its far to late to stop global climate change. Its already here and to much damage has been done to reverse it.If we started to do something back in the 60ies when this problem was first recognized we might have been able to do something. Now were just going to have to take what comes.
 
Labelling co2 as a pollutant is just stupid. It's a critical organic compound needed by all plants on earth.

Limiting it's emissions is harmful to the enivorenment. It's connection to global warming is a farce, as recently proven by climategate.

Come off it,you anti-human green totalitarian eugenicists. Stop spreading lies and love humanity for once in your pitiful lives.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Labelling co2 as a pollutant is just stupid. It's a critical organic compound needed by all plants on earth.

Limiting it's emissions is harmful to the enivorenment. It's connection to global warming is a farce, as recently proven by climategate.

Come off it,you anti-human green totalitarian eugenicists. Stop spreading lies and love humanity for once in your pitiful lives.
Click to expand...


There is such a thing as to much of a good thing.In nature it isn't about right of wrong. Its about keeping the balance.To much co2 can kill.
 
Cypress said:
It's been fascinating to watch the ever-evolving teabagger arguments on climate of the last ten years.

From "there is NO global warming", to "well, maybe there's global warming, but its not man's fault", to "More CO2 will be great for us!", to "well, there's nothing we can do about it anyway..."

Clearly teabaggers are completely devoid of any principle or consistency on this. As I believe Oncelear said, teabagger just react emotionally on this: if liberals are for it, teabaggers by default, have to be against it.


I can tell who on here understands science at the most rudimentary level, and it's easy for me to spot those who parrot "science" talking points they read on rightwing blogs.

Seriously, if you don't know anything about a topic, just don't comment. I try to keep my pie hole shut on any thread about stocks or porn. HaHa. It's obvious who doesn't understand science or environmental policy, and its just embarrassing to watch Dixie and his flat earther gang of teabaggers pontificate on the science of climate change.
Click to expand...

you are so full of yourself and hot hateful Co2 I hope the EPA come and fines your smug ass..
 
Last edited:
Tea baggers have their head in the sand and dont have a clue as to how science works.They depend to much on biblical mythology to explain things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top