The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps

[Crick]

I guarantee you it would be cheaper to deal with the problem as early as possible. But the debate is pointless. Far too much of the world is as stupid and as lazy as are you. No one is going to act in time to accomplish anything. Human culture will feel the full brunt of it's errors. You should be pleased. Billions will suffer. At least hundreds of thousands will die. But at least the fossil fuel industry will get to sell every last drop it sucks from the Earth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much should you spend to prevent having to relocate several hundred million people?

How much should you spend to prevent a billion people from running short on drinking water?

How much should you spend to prevent a billion people from going hungry?

Why would we have to relocate anyone?

Obama stopped the rise of the oceans, just by getting the Dem nomination.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guarantee you it would be cheaper to deal with the problem as early as possible. But the debate is pointless. Far too much of the world is as stupid and as lazy as are you. No one is going to act in time to accomplish anything. Human culture will feel the full brunt of it's errors. You should be pleased. Billions will suffer. At least hundreds of thousands will die. But at least the fossil fuel industry will get to sell every last drop it sucks from the Earth.

I guarantee you it would be cheaper to deal with the problem as early as possible.

"We must heat our homes in winter with windmills and solar, because in 2080, things will get bad. No really! My reconstructed data proves it"

"97% of scientists agree"

Wow! 97% of a million scientists?

"No"

97% of 100,000 scientists?

"No"

97% of how many?

"77"

 

[Crick]

I told you you'd be happy.

 

[daveman]

So, is that really the best you've got?

If water starts pouring under your front door, the fact that you'd die without it doesn't prevent it's presence a foot deep on your living room floor from being "a problem".

The purpose for this set of notes was to demonstrate AGW without invoking a computer model that all you deniers seem to think are the work of demons.

If you have some objective, technically supportable disagreement with any of the six point Dr Schmidt makes, let's hear 'em. "Carbon is the building block of life" wouldn't sell a six year old.

The amount of CO2 on this planet is the exact same as existed for the last 4 billion years or so. Very little has been added from extra planetary sources so CO2 is merely being used and reused in an endless cycle. If the atmospheric level of CO2 drops to 200ppm or less nothing grows and we all starve. That's a fact.

I don't care to "argue" with Schmidt because he's not capable of arguing a point. He is merely capable of talking at people. If they have differing opinions he prevent them from being published. In other words he's a scientific fraud. I don't waste my time with frauds.

There is currently significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been in all of human history.

There is currently significantly more CO2 in the ocean than there has been in all of human history.

You don't care to argue with Schmidt because he's got more smarts in last night's nail clipping of his left little toe than you've had in your entire body over your entire life.

And everyone here knows that for a fact.

News flash: You don't have the authority to speak for everyone here. You may speak for your fellow Borg hive-minders, but not for normal people.

 

[daveman]

The other day I saw that human's give off more CO2 or Sulfur than all the volcano's on earth. But when I tried to find proof of that on the web, I couldn't find shit. So people don't even realize how bad things are. This is why human's don't deserve this planet and it will be much better off and so will all the other animals that survive when we destroy this planet for humans. Cockroaches will be happy we are gone.

Personally I’d be more inclined to believe the United States Geological Survey and on this page they address the specific question “Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity”. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007...

The conclusion – “volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually…the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.”

I'm not offing myself out of some moonbat romantic view of Gaea. You go ahead.

 

[daveman]

How much should you spend to prevent having to relocate several hundred million people?

How much should you spend to prevent a billion people from running short on drinking water?

How much should you spend to prevent a billion people from going hungry?

Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that can save us.

 

[Crick]

Where in heaven's name do you get that idea (the one about which you're being sarcastic)?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All this because the laboratory is so consistently cruel to their theory

 

[daveman]

Where in heaven's name do you get that idea (the one about which you're being sarcastic)?

From Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III and lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.​

You are tremendously ignorant about your cult. But then, if you were intelligent and educated, you wouldn't be in the cult, would you?

 

[Crick]

What are you talking about?

 

[daveman]

What are you talking about?

It really is simple. Pay attention.

The AGW cult has nothing to do with the environment. Its desired end state is greater and greater government control over individual lives, and ultimately, forced world socialism. Envoronmentalism is merely a thin veneer, a façade to lure in the simple-minded (Hint: You) so they do their cult leaders' bidding. Voting as they're told, for instance.

As Edenhofer said, the connection with environmentalism and international climate policy is illusory. It's economic policy, pure and simple. Ceding more and more power to government.

"It's for the children!!" is a tagline for the suckers. You're being used, and you don't have the wit to recognize it.

I'd tell you to wake up, but you're enjoying the dream too much.

 

[Crick]

My "What are you talking about?" comment was aimed at Crusader Frank.

As for Edenhofer's comment, you make the mistake of believing the man has any power at all. He's an economist. He is not a government official. He holds no elected office. No one is taking direction from him. Even the IPCC as a whole has no power to set policy. And, as we have all seen, it has done a very poor job at convincing anyone to do much of anything. So, Edenhofer's comments are irrelevant. I don't believe socialism is required to solve our climate problems. I don't even think it would be helpful. And then there's the point that Edenhofer never actually said anything about socialism. He spoke about redistributing wealth. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. Edenhofer was pointing out that wealthy nations have caused climate warming and will end up paying to prevent or repair the damage. Poor nations will not be forced to pay and will benefit from the payments of the wealthy. That doesn't make anyone socialist.

It almost seems as if you believe proper governance requires some amount of poverty.

 

[daveman]

My "What are you talking about?" comment was aimed at Crusader Frank.

As for Edenhofer's comment, you make the mistake of believing the man has any power at all. He's an economist. He is not a government official. He holds no elected office. No one is taking direction from him. Even the IPCC as a whole has no power to set policy. And, as we have all seen, it has done a very poor job at convincing anyone to do much of anything. So, Edenhofer's comments are irrelevant. I don't believe socialism is required to solve our climate problems. I don't even think it would be helpful. And then there's the point that Edenhofer never actually said anything about socialism. He spoke about redistributing wealth. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. Edenhofer was pointing out that wealthy nations have caused climate warming and will end up paying to prevent or repair the damage. Poor nations will not be forced to pay and will benefit from the payments of the wealthy. That doesn't make anyone socialist.

Global welfare. That sounds grand, doesn't it? And by the way -- it's socialism.

It almost seems as if you believe proper governance requires some amount of poverty.

Proper governance requires the minimum amount of government interference in people's lives conducive with civilized society. Ensure everyone has the same opportunities to succeed or fail. When government meddles and starts picking winners, it does far more harm than good -- unless you think Obama flushing half a billion dollars down the Solyndra toilet was a rousing success. Wouldn't put it past you.

But I'm guessing you see a far more active role for government in people's lives. For their own good, of course.

Meanwhile, look around you. Look at what the green movement is pushing. You'll see I'm right -- if you're strong enough to walk away from the cult.

 

[Crick]

What I see is that you're a libertarian anarchist who doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

 

[westwall]

What I see is that you're a libertarian anarchist who doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

What we see is you are intellectually dishonest and no amount of factual information will sway you from your religious fanaticism. No biggie, we understand you are terrified of blaspheming....most religious nutters are.

 

[RollingThunder]

What I see is that you're a libertarian anarchist who doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

What we see is you are intellectually dishonest and no amount of factual information will sway you from your religious fanaticism.

LOLOLOL.......that's a hoot.....you have no "factual information" and no intellect, walleyed.....all you have are fraudulent denier cult myths and crackpot conspiracy theories.....you're a gullible bamboozled anti-science retard with your head firmly wedged up your asshole.

 

[Kosh]

And it is the AGW cult that made CO2 a pollutant.

Even though man only contributes about 1% of the total.

Pollution does not equal "Global Warming".

 

[Crick]

Westwall, were you under the impression that in our debate over socialism and the wisdom of spending real money to save the world, that Daveman was throwing factual information at me?

If so, you need to reread the thread.

It's almost funny that you folks can go to such lengths to accuse mainstream science of the intellectual flaws you yourselves exhibit to the Nth degree. It tells us that you deniers know you're making poor choices.

 

[daveman]

What I see is that you're a libertarian anarchist who doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

I am neither a libertarian nor an anarchist. You fail.

I give a shit about everybody. That's why I oppose progressivism. It's an evil, murderous philosophy that's failed spectacularly and with lakes of blood wherever it's gone unchecked.

Your own willfully-small world view does not define reality. You should probably accept that. Right now.