Global Warming

[allanoue]

Some of you have talked about methane as the real danger, but the methane that animals produce is not a danger next to CO2 rise. Having said that, methane could send us into a 99% extinction event if the oceans warm enough to release the tons held in the sea floor.

That is just theory, but much more possible then some kind of global conspiracy by an unnamed dictator.

[greg737]

Originally Posted by alex.s

trying to deny this just makes people look like idiots.

Now we're getting somewhere with this discussion. It's really all about appearances, isn't it? What we think other people "look like" while living their lives. What our perspectives/beliefs cause us to project onto our fellow citizens.

Because in the U.S. (at least) it's all about appearances, isn't it?

So the question really is: Who (in this debate) looks the most ridiculous?

To start with we have to set some parameters. We're all here on Ninjette.org because we ride motorcycles (I own three). These motorcycles burn gasoline and do not have any emissions control devices (yeah, even the Cali-riders have removed their evaporative-control devices). And even though we all have motorcycles to ride I'm pretty sure we all own at least one of those evil, atmosphere-polluting devices that roll around on 4 wheels (I own one). A lot of us have children, which I'm told contribute to overpopulation (and they also end up riding motorcycles and driving cars). We heat our homes in the winter and cool them in the summer. We sometimes/occasionally/routinely travel on gas-turbine powered aircraft. The list goes on and on and on. So much for parameters.

So if we're all pretty much the same on all those items it's now time to determine who's debate position makes them "look like an idiot"

I'll go get a beer from the fridge while you guys begin...

[Snake]

I'll grab the popcorn.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by greg737

Now we're getting somewhere with this discussion. It's really all about appearances, isn't it? What we think other people "look like" while living their lives. What our perspectives/beliefs cause us to project onto our fellow citizens.

Because in the U.S. (at least) it's all about appearances, isn't it?

So the question really is: Who (in this debate) looks the most ridiculous?

To start with we have to set some parameters. We're all here on Ninjette.org because we ride motorcycles (I own three). These motorcycles burn gasoline and do not have any emissions control devices (yeah, even the Cali-riders have removed their evaporative-control devices). And even though we all have motorcycles to ride I'm pretty sure we all own at least one of those evil, atmosphere-polluting devices that roll around on 4 wheels (I own one). A lot of us have children, which I'm told contribute to overpopulation (and they also end up riding motorcycles and driving cars). We heat our homes in the winter and cool them in the summer. We sometimes/occasionally/routinely travel on gas-turbine powered aircraft. The list goes on and on and on. So much for parameters.

So if we're all pretty much the same on all those items it's now time to determine who's debate position makes them "look like an idiot"

I'll go get a beer from the fridge while you guys begin...

I own no motorcycles and walk to work every day. No children.

Also passenger vehicles including aircraft are a relatively small impact. cargo vehicles and other large vehicles, especially international vehicles like cargo ships are by far the largest impactor as far as co2 emission.

would you like to try again?

[alex.s]

it is rather interesting how people who are climate change deniers love to try to shift focus away from simple logic.

lets focus on the logic.
- we know co2 causes green house effect
- we know human fossil fuel burning is responsible for 98% of the co2 emissions on earth
- we know that cutting co2 emission will reduce that effect

so why not cut co2 emission?

rising oceans will cause millions of coastline dwellers to have to leave their homes. lose probably a large percentage of their wealth because of it. (who is going to buy a house about to be underwater?)

[greg737]

Originally Posted by alex.s

I own no motorcycles and walk to work every day. No children.

Also passenger vehicles including aircraft are a relatively small impact. cargo vehicles and other large vehicles, especially international vehicles like cargo ships are by far the largest impactor as far as co2 emission.

would you like to try again?

Like I care what you're doing right now at this particular moment?

If you can write something like that and you can say that you've never ridden or driven a vehicle, and you've never had a job you had to drive to (including going to school) and that you've had yourself permanently sterilized... then I might listen. Otherwise, whatever.

Plus, I have to hand it to you, that's some interesting logic you're using. So tell me if I'm getting your train of thought: None of the murderers we have locked up in prison are murdering anyone right now, so they're actually innocent. Did I get that right?

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by greg737

Plus, I have to hand it to you, that's some interesting logic you're using. So tell me if I'm getting your train of thought: None of the murderers we have locked up in prison are murdering anyone right now, so they're actually innocent. Did I get that right?

let me correct your analogy.

it's more like, if every day 98 people were murdered by alligators... but also 1 person was killed by a banana peal, and one person killed by a shark....

when someone says "man we need to control these alligators"... you wouldn't say "why are you trying to defend sharks?" or "why are you trying to say bananas have never killed anyone?"

see. that's not addressing the actual problem. it's more diversion tactics.

so back to the point, if you would like to try to argue against the actual point instead of trying to distract from the point:

- we know co2 causes green house effect
- we know human fossil fuel burning is responsible for 98% of the co2 emissions on earth
- we know that cutting co2 emission will reduce that effect


so why not cut co2 emission?

answer that.

why not cut co2 emissions?




let me ask it again.




why not cut co2 emissions?

[greg737]

Originally Posted by alex.s

let me correct your analogy.

it's more like, if every day 98 people were murdered by alligators... but also 1 person was killed by a banana peal, and one person killed by a shark....

when someone says "man we need to control these alligators"... you wouldn't say "why are you trying to defend sharks?" or "why are you trying to say bananas have never killed anyone?"

see. that's not addressing the actual problem. it's more diversion tactics.

so back to the point, if you would like to try to argue against the actual point instead of trying to distract from the point:

- we know co2 causes green house effect
- we know human fossil fuel burning is responsible for 98% of the co2 emissions on earth
- we know that cutting co2 emission will reduce that effect


so why not cut co2 emission?

answer that.

why not cut co2 emissions?




let me ask it again.




why not cut co2 emissions?

Don't know what you're talking about.

I was referring to your apparent effort to hold yourself up as holier-than-thou with regard to my earlier post about who "looks like an idiot". You obviously feel that your current (right now) lifestyle qualifies you to make pronouncements from the pinnacle of the environmental moral high-ground.

If you're still game you could take another swing at answering "who looks like an idiot" in this debate, and for clarity's sake I'll give you the two general categories you have to choose from:

#1 People who are living a fossil fuel intensive lifestyle who have either no opinion about anthropogenic-global-warming or are cautious due to lack of data or proven instances of falsified data and etc.

#2 People who are living a fossil fuel intensive lifestyle who are all-in on anthropogenic-global-warming.

(hit me again, Snake)

[alex.s]

you. you look like an idiot. because you apparently can't, or are not willing to parse english.

person #1 has no meaningful personal impact on co2 levels.
person #2 has no meaningful personal impact on co2 levels.

if you were able, or perhaps willing to try to parse what i've been saying, it is industry -- not individuals -- who cause the vast majority of co2 emissions. these are companies making gobs and gobs of money internationally. companies who give their CEOs bonuses in the millions.

SO.

let me ask you again.

why not cut co2 emissions? you still haven't even attempted an answer that even comes close to addressing that question.

[greg737]

Originally Posted by alex.s

you. you look like an idiot. because you apparently can't, or are not willing to parse english.

person #1 has no meaningful personal impact on co2 levels.
person #2 has no meaningful personal impact on co2 levels.

if you were able, or perhaps willing to try to parse what i've been saying, it is industry -- not individuals -- who cause the vast majority of co2 emissions. these are companies making gobs and gobs of money internationally. companies who give their CEOs bonuses in the millions.

SO.

let me ask you again.

why not cut co2 emissions? you still haven't even attempted an answer that even comes close to addressing that question.

You realize that you live within a system, right? That your daily life occurs entirely within the bounds of a modern, civilization-sized societal structure that is, at this point, industrial and service oriented? Surely you can see that living out our lives in this house-of-cards fossil fuel fed consumer economy makes each and every one of us guilty?

Maybe living within this situation every single day of your life has rendered you unable to see it. It's the old story about the two little fish: One day two little fish were swimming along when an old fish swam by in the opposite direction and said, "Morning boys, how's the water?" And the two little fish swam on for a moment or two, then one of them turned to the other and said, "What the hell is water?"

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by greg737

You realize that you live within a system, right? That your daily life occurs entirely within the bounds of a modern, civilization-sized societal structure that is, at this point, industrial and service oriented? Surely you can see that living out our lives in this house-of-cards fossil fuel fed consumer economy makes each and every one of us guilty?

Maybe living within this situation every single day of your life has rendered you unable to see it. It's the old story about the two little fish: One day two little fish were swimming along when an old fish swam by in the opposite direction and said, "Morning boys, how's the water?" And the two little fish swam on for a moment or two, then one of them turned to the other and said, "What the hell is water?"

who is more guilty: the person trying to change the broken system they live within, or the person trying to ensure that system stays broken.

[alex.s]

why not cut co2 emissions?

[greg737]

Originally Posted by alex.s

who is more guilty: the person trying to change the broken system they live within, or the person trying to ensure that system stays broken.

You make it sound like you have a plan, which you don't.

[corksil]

You guys are doing a good job of keeping this civil and fact based. I have learned so much by reading it. Numerous times I have wanted to interject but it seems like you guys have a really good grasp on this. I've also had my disagreements with alanoe in the past and my signature is actually a quote of what he said about some of my posts in the past. It's probably true.. except we don't have many bats in hawaii. Lots of rats but we don't have the various creatures which breed with them and create high powered flying mammal mutants. We also don't have snakes yet, which is the reason for large rat population. So yes... more so "ratshit crazy" than "batshit crazy" but probably not far off point.

As the years have passed, I have been formulating my own observation of a phenomenon which certainly will not outweigh global warming.... BUT! It may balance the cosmic scales in such a manner that slow the swing of the metaphorical pendulum.

My theory is based on lots of observation pertaining to the development and use of technology. I don't have much of a "education" in the academic sense but I know many who do and dangnabit I aren't a idiot! Due to the situation at the time, I dropped out of high school an went straight to work. I would say that I got tired of learning "about" the world, and opted to participate in it directly as opposed to spending more years in a classroom. The bulk of my "work" experience is in the diagnosis/maintenance/repair of complex mechanisms and machines of all nature.

My theory is simple --- the speed of information transfer will continue to increase along with carbon emissions, until the speed of information transfer reaches a tipping point at which "knowledge" will be communicated so quickly that the the regulation of carbon emissions will almost happen in realtime.

Example -- an entity [personal or professional, corporate or otherwise] will initiate a task which results in massive carbon emission. Due to the constant population increase and the fact that the world is inundated with smart phones and similar tech and gadgetry -- the affect of the carbon emission created by the 'entity' will be instantly recognized and recorded and the data will be freely available to the minds that are interested in this sort of thing. It will be very easy for a regulating body [public or private] to instantly flag emission "offenders" [for lack of a better word] and issue citations or something similar which will inspire the 'entity' to modify their behavior or equipment for the purpose of "compliance" with the human race.

In the most simple terms -- suppose you had a neighbor. And the neighbor decided for whatever reason to take the restrictive spark arrestor-type exhaust system off their lawn mower and run an open pipe for a slight performance increase. Due to the increased noise, it would inspire you [by nature of your location -- in close proximity to the noise "pollution" generated] to mention the increased noise to someone via the tech available [twitter, facebook, or some other form of social media] which could trigger some form of alert which would make it's way to an "authority" almost instantly, resulting in an intervention of sorts which would rapidly regulate the source of the noise. Obviously, in this example ^^^ I'm using noise [pollution] in lieu of carbon emission for the sake of discussion but it's a relevant example to explain what I'm trying to convey.

In a more direct example, if I fire up my CR500 [which is jetted quite rich, for maximum power delivery once the engine is hot] on an early sunday morning in a quiet neighborhood, numerous people get noticeably perturbed. Something about the 170 decibels of noise, coupled with the thick blue ribbons of two-stroke exhaust smoke from the tailpipe as I make 90mph passes up and down the quiet street.... that seems to offend folks. The smokey burnouts and squealing tire noise also seems to cause infants within a 10 mile perimeter [within earshot] to create a disturbance which is communicated via social media instantaneously.. and that results in one or ten people marching past my driveway with scowling faces and violent words to hurl at me. That is perhaps a better analogy about how the modern tech regulates the behavior of an entity.

The world will continue upon it's present path due to human nature and over-breeding, but as technology becomes more sophisticated AND cheaper to procure, some degree of regulation happens as a natural by-product. When [not IF] that continues, regulations will be more strictly enforced.

I predict that in the near future, the "weather station" devices sold at big box retailers will also contain sensors that detect and monitor oxygen/CO2 levels in the air and all of that data will continue to be uploaded directly to the "cloud" in realtime. It will be easier for the concerned individuals to monitor the data and regulate the nearby behavior responsible for creating "unhealthy" spikes in data observed.

All of this sounds super brilliant when I re-read it, but it probably doesn't make much sense to anyone else. At the least, I have tried to convey my perspective in the best way that I am able.

[alex.s]

my plan is to vote for the people who will make the changes needed to achieve what i want. and to try to convince other people to do the same.

[corksil]

who is more guilty: the person trying to change the broken system they live within, or the person trying to ensure that system stays broken.

It's not about guilt or blame. People these days seem quick to blame others and try to make them selves out to be a victim. The "it's not my fault" mentality is a by-product of social media.

The "system" will always be inherently flawed because it was created by man. This is not a debate about man or woman or feminism or gender or any of that other $h!+ which always seems to get brought up. When I use the term "man" -- I'm referring to the individuals which further the advancement of our species.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT!

[MLR]

I have a plan, I plan to recycle.

But then I'm human, and the small little things I do in life to to negate the effect humans have on the environment is a drop in the ocean.

It is my firm belief, that as so highly evolved humans are meant to be, we are fundamentally flawed, we focus on here and now, we know smoking is bad but we smoke, we know alcohol is bad but we drink, we know drugs make you a idiot but we still do drugs, plastic is bad but we still use plastic, petrochemicals are the devil but we use them every day.

We think we are so clever and enlightened when in fact we are like gullible sheep lead to the slaughter.

We know that the corporations make billions of dollars from supplying us with goods, during the manufacturing process we know of all the waste and pollutants that are created, do we care, sort of, but not enough to go without that car, bike, tv, furbie or cool new pair of shoes.

I am not innocent of this, I tell myself that I am doing my part, but I still buy that furbie anyway.

We are consumption machines.

I dont like the phrase "humans are a parasite" but > Parasitism is a relationship between two different organisms where the parasite harms the host.
Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/parasi...RMGsmoCzkWH.99

My evil plan is to do what I can to make myself feel better about whats going on and teach my kids, tell them to be better than me, and eventually die of old age and get cremated, god knows we need more CO2.

http://www.calgarymemorial.com/effec...vironment.html

Have a nice day

[Snake]

Out of all of you that that say they want to cut Co2 emissions, who owns an electric motorcycle or electric car?

[MLR]

Originally Posted by Snake

Out of all of you that that say they want to cut Co2 emissions, who owns an electric motorcycle or electric car?

I've got a electric drill if that counts.

Talking about electic bikes, I was watching a cool show on TV about electric GP bikes.

They are still having issues with the batteries lasting for more than a few laps.

Back on topic, it's old but still food for thought > http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22001356

And > https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www....een-think/amp/

[Dave Wolfe]

Originally Posted by alex.s

why not cut co2 emissions?

Well...

Because you will put me out of work. As well as everyone else in the business of actually making physical products. With an imploded world economy and no real production, half of us die.

So the co2 wont be cut. It will be taxed. Does a tax do anything to 'save the planet', assuming the CC hypothesis is valid? Nope. But those tax dollars will ultimately find their way into someone elses pocket, and it wont be yours or mine.

[Mohawk]

Climate change is three things.

1. Inevitable. We don't have a large enough accurate data sample to predict sh!t.
2. A scientific gravy train, in the 70's it was the next Ice Age, now its the opposite both generations of scientists can NOT be that wrong. Plus some changed camps, just because that's where the funding is nowadays !
3. It's government speak for the OIL is running out. If they told people that the amounts of oil required to run our society today will NOT be available in 2050, they would panic. So Global warming is a nice eco message to make you burn less fuel & be nicer to the environment. This will extend the end date of oil supplies, whilst in theory giving the scientists time to come up with plausible alternatives. Don't hold your breath for either !

What that really means is the current modern society is doomed, so we need to change our way of life significantly, but the forward debt everyone holds means they can't individually or as collectives, counties, states, countries, or continents

Remember as always YMMV

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Snake

Out of all of you that that say they want to cut Co2 emissions, who owns an electric motorcycle or electric car?

here is my electric bike

You can see the hub motor on the front wheel

30 mile range and will go 30mph with a 2 hour recharge
When I get my car paid off in 2018 I will get a zero motorcycle



Lithium mining is not as harmful as CO2 but it is not good. Battery tech is getting better and I think something will replace lithium soon and I will do what I can to support it.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by alex.s

this is incorrect.

It's either caused by the addition of C02 caused by man which is the prevailing and probably correct theory. Or it's natural.

If it's natural then the addition of CO2 by man isn't causing climate change then the inverse the removal of C02 by man won't reduce global temperature.

[Mohawk]

Originally Posted by alex.s

I own no motorcycles and walk to work every day. No children.

Also passenger vehicles including aircraft are a relatively small impact. cargo vehicles and other large vehicles, especially international vehicles like cargo ships are by far the largest impactor as far as co2 emission.

would you like to try again?

Err WRONG, cargo ships are the most fuel efficient things on the planet the modern ones average 2000miles per gallon per tonne !

Just get that straight in your head, a multi thousand tonne ships gets 2000mpg/per tonne of weight moved. It also uses the heavy oil left over at refineries that is to thick to use in small engines. Are they clean NO, because they burn heavy oil. But as a percentage of ICE (internal combustion engine) pollution its tiny. There are approximately 24000 trucks/cars for every cargo ship on the planet. That does not include bikes/tractors/lawnmowers/power tools/oil fired heating, power gen or other oil burning processes !

"As of January 2016, there were 51,405 ships in the world's merchant fleets."

"In 2014 it is estimated there were 330million commercial vehicles world wide"
"In 2014 it is estimated there were 907million cars world wide.

So approx 1.2 Billion vehicles (cars/trucks only) for a population of 6.8Billion, so 1 vehicle per 5.5 people !

Show me any passenger vehicle that does better than 100miles per gallon per tonne ?

The average car in europe due to the all the safety sh!t they insist on nowadays weighs 1.5 tonnes, 30 years ago they weighed 950Kgs (FYI a metric tonne is 1000Kg) my old 1980's petrol car got 45mpg, my 2013 diesel car gets 55mpg, that is NOT a big improvement.

I commend you on your localised existance that allows you to walk to work & not own a car. Unfortunately most of society is heavily invested in personal mobility, that will change as the oil supply declines. Times ahead are not looking better than yesterday. I expect that within 20 years we will be back to mid 70's levels of vehicle ownership. I'd like to be wrong but a lot of study has yet to convince me otherwise.

As always YMMV

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Panda

It's either caused by the addition of C02 caused by man which is the prevailing and probably correct theory. Or it's natural.

If it's natural then the addition of CO2 by man isn't causing climate change then the inverse the removal of C02 by man won't reduce global temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...change_science

CO2 effect on the climate was first predicted in 1896.

You are debating long-established science. The problem is the 1% who have all the money and power make their money from CO2 emissions and that is why there is any debate at all.

Wake up people. Don't be fooled into thinking this is just theory. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel is long established science. Anyone who denies it is denying science. What does that make them?

Link to original page on YouTube.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by allanoue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...change_science

CO2 effect on the climate was first predicted in 1896.

You are debating long-established science. The problem is the 1% who have all the money and power make their money from CO2 emissions and that is why there is any debate at all...

I'm not debating long established science and I'm not disagreeing that CO2 is causing climate change. I'll say it again,
I'm not debating long established science and I'm not disagreeing that CO2 is causing climate change.

@alex.s made the argument that it doesn't matter if climate change is natural or not.

I disagree with that statement and that statement alone.

The entire movement to reduce CO2 emissions hinges on the almost singular concept that anthropogenic or man-made CO2 emissions are causing climate change. This by definition is not natural.

The logic behind reducing CO2 emissions is as follows:
1. People have increased atmospheric CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels.
2. The increase in CO2 is causing climate change/global warming.
3. Therefore reducing CO2 will reduce the effects of climate change/global warming.

People cause the problem so people can fix the problem. Causation.

Now if climate change/global warming is a natural process.
1. The earth naturally goes through cycles where climate change/global warming and cooling occur.
2. We are in a period where global warming is occurring naturally.
3. This natural cycle is not tied to CO2 emissions and the earth would be going through this shift regardless.
4. Therefore reducing CO2 emissions would not reduce climate change or global warming.

People aren't causing the problem so people can't fix the problem. CO2 levels and global warming become a correlation.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Panda

I'm not debating long established science and I'm not disagreeing that CO2 is causing climate change. I'll say it again,
I'm not debating long established science and I'm not disagreeing that CO2 is causing climate change.

@alex.s made the argument that it doesn't matter if climate change is natural or not.

I disagree with that statement and that statement alone.

The entire movement to reduce CO2 emissions hinges on the almost the singular concept that anthropogenic or man-made CO2 emissions are causing climate change. This by definition is not natural.

The logic behind reducing CO2 emissions is as follows:
1. People have increased atmospheric CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels.
2. The increase in CO2 is causing climate change/global warming.
3. Therefore reducing CO2 will reduce the effects of climate change/global warming.

People cause the problem so people can fix the problem. Causation.

Now if climate change/global warming is a natural process.
1. The earth naturally goes through cycles where climate change/global warming and cooling occur.
2. We are in a period where global warming is occurring naturally.
3. This natural cycle is not tied to CO2 emissions and the earth would be going through this shift regardless.
4. Therefore reducing CO2 emissions would not reduce climate change or global warming.

People aren't causing the problem so people can't fix the problem. CO2 levels and global warming become a correlation.

There is no if. Saying if is destructive and dishonest and promotes disinformation.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by allanoue

There is no if. Saying if is destructive and dishonest and promotes disinformation.

Honestly, I can't tell if you're being purposefully obtuse, argumentative, or you're just embarrassed because you assumed I was a climate denier.

In any event, nice chatting with you.

[Mohawk]

https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions

Fill ya boots.

As to science, I have seen very little. Lots of Theories bandied about as facts.
The reality is mans population on this planet has increase 400% since 1900. There are a lot of people with vested interests on both sides of the discussion, but very little hard facts other than those in the link above showing who & how much CO2 is generated by man. But very little effort has been expended on working out the planets own CO2 release both biologically & from the earth.

Fior instance one small volcanic erruption is worth a lot of man made release, but in reality it is then doubled, because we didn't predict or expect the volcanic contributions.

The situation will get much worse, as the oil runs out & we return to burning coal & other substitutes to create electricity to replace oil powered motion. There is not enough Lithium or any other battery material on the planet to replace a quarter of the existing fleet, never mind we need most of it to power the numerous portable gadgets we have today.

YMMV Over & Out

[greg737]

Now that this thread has lived long enough it's starting to develop its own natural rhythm, and right about now is when Allanoue loses his cool and starts handing out direct personal insults again.

[Snake]

Originally Posted by allanoue

here is my electric bike

You can see the hub motor on the front wheel

30 mile range and will go 30mph with a 2 hour recharge
When I get my car paid off in 2018 I will get a zero motorcycle



Lithium mining is not as harmful as CO2 but it is not good. Battery tech is getting better and I think something will replace lithium soon and I will do what I can to support it.

I'm glad to see someone that puts his money where his mouth is and not only talks the talk but at least tries to walk the walk.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by greg737

Now that this thread has lived long enough it's starting to develop its own natural rhythm, and right about now is when Allanoue loses his cool and starts handing out direct personal insults again.

Was that an insult?

[Dave Wolfe]

So my real curiousity to those CC believers out there, how did you get to that point? Did you obtain doctorate degrees on the topic? Is it being taught in schools? Social pressure? TV?

I get that you feel you are right and on the moral high ground, but what journey took you to where you are?

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Dave Wolfe

So my real curiousity to those CC believers out there, how did you get to that point? Did you obtain doctorate degrees on the topic? Is it being taught in schools? Social pressure? TV?

I get that you feel you are right and on the moral high ground, but what journey took you to where you are?

It was right after I visited China a few years ago. Funny thing is I was there for a week but I do not remember anything.

[alex.s]

as i've said before, electric passenger cars are meaningless and inconsequential next to industry.

it's also a ridiculous strawman argument to try to suggest cutting co2 emissions means immediately stopping production of products that cause emission.

cutting co2 emissions means implementing policies that will benefit people who switch to clean energy. not making it illegal to burn fossil fuels.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Dave Wolfe

So my real curiousity to those CC believers out there, how did you get to that point? Did you obtain doctorate degrees on the topic? Is it being taught in schools? Social pressure? TV?

I get that you feel you are right and on the moral high ground, but what journey took you to where you are?

people who support it present evidence that can be validated and that logically makes sense and correctly explains conclusions drawn from peer-reviewed research.

people who deny it do none of that. and bring up illogical fallacies which do nothing to strengthen their point, but they think its an end all answer. they do nothing to prove their point, they simply do not understand or haven't tried looking into the actual science, and so they say it doesn't make sense to them, so therefor its wrong

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Mohawk

For instance one small volcanic eruption is worth a lot of man made release, but in reality it is then doubled, because we didn't predict or expect the volcanic contributions.

no. this is incorrect. volcanic eruptions on average are much lower than other natural sources and ALL natural sources including volcanos are less than 2%. on average volcanic sources of co2 are less than half of one percent.

98% of co2 released on earth is from human industry.

[Snake]

Originally Posted by alex.s

as i've said before, electric passenger cars are meaningless and inconsequential next to industry.

it's also a ridiculous strawman argument to try to suggest cutting co2 emissions means immediately stopping production of products that cause emission.

cutting co2 emissions means implementing policies that will benefit people who switch to clean energy. not making it illegal to burn fossil fuels.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think your saying is this:
Governments should implement policies that make having a vehicle that burns fossil fuel more expensive to buy and operate and making vehicles that operate on clean energy cheaper to buy and operate thus incentivizing people to switch to clean energy?

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Panda

I'm not debating long established science and I'm not disagreeing that CO2 is causing climate change. I'll say it again,
I'm not debating long established science and I'm not disagreeing that CO2 is causing climate change.

@alex.s made the argument that it doesn't matter if climate change is natural or not.

I disagree with that statement and that statement alone.

The entire movement to reduce CO2 emissions hinges on the almost singular concept that anthropogenic or man-made CO2 emissions are causing climate change. This by definition is not natural.

The logic behind reducing CO2 emissions is as follows:
1. People have increased atmospheric CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels.
2. The increase in CO2 is causing climate change/global warming.
3. Therefore reducing CO2 will reduce the effects of climate change/global warming.

People cause the problem so people can fix the problem. Causation.

Now if climate change/global warming is a natural process.
1. The earth naturally goes through cycles where climate change/global warming and cooling occur.
2. We are in a period where global warming is occurring naturally.
3. This natural cycle is not tied to CO2 emissions and the earth would be going through this shift regardless.
4. Therefore reducing CO2 emissions would not reduce climate change or global warming.

People aren't causing the problem so people can't fix the problem. CO2 levels and global warming become a correlation.

i appreciate this a lot. you're using real logic here.

let me try to present a counter argument...

- co2's green house effect is widely accepted scientifically. in fact i don't think there is anyone who disputes its ability to promote the greenhouse effect.
- regardless of natural cycles, we have an impact on co2 levels because we output a large amount of it.
- regardless of natural cycles, increased or decreased levels of co2 will increase and decrease green house effect from co2.

with this in mind, it seems logical to conclude that modifying our co2 output would impact green house effect to some extent. are there other natural sources of co2? yes. are there other natural sources of heating? yes. would changing our behavior have an impact on what we believe is the largest contributor to that? i believe so.

is our environment incredibly complex? yes. absolutely. do we fully understand it? no.

but logically, which makes more sense; tipping the scales in the direction we believe will lead to human hardship? (continue high levels of emission) -- or tipping the scales in the direciton we believe will lead to more stable climate? (returning to more natural levels of co2 emission)

do we know everything? no. is it possible to break something trying to fix it? yes. will things fix themselves while we continue to throw systems out of balance? it's a good question...


let's look at the last time a species decided to start spewing out massive amounts of toxic chemicals without regard for other life... it's called the great oxidation event. it was caused when algae took off uncontrolled. it developed a toxic weapon as part of its life cycle that eliminated its competition. it was responsible for the deaths of countless species of cellular life and took about a billion years to stabilize after that. the result was most life on earth became oxygen breathers. a chemical that before killed most life it came in contact with.

so yes- there are plenty of natural things that can happen. however not all natural things are good for humans. i think as humans we need to do what ever we can to try to ensure the survival of our species.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Snake

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think your saying is this:
Governments should implement policies that make having a vehicle that burns fossil fuel more expensive to buy and operate and making vehicles that operate on clean energy cheaper to buy and operate thus incentivizing people to switch to clean energy?

almost.

there's no reason to punish. punishing people is detrimental. no reason to make it harder to operate a vehicle you already have. positive incentives to switch to clean energy makes sense though.

but.... again. you guys are really focusing hard on individuals so i'm going to say this again... co2 emissions from individuals have no effect on any of this. it is industry. industry produces more than 10x more pollution than individuals.