An excellent conversation

[Kosh]

The bottom line is you can not have a conversation with an AGW cult member as they are to busy pushing their religious beliefs on the masses. Pushing an agenda is not having a discussion or conversation, it is about the AGW religious cult preaching their religion..

 

[IanC]

The bottom line is you can not have a conversation with an AGW cult member as they are to busy pushing their religious beliefs on the masses. Pushing an agenda is not having a discussion or conversation, it is about the AGW religious cult preaching their religion..

I totally agree.

Mind you there are some from the other side that are just as impossible to converse with.

 

[flacaltenn]

Anything is a pollutant in relation to its negative effects on a human.

There's a criteria for the amount of exposure to any pollutant that makes it harmful to humans.. Ever get a water quality report from your supplier? Arsenic occurs naturally in many water sources but is below the MDL ?? which is the concentration that is clinically harmful. When you push MDL lower and lower like the EPA and ecowhacks are prone to do -- you are killing the small towns and cities that have to spend larger portions of their budget to comply.

Same thing with air particulates. You push too low and National Forests are "official polluters"...

In ANY of these pollution standards you will find (if you are not a mind-knumbed eco-fraud) that there is no such thing as pure water or pure air.

I've drank "pure" water used for semiconductor processing and it was about $30/gallon..

And when you leave the MDL's up, you kill them more directly.

If you have a desert community that has been living off a water source with low naturally occuring arsenic and they've already reduced the arsenic concentration from causing 6 clinical cases per 100,000 to 4 clinical cases per 100,000 and the community is only 5,000 people, requiring them to go 3 clinical cases/100000 is gonna kill and make more sick than the arsenic. IN FACT, at minimal levels, arsenic has beneficial effects on many species including humans..

There is no ZERO risk enviro law that passes rationality. All this is WAAAY off topic. So I'm out..

 

[Kosh]

The bottom line is you can not have a conversation with an AGW cult member as they are to busy pushing their religious beliefs on the masses. Pushing an agenda is not having a discussion or conversation, it is about the AGW religious cult preaching their religion..

I totally agree.

Mind you there are some from the other side that are just as impossible to converse with.

Yes but that is based on a mocking of the AGW cult that refute actual science. That is all you are left with when the AGW cult will not admit they are wrong and can not provide any datasets with source that proves that CO2 controls climate..

Also the amount of human CO2 is less than 1%, worldwide. Yet we have to spend trillions to curb CO2 emissions.

How can you do that, when the majority of it is natural?

 

[Crick]

Are you going to answer his questions Ian?

 

[IanC]

Are you going to answer his questions Ian?

I'm not really interested in answering questions any more. People seldom answer mine, you being a prime example.

But to make you happy, and to reiterate my past statements, I will repeat that I think most of the extra atmospheric CO2 is man made.

I do not think CO2 controls the climate but I do think it adds a push towards warming of roughly 1C per doubling. Of that 1C, I think at least some of the forcing is shunted into other pathways and will result in less than 1C of actual warming.

The hydrological system is poorly understood and the hotspot which is a necessary attribute of CO2 theory is simply not there. No feedback.

Can we slow CO2 emissions? Imperceptably at large expense. The technology is not here yet. Perhaps one day but not now.

I had to laugh when I heard that more than a third of the power generated in solar thermal power plants is from fossil fuel 'assist'. If the weaknesses of CAGW and renewable power were talked about rather than hidden behind unbelievable rhetoric and prophesies I would be more on side with the effort. As it is I am being lied to, and that pisses me off and makes me uncooperative.

I really don't know why climate science has tolerated shoddy work in the name of The Noble Cause. The trust in science but especially scientists involved has plummeted and will take a long time to earn back.

 

[Crick]

Are you going to answer his questions Ian?

I'm not really interested in answering questions any more. People seldom answer mine, you being a prime example.

He's an ally Ian. He could certainly use the enlightenment. And speaking of enlightenment, you seem to have lost track of the Golden Rule somewhere along the line.

But to make you happy, and to reiterate my past statements, I will repeat that I think most of the extra atmospheric CO2 is man made.

Shouldn't you explain how that can be when such a small percentage in any given year is anthropogenic? That's a commonly recurring objection. How can it build up so Ian?

I do not think CO2 controls the climate

What does that mean: "controls the climate"? Is that actually a claim made by the IPCC or the world's climate scientists on whose work they're based? All I had ever heard was that CO2 was the primary cause of warming.

but I do think it adds a push towards warming of roughly 1C per doubling.

Wouldn't 1C sensitivity still make it the primary cause of warming? Do you know of some other factor with a greater effect (actual now, not potential).

Of that 1C, I think at least some of the forcing is shunted into other pathways and will result in less than 1C of actual warming.

Shunted how? To where?

The hydrological system is poorly understood

And... so what? What is the connection you apparently believe exists between the hydrological cycle, CO2 and warming?

and the hotspot which is a necessary attribute of CO2 theory is simply not there. No feedback.

That is simply incorrect Ian. A hotspot will be produced by any increase in radiative forcing. The signature of GHG warming is not a tropospheric hotspot, but stratospheric cooling. See Figure 9.1 in the "Working Group I - The Physical Science Basis" in AR4.

Can we slow CO2 emissions? Imperceptably at large expense. The technology is not here yet. Perhaps one day but not now.

So we should not try?

I had to laugh when I heard that more than a third of the power generated in solar thermal power plants is from fossil fuel 'assist'.

You think a 2/3rds decrease in emissions is insignificant?

If the weaknesses of CAGW and renewable power were talked about rather than hidden behind unbelievable rhetoric and prophesies I would be more on side with the effort. As it is I am being lied to, and that pisses me off and makes me uncooperative.

What do the characteristics of renewable power technologies have to do with the validity of AGW? Nothing, Ian, absolutely nothing. And, specifically, what lies do you believe you've been told? Lies like the lack of a tropospheric hotspot falsifies the greenhouse effect? Lies like the world's climate scientists are making false reports to get rich from research grants? Lies like the IPCC is run by socialist liberals intent on world domination and the oppression of human freedoms? Lies like the world has not warmed since 1998?

I really don't know why climate science has tolerated shoddy work in the name of The Noble Cause. The trust in science but especially scientists involved has plummeted and will take a long time to earn back.

The apparent shoddiness has two causes: 1) the climate is complex, chaotic and cannot be accurately simulated in a laboratory setting and 2) An extremely well funded group is doing everything they can to make you believe the work is shoddy because the results of that work threaten their very profitable existence.

 

[jc456]

Are you going to answer his questions Ian?

I'm not really interested in answering questions any more. People seldom answer mine, you being a prime example.

He's an ally Ian. He could certainly use the enlightenment. And speaking of enlightenment, you seem to have lost track of the Golden Rule somewhere along the line.

But to make you happy, and to reiterate my past statements, I will repeat that I think most of the extra atmospheric CO2 is man made.

Shouldn't you explain how that can be when such a small percentage in any given year is anthropogenic? That's a commonly recurring objection. How can it build up so Ian?

I do not think CO2 controls the climate

What does that mean: "controls the climate"? Is that actually a claim made by the IPCC or the world's climate scientists on whose work they're based? All I had ever heard was that CO2 was the primary cause of warming.

but I do think it adds a push towards warming of roughly 1C per doubling.

Wouldn't 1C sensitivity still make it the primary cause of warming? Do you know of some other factor with a greater effect (actual now, not potential).

Of that 1C, I think at least some of the forcing is shunted into other pathways and will result in less than 1C of actual warming.

Shunted how? To where?

The hydrological system is poorly understood

And... so what? What is the connection you apparently believe exists between the hydrological cycle, CO2 and warming?

and the hotspot which is a necessary attribute of CO2 theory is simply not there. No feedback.

That is simply incorrect Ian. A hotspot will be produced by any increase in radiative forcing. The signature of GHG warming is not a tropospheric hotspot, but stratospheric cooling. See Figure 9.1 in the "Working Group I - The Physical Science Basis" in AR4.

Can we slow CO2 emissions? Imperceptably at large expense. The technology is not here yet. Perhaps one day but not now.

So we should not try?

I had to laugh when I heard that more than a third of the power generated in solar thermal power plants is from fossil fuel 'assist'.

You think a 2/3rds decrease in emissions is insignificant?

If the weaknesses of CAGW and renewable power were talked about rather than hidden behind unbelievable rhetoric and prophesies I would be more on side with the effort. As it is I am being lied to, and that pisses me off and makes me uncooperative.

What do the characteristics of renewable power technologies have to do with the validity of AGW? Nothing, Ian, absolutely nothing. And, specifically, what lies do you believe you've been told? Lies like the lack of a tropospheric hotspot falsifies the greenhouse effect? Lies like the world's climate scientists are making false reports to get rich from research grants? Lies like the IPCC is run by socialist liberals intent on world domination and the oppression of human freedoms? Lies like the world has not warmed since 1998?

I really don't know why climate science has tolerated shoddy work in the name of The Noble Cause. The trust in science but especially scientists involved has plummeted and will take a long time to earn back.

The apparent shoddiness has two causes: 1) the climate is complex, chaotic and cannot be accurately simulated in a laboratory setting and 2) An extremely well funded group is doing everything they can to make you believe the work is shoddy because the results of that work threaten their very profitable existence.

Bottom line Crick until you can post the evidence that CO2 doubling is more than 1 degree C, you have zip to stand on. Most every skeptic scientist will tell you 1 degree C for doubling of CO2. 1 degree. The models show 3 to 5 and no where.............................no where is there any evidence to support that number. None. Now dude, unless you have that evidence Ian doesn't owe you jack. You owe him. what's it gonna be boy, yes or .......no?

 

[Crick]

So, Ian, do you believe we should all follow the Golden Rule?

If the answer to that is yes, are you going to answer his questions?