Global Warming: A 98% Consensus Of Nothing

[AlexWA]

it is too bad that people like AlexWA can't tell the difference between pollution and CO2.

Ian I fully understand that Co2 is a natural gas that we all emit every time we breath as well as plants. I also fully understand that other gases like methane are also natural gasses emitted by plants and various ecosystems that all goes into the atmosphere. The connection is that the Earth can balance the natural emission of various gasses such as Co2 and methane, it has for billions of years, however, when we as human beings create addition sources of these gasses and emissions and overwhelm and clog our atmosphere by allowing millions upon millions of extra tons of these gases to interact with our atmosphere it becomes pollution. From that pollution of excess gas it makes it much more difficult for these gases to escape, which then can cause a warming trend, i.e. a greenhouse effect.

I am not blind to the fact that C02 and other natural gasses can not be eliminated since they are natural and released from the very plants and ecosystems that sustain life on this planet. But i am not blind at all to the fact that we pump millions of tons of excess gasses and pollutants into our atmosphere every single day. To deny that this has a negative affect on our planet and can cause heat to be trapped between us and the atmosphere is irresponsible in my opinion.

 

[flacaltenn]

it is too bad that people like AlexWA can't tell the difference between pollution and CO2.

Ian I fully understand that Co2 is a natural gas that we all emit every time we breath as well as plants. I also fully understand that other gases like methane are also natural gasses emitted by plants and various ecosystems that all goes into the atmosphere. The connection is that the Earth can balance the natural emission of various gasses such as Co2 and methane, it has for billions of years, however, when we as human beings create addition sources of these gasses and emissions and overwhelm and clog our atmosphere by allowing millions upon millions of extra tons of these gases to interact with our atmosphere it becomes pollution. From that pollution of excess gas it makes it much more difficult for these gases to escape, which then can cause a warming trend, i.e. a greenhouse effect.

I am not blind to the fact that C02 and other natural gasses can not be eliminated since they are natural and released from the very plants and ecosystems that sustain life on this planet. But i am not blind at all to the fact that we pump millions of tons of excess gasses and pollutants into our atmosphere every single day. To deny that this has a negative affect on our planet and can cause heat to be trapped between us and the atmosphere is irresponsible in my opinion.

So -- the times when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and CO2 was 6 to 10 TIMES what it is today?? You have proof of an apocalyptic weather and climate? You SURE that the effects of CO2 are not largely masked by water vapor which absorbs heat in similiar frequency bands and is the DOMINANT greenhouse gas?

And what are these NEW energy sources you THINK we have? Before you start hitting on the old sources -- it would be nice to know what you're hiding. Because wind is not an alternative -- it's a supplement. Same with solar. And all the others on your Green list have SEVERE environmental consequences...

 

[IanC]

it is too bad that people like AlexWA can't tell the difference between pollution and CO2.

Ian I fully understand that Co2 is a natural gas that we all emit every time we breath as well as plants. I also fully understand that other gases like methane are also natural gasses emitted by plants and various ecosystems that all goes into the atmosphere. The connection is that the Earth can balance the natural emission of various gasses such as Co2 and methane, it has for billions of years, however, when we as human beings create addition sources of these gasses and emissions and overwhelm and clog our atmosphere by allowing millions upon millions of extra tons of these gases to interact with our atmosphere it becomes pollution. From that pollution of excess gas it makes it much more difficult for these gases to escape, which then can cause a warming trend, i.e. a greenhouse effect.

I am not blind to the fact that C02 and other natural gasses can not be eliminated since they are natural and released from the very plants and ecosystems that sustain life on this planet. But i am not blind at all to the fact that we pump millions of tons of excess gasses and pollutants into our atmosphere every single day. To deny that this has a negative affect on our planet and can cause heat to be trapped between us and the atmosphere is irresponsible in my opinion.

I dont deny that CO2 has some small effect on radiative exchange. I do deny that it is the catastrophe that many think it is. warmer temps have put us in a climate optimum! we can feed our population, and for the most part live happy productive lives because of available sources of energy.

I believe we should burn fossil fuels in the cleanest, most productive way economically feasible but I dont think we should go back to pre-industrial times. have you actually thought any of this through or do you just consider anything that humans do as evil? we are always going to have an impact on the environment, just by being here.

 

[polarbear]

quibble

Good morning...

Ok post industrial revolution the Earth's average temperature has risen consistently. The past decade was one of the hottest on record. Look at the NASA report since the industrial revolution, it's not just coincidence. Arctic ice is rapidly vanishing, and all you have to do is look at the caps for proof of that. Ice sheets are melting. Glaciers are rapidly decreasing around the world. Sea levels are rising. The forests and oceans ability to absorb CO2 levels cannot keep up pollution levels resulting in more acidic waters. Coral reefs are being stressed by water changes to the point that massive bleaching continues...and no it is not just from farm runoff and boat props. Corals are living creatures and significantly react to water temperatures and acidity.

No it`s not the hottest on record, as a matter of fact we have been cooling off during the last decade.
It`s not warmer air that melt ice sheets from above. Ice is dissolved by the water underneath. Why do You think icebergs roll?
Glaciers are also "melting" during sub zero temperatures in the arctic. Chunks huge enough to cause earth tremors. which we can detect on our base at CFS Alert rumble down the Greenland and Ellesmere Island mountains in the midst of winter.
That`s because glaciers calve, a process driven by gravity and slope gradient. And the only time glaciers do build up is during a "warm" arctic winter when warm moist air adds snow to the lee side of the mountains up there. The wind-face sides of these mountains have always been bare.
At least read up a bit on American History, particularly on Lt. Greely`s Arctic expedition..
More "acidic" waters...? Where ? Is that where You got that from.:....?
Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[4] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans,[5][6]

1.) There is no way that anyone could determine Ocean pH in 1751.
The "pH" concept exists only since 1909.
So it`s back to an "estimate"...the usual "climate science".
2.) pH 8.14 is a long way from "acidic". To be acidic the pH has to drop to 6.9999
I am certain You have no idea what "pH" even is ! Else You would realize how the statement "increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans" is blown out of proportion.
CO2 alarmist like to list the CO2 in ppm not in %, because if You express it in % the "man made CO2" does`nt look as impressive as it does in ppm.
So why don`t You do the same with "acidity" as with the CO2 and express the amount of H+ in ppm also?
The Hydrogen Ion concentration for a pH of 8.25 is 0.0056 ppm H+
For pH 8.14 it`s 0.0072 ppm H+
Even if it were all caused by man that`s only 0.0016 ppm or just a little over 1 part in 1 BILLION.
And You want to tell me that an extra 1.6 parts per billion of Hydrogen(+) is killing corals...????
Then Hydrogen(+) is the most toxic substance known to man.
If You believe that, then You better quit drinking water, because pure water has 0.1 ppm H+ in it. That`s 14 times more lethal than what You say is killing the corals.
The Oceanwater near Hydrothermal vents is as acidic as pH 2.8 and is teaming with life. These vents are all around the underwater volcanoes which exist along every tectonic plate and account for over 75% of the earth`s total (yearly) magma output. Take a wild guess, if anything has indeed dropped the Ocean`s pH what may have caused that.
I`ll give You a hint. This huge amount of acidic water which is produced by underwater magma venting has a H+ concentration of 1600 ppm.
And You want to quibble about the "extra" 0.0016 ppm H+ that "climate scientists" claim we added since 1751...???
But that`s what You call "impact" ... while at the same time calling others "arrogant", yet You have no idea what a pH is, how much of absorbed IR radiation is actually converted to a temperature increase, how glaciers calve...and I bet You even believe that there is actually such a thing as an "Ozone hole" ....man made of course.

To deny that we are impacting this planet to me is just blind and extremely arrogant

Don`t bother to reply

 

[flacaltenn]

P--Bear -- I like the "do not reply" part.. It's actually pretty courteous. Like when the air controllers know you're busy in the plane and tell you "no need to reply". I have a feeling that our newest poster must be pretty busy in the cockpit with these wild assertions..

Interesting part of the 30% more acidic claim as it applies to the coral reefs --- The daily tides, temperature and natural conditions contribute as much at +/-0.40 PH on MANY atolls. It changes by 4 or 5 times what the "co2 induced" change is within hours. In fact, so many of these ecosystems have never had adequate real-time monitoring of PH -- so researchers are just becoming aware of the wide natural swings in PH for these places..

And if you do the math.. Fresh rainwater is 930% more acidic than the average seawater. YIKES !!!!!

 

[IanC]

Remember the paper that claimed CO2 caused obesity because there is a strong correlation? It kinda missed the mark when you consider the atmospheric component relative to the biological. But hey, CO2 is the driver of everything, right?

 

[AlexWA]

Climate change aside for a moment. Do any of you that are trying to make the argument that climate change is not real or not as bad as it seems believe that human beings are destructive to the environment and that human beings can and are affecting the Earth in a negative way?

 

[westwall]

it is too bad that people like AlexWA can't tell the difference between pollution and CO2.

Ian I fully understand that Co2 is a natural gas that we all emit every time we breath as well as plants. I also fully understand that other gases like methane are also natural gasses emitted by plants and various ecosystems that all goes into the atmosphere. The connection is that the Earth can balance the natural emission of various gasses such as Co2 and methane, it has for billions of years, however, when we as human beings create addition sources of these gasses and emissions and overwhelm and clog our atmosphere by allowing millions upon millions of extra tons of these gases to interact with our atmosphere it becomes pollution. From that pollution of excess gas it makes it much more difficult for these gases to escape, which then can cause a warming trend, i.e. a greenhouse effect.

I am not blind to the fact that C02 and other natural gasses can not be eliminated since they are natural and released from the very plants and ecosystems that sustain life on this planet. But i am not blind at all to the fact that we pump millions of tons of excess gasses and pollutants into our atmosphere every single day. To deny that this has a negative affect on our planet and can cause heat to be trapped between us and the atmosphere is irresponsible in my opinion.

The problem with your contention is it has never been proven in a lab experiment and natural CO2 production accounts for 95% of the total CO2 budget of the planet. Mankind contributes a vanishingly small amount of CO2.

Furthermore it is proven that the higher the CO2 levels the better plants grow to use the CO2 to grow etc. etc. etc. There has never yet been a single bit of empirical data that shows CO2 to be a bad thing.

Everything you are concerned about is generated ONLY in computer models. The real world has shown those models to be severly lacking and they have been shown repeatedly to have no basis in relity.

 

[westwall]

Climate change aside for a moment. Do any of you that are trying to make the argument that climate change is not real or not as bad as it seems believe that human beings are destructive to the environment and that human beings can and are affecting the Earth in a negative way?

We all agree that man is very capable of damaging the environment in a profound way in localised situations. Of that there is no doubt. That's why anti POLLUTION laws are quite good. CO2 is not a pollutant and anyone who claims that to be so, has no idea what atmospheric science is about.

CO2 is a gas that is essential to life. Were it to drop to a level of 200ppm or less no plants would grow and we would all starve. All paleontological evidence we have (and it is pretty significant) shows that when the planet is warm life is good UNIVERSALLY. Plants, animals, and people allways do well when the planet is warm.

The opposite is true when it is cold. That too is very well known.

The reason why CO2 is the target of these fraudsters is it is created by everything and it is taxable. Remember back in the old days when they said the government couldn't tax the air you breathe and your death? Well they figured out a long time ago how to tax your death and now they are trying to tax the very air you breathe. If you actually cared about the environemnt you should ask yourself why all the carbon tax schemes have ample provisions for taxing the creation of CO2 but have no means listed in actually controlling pollution. NONE. You are allowed to pollute, you just have to pay more for the priviledge. A thinking person, a real thinking person would wonder why that is....

 

[AlexWA]

Climate change aside for a moment. Do any of you that are trying to make the argument that climate change is not real or not as bad as it seems believe that human beings are destructive to the environment and that human beings can and are affecting the Earth in a negative way?

We all agree that man is very capable of damaging the environment in a profound way in localised situations. Of that there is no doubt. That's why anti POLLUTION laws are quite good. CO2 is not a pollutant and anyone who claims that to be so, has no idea what atmospheric science is about.

CO2 is a gas that is essential to life. Were it to drop to a level of 200ppm or less no plants would grow and we would all starve. All paleontological evidence we have (and it is pretty significant) shows that when the planet is warm life is good UNIVERSALLY. Plants, animals, and people allways do well when the planet is warm.

The opposite is true when it is cold. That too is very well known.

The reason why CO2 is the target of these fraudsters is it is created by everything and it is taxable. Remember back in the old days when they said the government couldn't tax the air you breather and your death? Well they figured out a long time ago how to tax your death and now they are trying to tax the very air you breathe. If you actually cared about the environemnt you should ask yourself why all the carbon tax schemes have ample provisions for taxing the creation of CO2 but have no means listed in actually controlling pollution. NONE. You are allowed to pollute, you just have to pay more for the priviledge. A thinking person, a real thinking person would wonder why that is....

So correct me if i am assuming too much here but so you are saying that the harmful emissions that come from over a billion cars, millions of planes, thousands upon thousands of factories and industrial plants constantly spewing its harmful gasses into the atmosphere every day of the week contributes only localized pollution into the atmosphere and isn't contributing at all to climate change and the slow but steady destruction of life on this planet?

 

[flacaltenn]

it is too bad that people like AlexWA can't tell the difference between pollution and CO2.

Ian I fully understand that Co2 is a natural gas that we all emit every time we breath as well as plants. I also fully understand that other gases like methane are also natural gasses emitted by plants and various ecosystems that all goes into the atmosphere. The connection is that the Earth can balance the natural emission of various gasses such as Co2 and methane, it has for billions of years, however, when we as human beings create addition sources of these gasses and emissions and overwhelm and clog our atmosphere by allowing millions upon millions of extra tons of these gases to interact with our atmosphere it becomes pollution. From that pollution of excess gas it makes it much more difficult for these gases to escape, which then can cause a warming trend, i.e. a greenhouse effect.

I am not blind to the fact that C02 and other natural gasses can not be eliminated since they are natural and released from the very plants and ecosystems that sustain life on this planet. But i am not blind at all to the fact that we pump millions of tons of excess gasses and pollutants into our atmosphere every single day. To deny that this has a negative affect on our planet and can cause heat to be trapped between us and the atmosphere is irresponsible in my opinion.

The problem with your contention is it has nbever been proven in a lab experiment and natural CO2 production accounts for 95% of the total CO2 budget of the planet. Mankind contributes a vanishingly small amount of CO2.

Furthermore it is proven that the higher the CO2 levels the better plants grow to use the CO2 to grow etc. etc. etc. There has never yet been a single bit of empirical data that shows CO2 to be a bad thing.

Everything you are concerned about is generated ONLY in computer models. The real world has shown those models to be severly lacking and they have been shown repeatedly to have no basis in relity.

Perhaps AlexWA missed the wonderful news that CO2 emissions in the US are DOWN to 1995 levels. All WITHOUT the UN or cap and trade or taxes or appreciable expansion of "alternatives". Mostly because the market has an EXCESS of cleaner Natural Gas.

Soooo -- if the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa don't go down -- Alex will have to go nag some other countries about destroying the planet..

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate change aside for a moment. Do any of you that are trying to make the argument that climate change is not real or not as bad as it seems believe that human beings are destructive to the environment and that human beings can and are affecting the Earth in a negative way?

We all agree that man is very capable of damaging the environment in a profound way in localised situations. Of that there is no doubt. That's why anti POLLUTION laws are quite good. CO2 is not a pollutant and anyone who claims that to be so, has no idea what atmospheric science is about.

CO2 is a gas that is essential to life. Were it to drop to a level of 200ppm or less no plants would grow and we would all starve. All paleontological evidence we have (and it is pretty significant) shows that when the planet is warm life is good UNIVERSALLY. Plants, animals, and people allways do well when the planet is warm.

The opposite is true when it is cold. That too is very well known.

The reason why CO2 is the target of these fraudsters is it is created by everything and it is taxable. Remember back in the old days when they said the government couldn't tax the air you breather and your death? Well they figured out a long time ago how to tax your death and now they are trying to tax the very air you breathe. If you actually cared about the environemnt you should ask yourself why all the carbon tax schemes have ample provisions for taxing the creation of CO2 but have no means listed in actually controlling pollution. NONE. You are allowed to pollute, you just have to pay more for the priviledge. A thinking person, a real thinking person would wonder why that is....

So correct me if i am assuming too much here but so you are saying that the harmful emissions that come from over a billion cars, millions of planes, thousands upon thousands of factories and industrial plants constantly spewing its harmful gasses into the atmosphere every day of the week contributes only localized pollution into the atmosphere and isn't contributing at all to climate change and the slow but steady destruction of life on this planet?

CO2 is not a pollutant. And by focusing on CO2 -- and purposely confusing the issues, the pseudo-econauts are minimizing the importance of addressing these other more life-threatening issues.

I can fix CO2 tomorrow.. And tear down the dams and free the salmon. AND I can get rid of the biggest polluting coal plants. We need 250 new nuclear plants and all that wonderful stuff will happen.. Which are you more afraid of AlexWA? The destruction of the planet or nuclear power plants?

Realize also -- that I'm an ACTUAL environmentalist. One that will STOP your moron siblings from drilling for geothermal power because it's WAAAY more destructive than drilling for oil. Or will stop you from burning burning trees and calling it biomass, because it's essentially an excuse to build garbage incinerators. I've already linked the Nature Conservancy into my estate and I'm in awe of how easy it is to actually save open space and nature when you USE CAPITALISM to protect it..

 

[westwall]

Climate change aside for a moment. Do any of you that are trying to make the argument that climate change is not real or not as bad as it seems believe that human beings are destructive to the environment and that human beings can and are affecting the Earth in a negative way?

We all agree that man is very capable of damaging the environment in a profound way in localised situations. Of that there is no doubt. That's why anti POLLUTION laws are quite good. CO2 is not a pollutant and anyone who claims that to be so, has no idea what atmospheric science is about.

CO2 is a gas that is essential to life. Were it to drop to a level of 200ppm or less no plants would grow and we would all starve. All paleontological evidence we have (and it is pretty significant) shows that when the planet is warm life is good UNIVERSALLY. Plants, animals, and people allways do well when the planet is warm.

The opposite is true when it is cold. That too is very well known.

The reason why CO2 is the target of these fraudsters is it is created by everything and it is taxable. Remember back in the old days when they said the government couldn't tax the air you breather and your death? Well they figured out a long time ago how to tax your death and now they are trying to tax the very air you breathe. If you actually cared about the environemnt you should ask yourself why all the carbon tax schemes have ample provisions for taxing the creation of CO2 but have no means listed in actually controlling pollution. NONE. You are allowed to pollute, you just have to pay more for the priviledge. A thinking person, a real thinking person would wonder why that is....

So correct me if i am assuming too much here but so you are saying that the harmful emissions that come from over a billion cars, millions of planes, thousands upon thousands of factories and industrial plants constantly spewing its harmful gasses into the atmosphere every day of the week contributes only localized pollution into the atmosphere and isn't contributing at all to climate change and the slow but steady destruction of life on this planet?

Nope, I didn't say that at all. Toxic gases certainly DO cause harm...that is why there are regulations controlling their emissions. CO2 on the other hand is not a pollutant, that's why they just want to tax you to "pollute" but don't want to prevent it in the slightest.

Can you not understand that little problem? All other pollutants are MANDATED to be removed or their effects cleaned up in the First World nations, the Third World not so much. CO2 production is merely taxed, there is no mandate to REMOVE it.

A thinking person would wonder why.

 

[AlexWA]

We all agree that man is very capable of damaging the environment in a profound way in localised situations. Of that there is no doubt. That's why anti POLLUTION laws are quite good. CO2 is not a pollutant and anyone who claims that to be so, has no idea what atmospheric science is about.

CO2 is a gas that is essential to life. Were it to drop to a level of 200ppm or less no plants would grow and we would all starve. All paleontological evidence we have (and it is pretty significant) shows that when the planet is warm life is good UNIVERSALLY. Plants, animals, and people allways do well when the planet is warm.

The opposite is true when it is cold. That too is very well known.

The reason why CO2 is the target of these fraudsters is it is created by everything and it is taxable. Remember back in the old days when they said the government couldn't tax the air you breather and your death? Well they figured out a long time ago how to tax your death and now they are trying to tax the very air you breathe. If you actually cared about the environemnt you should ask yourself why all the carbon tax schemes have ample provisions for taxing the creation of CO2 but have no means listed in actually controlling pollution. NONE. You are allowed to pollute, you just have to pay more for the priviledge. A thinking person, a real thinking person would wonder why that is....

So correct me if i am assuming too much here but so you are saying that the harmful emissions that come from over a billion cars, millions of planes, thousands upon thousands of factories and industrial plants constantly spewing its harmful gasses into the atmosphere every day of the week contributes only localized pollution into the atmosphere and isn't contributing at all to climate change and the slow but steady destruction of life on this planet?

CO2 is not a pollutant. And by focusing on CO2 -- and purposely confusing the issues, the pseudo-econauts are minimizing the importance of addressing these other more life-threatening issues.

I can fix CO2 tomorrow.. And tear down the dams and free the salmon. AND I can get rid of the biggest polluting coal plants. We need 250 new nuclear plants and all that wonderful stuff will happen.. Which are you more afraid of AlexWA? The destruction of the planet or nuclear power plants?

Realize also -- that I'm an ACTUAL environmentalist. One that will STOP your moron siblings from drilling for geothermal power because it's WAAAY more destructive than drilling for oil. Or will stop you from burning burning trees and calling it biomass, because it's essentially an excuse to build garbage incinerators. I've already linked the Nature Conservancy into my estate and I'm in awe of how easy it is to actually save open space and nature when you USE CAPITALISM to protect it..

You condescension aside I am not just talking about Co2. I am talking about all of the harmful emissions that are pumped into the air and drained into our water systems each and every day in all corners of the globe. In is not just a local problem and we are not so small that we can not have an affect.

To answer your question i am afraid of people ignoring the blatant disregard for this planet and how our actions yield real world consequences. I am afraid that because of peoples apathy towards the environment we will continue to lose wonderful plant and animal species across the Earth. I am afraid of the selfishness that most humans have towards the resources on this planet from energy sources to animals.

I am happy that you would like to close coal plants though. Alternative forms of energy need to be explored and put at the forefront. Oil, coal, and other outdated fuels are not the future, and i'm sorry but i don't think nuclear is either and i would not want to see 250 new nuclear plants built.

 

[flacaltenn]

So correct me if i am assuming too much here but so you are saying that the harmful emissions that come from over a billion cars, millions of planes, thousands upon thousands of factories and industrial plants constantly spewing its harmful gasses into the atmosphere every day of the week contributes only localized pollution into the atmosphere and isn't contributing at all to climate change and the slow but steady destruction of life on this planet?

CO2 is not a pollutant. And by focusing on CO2 -- and purposely confusing the issues, the pseudo-econauts are minimizing the importance of addressing these other more life-threatening issues.

I can fix CO2 tomorrow.. And tear down the dams and free the salmon. AND I can get rid of the biggest polluting coal plants. We need 250 new nuclear plants and all that wonderful stuff will happen.. Which are you more afraid of AlexWA? The destruction of the planet or nuclear power plants?

Realize also -- that I'm an ACTUAL environmentalist. One that will STOP your moron siblings from drilling for geothermal power because it's WAAAY more destructive than drilling for oil. Or will stop you from burning burning trees and calling it biomass, because it's essentially an excuse to build garbage incinerators. I've already linked the Nature Conservancy into my estate and I'm in awe of how easy it is to actually save open space and nature when you USE CAPITALISM to protect it..

You condescension aside I am not just talking about Co2. I am talking about all of the harmful emissions that are pumped into the air and drained into our water systems each and every day in all corners of the globe. In is not just a local problem and we are not so small that we can not have an affect.

To answer your question i am afraid of people ignoring the blatant disregard for this planet and how our actions yield real world consequences. I am afraid that because of peoples apathy towards the environment we will continue to lose wonderful plant and animal species across the Earth. I am afraid of the selfishness that most humans have towards the resources on this planet from energy sources to animals.

I am happy that you would like to close coal plants though. Alternative forms of energy need to be explored and put at the forefront. Oil, coal, and other outdated fuels are not the future, and i'm sorry but i don't think nuclear is either and i would not want to see 250 new nuclear plants built.

If you don't want to FIX Global warming with proven technology we have today -- then you must be MORE frightened by nuclear power than you are the "destructive power of CO2". Do I have that right?

Don't think I was condescending.. Not to you -- because we've just met. But I do harbor grudges against Faux enviromentalists who have double standards when it comes to ideas like geothermal and biomass.

My main point to you is you have support from me for a lot of the issues that concern you.. But there's a large faction of us that are tired of the distortions about man-made climate change. Lumping that in with all your other issues and blurring the distinctions between issues that need different solutions, does nothing for your causes. Especially when there's so much blatant Crony Capitalism attached to the windmills and solar fantasies that are being pushed LARGELY with the hysteria behind man-made CO2 and global warming.

 

[westwall]

So correct me if i am assuming too much here but so you are saying that the harmful emissions that come from over a billion cars, millions of planes, thousands upon thousands of factories and industrial plants constantly spewing its harmful gasses into the atmosphere every day of the week contributes only localized pollution into the atmosphere and isn't contributing at all to climate change and the slow but steady destruction of life on this planet?

CO2 is not a pollutant. And by focusing on CO2 -- and purposely confusing the issues, the pseudo-econauts are minimizing the importance of addressing these other more life-threatening issues.

I can fix CO2 tomorrow.. And tear down the dams and free the salmon. AND I can get rid of the biggest polluting coal plants. We need 250 new nuclear plants and all that wonderful stuff will happen.. Which are you more afraid of AlexWA? The destruction of the planet or nuclear power plants?

Realize also -- that I'm an ACTUAL environmentalist. One that will STOP your moron siblings from drilling for geothermal power because it's WAAAY more destructive than drilling for oil. Or will stop you from burning burning trees and calling it biomass, because it's essentially an excuse to build garbage incinerators. I've already linked the Nature Conservancy into my estate and I'm in awe of how easy it is to actually save open space and nature when you USE CAPITALISM to protect it..

You condescension aside I am not just talking about Co2. I am talking about all of the harmful emissions that are pumped into the air and drained into our water systems each and every day in all corners of the globe. In is not just a local problem and we are not so small that we can not have an affect.

To answer your question i am afraid of people ignoring the blatant disregard for this planet and how our actions yield real world consequences. I am afraid that because of peoples apathy towards the environment we will continue to lose wonderful plant and animal species across the Earth. I am afraid of the selfishness that most humans have towards the resources on this planet from energy sources to animals.

I am happy that you would like to close coal plants though. Alternative forms of energy need to be explored and put at the forefront. Oil, coal, and other outdated fuels are not the future, and i'm sorry but i don't think nuclear is either and i would not want to see 250 new nuclear plants built.

If you are concerned about environmental damage (and I believe you to be) how do you reconcile the fact that solar panel manufacturing is incredibly damaging to the environment and the producers of said panels have located them in Third World countries where they don't have to worry about environmental laws.

Or how about the environmental damage caused by the manufacturing of the battery packs for the hybrids? Everything has a cost. So far the "green" solutions are actually more environmentally damaging than the power systems they seek to replace. This is a problem that needs to be addressed but currently those issues are ignored by the "green" movement.

Or how about the massive bird kill caused by windmills the world over? They kill hundreds of thousands of birds (some of which are endangered raptors) and they have managed to get a complete pass from the government for the birds they kill. If a fossil fuel company kills a bird there is hell to pay. Why are "green" companies not held to the same standards?

 

[SSDD]

From that pollution of excess gas it makes it much more difficult for these gases to escape, which then can cause a warming trend, i.e. a greenhouse effect. ]/quote]

Can you show me any actual hard evidence to prove that is true? I have looked and can't find it. It seems to be a fact simply because so many people have said that it is true but I simply can't buy it based on what other people say. If everyone were saying that it is good to jump off a cliff (and much of the proposed solutions to the non existent CO2 problem lead off a financial cliff) I wouldn't buy that either.

If everyone says it and warmists beleive that all scientists believe it, there must be some hard foundational basis for the claim. Where is it? The best I have been able to come up with is models and I am sorry to say that models simply don't amount to proof of anything other than a computer will do what its programmer tells it to do.

Simple observation shows that for the past 16 years CO2 in the atmosphere has steadily risen while temperatures have remained flat or even decreased slightly. Clearly something else it at work in the system that completely overwhelms the trace gasses within the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

it's a supplement. Same with solar. And all the others on your Green list have SEVERE environmental consequences...

I would say that solar and wind have pretty severe environmental consequences as well.

 

[SSDD]

Climate change aside for a moment. Do any of you that are trying to make the argument that climate change is not real or not as bad as it seems believe that human beings are destructive to the environment and that human beings can and are affecting the Earth in a negative way?

Climate change is real. It has been happening since the beginning of the earth. For most of the time this rock has been here, it has been so warm globally that there wasn't any ice anywhere. Those periods were broken up by periods where there was little else but ice. Those cold periods were particularly hard on life as opposed to the warm periods when life exploded.

Are we destructive and do we damage our environment? Of course but that important conversation has been lost for the past couple of decades due in great part to the neverending stream of verbal flatulence coming from wacko environmentalists blaming every thing on CO2 and manmade climate change.

The conversation that could have been had has been lost in the effort of rebutting the bullshite claims of everyting being due to CO2 driven climate change from crocodile sexual preference (you can't make this up) to UFO sightings.

Here is just a small fraction of the things that have been blamed on CO2. Tell me you can't see how much mental energy that could be put to other uses is has been wasted rebutting and debunking these idiot claims. BTW...this list goes on and on and on.

AIDS, Afghan poppies destroyed, African holocaust, aged deaths, poppies more potent, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pockets, air pressure changes, airport farewells virtual, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaskan towns slowly destroyed, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, allergy increase, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra lost, Arctic warming (not), a rose by any other name smells of nothing, asteroid strike risk, asthma, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, bats decline, beer and bread prices to soar, beer better, beer worse, beetle infestation, beef shortage, bet for $10,000, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird loss accelerating, bird populations dying, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds face longer migrations, birds on long migrations threatened, birds return early, birds shrink(Aus), birds shrink (USA), bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down, blizzards, blood contaminated, blue mussels return, borders redrawn, bluetongue, brains shrink, brewers droop, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city, Britain Siberian, Britain's bananas, British monsoon, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, butterflies move north, butterflies reeling, butterfly saved, carbon crimes, caribou decline, Cambodian sex trade fuelled, camel deaths, cancer, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, cataracts, cats more amorous, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened, chagas disease, childhood insomnia, children's mental health, chocolate shortage, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, clownfish get lost, coast beauty spots lost, cockroach migration, cod go south, coffee threatened, coffee berry borer, coffee berry disease, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells, cold spells (Australia), colder waters (Long Island), cold wave (India), cold weather (world), cold winters, computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia, consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral fish suffer, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink, coral reefs twilight, cost of trillions, cougar attacks, crabgrass menace, cradle of civilisation threatened, creatures move uphill, crime increase, crocodile sex, crocodiles driven from water, crops devastated, crop failures increase, cross-breeding, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, cryptococcal disease, curriculum change, cyclones (Australia), damselflies forced back to UK, danger to kid's health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, daylight increase, deadly virus outbreaks, death rate increase (US), death rate drop, deaths to reach 6 million, decades of progress at risk, Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance, desert retreat

 

[SSDD]

So correct me if i am assuming too much here but so you are saying that the harmful emissions that come from over a billion cars, millions of planes, thousands upon thousands of factories and industrial plants constantly spewing its harmful gasses into the atmosphere every day of the week contributes only localized pollution into the atmosphere and isn't contributing at all to climate change and the slow but steady destruction of life on this planet?

The atmosphere is cleaner now that it has been in a very long time. CO2 is not a pollutant and there isn't any actual evidence at all to prove that it can cause warming in the open atmosphere. Even the evidence that it can cause warming in a heated jar is highly suspect due to the well known properties of gasses, ie the ideal gas laws.