Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Carbon Belch Day

Rate this topic


Seeker

Recommended Posts

Composition of Air is mostly (mostly because there are also trace amounts of other elements): 78.084% Nitrogen, 20.947% Oxygen, 0.934% Argon, 0.033% C02. Atmospheres with oxygen concentrations below 19.5% Oxygen can have adverse physiological effects, and atmospheres with less than 16% Oxygen can become life threatening.

20.947% - 19.5% = 1.447% which is 14,470 ppm cushion we currently have. So this is the amount which would have to be displaced by C02 (or something else) on top of already existing level. The volume of C02 in the air is arround 330-380 ppm out of which only less than one percent - less than 3.8 ppm is generated due to human activity. Ten times increase yields 38 ppm - nothing remotely approaching threatening levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My problem is with the way that he presents his opinion as though it is the obvious, uncontroversial truth about the subject.

[...]

As to my statement that large amounts of CO2 can harm the environment...that's somewhat akin to saying the earth is round.

So this means that either ...

1. You are not certain that the Earth is round.

2. Expressing certainty with regard to your own position is fine, but if anyone on the other side expresses certainty, that irritates the heck out of you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just make that view clear then - the view that Moose will not retract or disavow:

Regardless of whether or not CO2 is going to cause a catastrophe for the planet earth, large amounts of it are bad for the air and it is nihilistic to combat the environmentalists by purposely polluting the air.

CO2 in large amounts - implicitly amounts that humans are capable of producing* - are "bad for the air" regardless of whether global warming is real or not (scientific claim) and constitute "polluting the air," which means that CO2 is "pollution" (also a scientific claim).

He is perfectly fine to make those claims about science, but anyone who opposes them is overstepping the bounds of their possible scientific knowledge. I am in fact "full of shit" for doing so.

Furthermore, he conflates his claim about the non-greenhouse effects of CO2 with the greenhouse claims about CO2 popularized by the media. He does this in his statements all over the thread, including here:

My problem is with the way that he presents his opinion as though it is the obvious, uncontroversial truth about the subject. If it were that cut and dried, then the debate would look more or less like the Creation/Evolution debate, in which one side is routinely laughed at by the other. This debate isn't resolved to nearly that level. If anything, it is Inspector's side that is the subject of ridicule more often than not.

"Sides?" This of course refers to the debate about global warming, which is not at all what Moose is claiming. Yes he attempts to gain the mantle of one of the sides of that debate for his own, completely unrelated, claims about CO2.

This is the view which Moose has made known, and as you can see above he stands by it and refuses to retract his claims about the science of CO2.

*despite his later backpedaling, it is inherent in the statement, since if he wasn't referring to the level mankind is capable of producing, then it renders his argument completely meaningless.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Carbon Belch Day is pretty much an act of spite against environmentalists and is not a promotion of the furtherance of one's own life. If you are going out of your way to produce CO2 that you otherwise wouldn't, which seems to be the point, then it isn't about you, its about sticking it to the enviros. As perhaps the only Objectivist here (apparently) who believes that man is contributing to global warming, I find no solace in spewing any more CO2 than necessary. I would like the Objectivist community to be the leading voice in offering free market solutions to the problem. Much to my chagrin we are missing a huge opportunity to get out in front on this.

I'm not sure why everyone was fixated on whether CO2 is a pollutant for the atmosphere. The evidence is growing stronger that increased CO2 is increasing the acidity of the oceans and is affecting sealife.

I agree with Moose in that expressing a certainty that global warming is a hoax, fraud, etc. is silly; the overwhelming number of climatologists say that man is contributing to global warming to some degree. You would have to dismiss their research out of hand to come to this conclusion. I have seen no one here present their credentials as a climatologist, or an atmospheric physicist or even a meteorologist. So no one here is qualified to independently refute anything. The complexities of this problem are immense; we're talking about trying to understand the entire Earth's weather systems.

So, assuming that you are not an expert, but feel that you in your spare time have gathered the data to inexorably refute the world's climatologists, I suggest that you do the following: call your local university and make an appointment with the professor who teaches the class Weather and Climate, or the closest thing to it. Take up all your notes, your graphs and charts, your oil and coal funded "research" papers, take all that stuff and lay it out to him or her, really open up your mind to see what someone who actually knows a bit about the subject has to say about it. You may find you weren't as certain as you thought you were. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Moose in that expressing a certainty that global warming is a hoax, fraud, etc. is silly;

Ah, but that is not actually the point Moose is making - it is only the point that he has tried to shift the debate to. My original statement - my statement of certainty - had nothing at all to do with global warming. What I was dismissing with certainty in this thread is Moose's own, completely separate claims about CO2's effects apart from global warming.

If you are going out of your way to produce CO2 that you otherwise wouldn't, which seems to be the point, then it isn't about you, its about sticking it to the enviros.

What about the multiple quotes I provided which all state they they are encouraging you to enjoy yourself guiltlessly? There is a difference between a day where you are encouraged to feast and enjoy yourself over a barbecue and, say, encouraging people to go out and burn cans of gas in their backyards for no reason. All of the examples provided in quotes fall into the former category and not the latter.

What I see in this day is the simple encouragement of guilt-free enjoyment. Because there is nothing to be guilty about.

I think this paranoia about simple and guilt-free enjoyment of life is the product of decades of propaganda from the environmentalists about "waste" - as if things like disposable products which save men time and effort were "wasteful" - to the contrary, it would be wasteful to spend the precious and irreplaceable time of our lives cleaning and reusing or recycling what could be cheaply discarded. Some people just can't wrap their heads around the idea of just having a good time without going out of their way to look for something "wasteful" to be guilty about.

Me, I will fire up my barbecue grill and my muscle car and have a grand old time - and not just on one day of the year, either. And no, I won't wonder or worry if I'm being "wasteful" or if I'm "producing CO2 that I otherwise wouldn't."

Call me a nihilist if you like. I'll have plenty of colorful things to call you in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the multiple quotes I provided which all state they they are encouraging you to enjoy yourself guiltlessly? There is a difference between a day where you are encouraged to feast and enjoy yourself over a barbecue and, say, encouraging people to go out and burn cans of gas in their backyards for no reason. All of the examples provided in quotes fall into the former category and not the latter.

Me, I will fire up my barbecue grill and my muscle car and have a grand old time - and not just on one day of the year, either. And no, I won't wonder or worry if I'm being "wasteful" or if I'm "producing CO2 that I otherwise wouldn't."

I looked at the site itself. It's telling you to ramp up your CO2 output and giving you suggestions on how to do it by cheekily tempting you to add up the CO2 quantity of each activity you indulge in. It's the equivalent of those enviro-friendly days, like Earth Hour, etc. etc., which have been much-maligned here.

Suit yourself, but I make my own decisions and won't be ordered about like some rat in a BF Skinner experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's telling you to ramp up your CO2 output and giving you suggestions on how to do it

And for what purpose does it say? Enjoyment. But then the whole point of it is based on the idea that CO2 is harmless - something you say you don't believe.

Suit yourself, but I make my own decisions and won't be ordered about like some rat in a BF Skinner experiment.

I don't need an order to produce carbon. I was already planning on it, thank you.

You know, on the subject of nihilism, the nihilism that I see here is the idea that simple enjoyment of technology and energy is something to be considered suspect and scrutinized so heavily. That's nihilism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence is growing stronger that increased CO2 is increasing the acidity of the oceans and is affecting sealife.

Did you ignore the evidence I provided you with on this topic?

I agree with Moose in that expressing a certainty that global warming is a hoax, fraud, etc. is silly; the overwhelming number of climatologists say that man is contributing to global warming to some degree.

The number does not determine the truth. Since you like to bring up the oceans - did you know that the whole theory of ocean acidification came based only on two studies which one was a result of the other? Subsequent studies did not support their findings yet people already having an agenda ignored them. Convieniet cherry picking.

It is a mistake to be spending trillions of dollars on something which there is no conclusive proof for. It is a theory which as time passes more and more falls appart. Ocean acidification is the last leg because everything else has been excluded.

You would have to dismiss their research out of hand to come to this conclusion.

I am not. I critically examine their research - something which I do for every man made claim.

I have seen no one here present their credentials as a climatologist, or an atmospheric physicist or even a meteorologist. So no one here is qualified to independently refute anything.

It is the contradictory evidence which refuts a false claim.

The complexities of this problem are immense; we're talking about trying to understand the entire Earth's weather systems.

Thank you for acknowledging the complexity of it. This should make you understand how UNPREDICTABLE for us (because of our insufficient understanding - in terms of oceans at least that I know of) the system is. Climatologist get it wrong in terms of the weather in Vancouver all the time - just because we have both the ocean and a mountain terrain. They can not make a correct prediction about the weather one day ahead!

So considering that we know little and considering low validity of future predictions and given contradictory data comming from scientific community it is an epistemological mistake to conclude that global warming (if you look at the earths cycle over span of milion of years - according to the trend Earth is entering cooling cycle) is a problem and especially it is human made. Therefore it is a mistake and a huge injustice to make people feel guilty and ask them to drastically change their way of living, to spend huge amounts of money on it, to introduce additional taxes, ect. It is a mistake to spend any resources intellectual or otherwise.

We can not alter Earth's temperature cycles (the planetary forces driving it are beyond out control). We can not stop global cooling nor global warming. What we however can do is to deal with it, mitigate its effects on our lives. That is however not the focus right now. Truth is not the focus - politically driven false propaganda is.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you ignore the evidence I provided you with on this topic?

Remarkably, you have actually provided no evidence, at least of the empirical variety scientists relish, contrary to your claim of having done so. The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change is not evidence, just a statement of belief. You did write this:

From Aug 2007

Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. C02 no longer a suspect.

Are you saying you found documentation that the IPCC no longer considers CO2 a contributor to global warming? This would be a big revelation, so you should provide the source rather than giving an assurance that you have determined it to be factual.

The number does not determine the truth. Since you like to bring up the oceans - did you know that the whole theory of ocean acidification came based only on two studies which one was a result of the other? Subsequent studies did not support their findings yet people already having an agenda ignored them. Convieniet cherry picking.

Ironically, cherry picking data is the entire foundation of the GW skeptics' campaign to confuse the public. I believe more than one study has been done to support the conclusion that the oceans are acidifying. Like this one last month, or I will find others if you aren't convinced.

It is a mistake to be spending trillions of dollars on something which there is no conclusive proof for. It is a theory which as time passes more and more falls appart. Ocean acidification is the last leg because everything else has been excluded.

The proof you are looking for will never happen if you are talking about achieving a scientific certainty. Even if the Earth was heating up like Dom Deluise on a stationary bike in the Mohave, there would be at least some way of claiming it was something other than man causing it. With a system as elusively complex as the globe's weather, we must deal in probabilities. Take the Cuban Missile Crisis. Did JFK know, did he have "proof", that Kruschev wouldn't start WWIII if he blockaded Cuba? No, but he made a a calculated assessment of the probable Soviet reaction, weighed it against the cost of doing nothing, and took action.

And the fact that more scientists get on board every day with the anthropogenic global warming consensus, your claim that it is a theory that is "falling apart" doesn't hold water. Hard to believe so many scientists from all over world, from different cultures, could be so uniformly obtuse, so cravenly subject to the political pressures you say warps their scientific judgment. This would be a conspiracy of staggering proportions, involving tens of thousands of scientists across the globe. How can this be possible when you can't get even 3 people to keep a secret? This is what assures me that the moon landings weren't faked, and that aliens didn't crash in Roswell, NM.

I am not. I critically examine their research - something which I do for every man made claim.

Oh, so in your spare time you have examined the thousands of studies related to global warming? I doubt you research every man made claim Sophia. Are you, even as we speak, absorbed in study of every chemical substance, every medicinal product, that is on the market to see if they are as safe as the manufacturers claim? Are you undergoing vigorous examination of the crash tests done on your vehicle to see if it is truly safe? How about your baby seat, or stroller? Is your municipal water supply as safe as the city claims? Better do a daily water test to be sure.

The point is its absurd to make such a statement. In today's world we must rely on the judgment of experts in the field for many things, and expect those experts to have high standards of professionalism and ethics, to critique one another, and to be held accountable.

Thank you for acknowledging the complexity of it. This should make you understand how UNPREDICTABLE for us (because of our insufficient understanding - in terms of oceans at least that I know of) the system is. Climatologist get it wrong in terms of the weather in Vancouver all the time - just because we have both the ocean and a mountain terrain. They can not make a correct prediction about the weather one day ahead!

Again, that is why weather forecasts are exercises in probability, and for the most part they get it right. Quite the feat for modern science.

So considering that we know little and considering low validity of future predictions and given contradictory data comming from scientific community it is an epistemological mistake to conclude that global warming (if you look at the earths cycle over span of milion of years - according to the trend Earth is entering cooling cycle) is a problem and especially it is human made. Therefore it is a mistake and a huge injustice to make people feel guilty and ask them to drastically change their way of living, to spend huge amounts of money on it, to introduce additional taxes, ect. It is a mistake to spend any resources intellectual or otherwise.

We can not alter Earth's temperature cycles (the planetary forces driving it are beyond out control). We can not stop global cooling nor global warming. What we however can do is to deal with it, mitigate its effects on our lives. That is however not the focus right now. Truth is not the focus - politically driven false propaganda is.

That last paragraph is quite a statement. You have now said that science has not demonstrated that humans are impacting the earth's climate. Yet you say that no amount of data collection or research is needed, because it has been proved that man cannot affect temperature cycles. No matter how skeptical you are of global warming evidence, this statement lacks empirical support. You can say something like "There is no data that would presently support such a conclusion", or some such. You would be wrong, but at least you wouldn't be making an unsupported claim. Responsible scientists don't make blanket statements without strong evidence.

CHALLENGE ISSUED: Present a list of climatologists who you feel would say, as you have here, that man cannot possibly alter Earth's temperature cycles. The one caveat is that they must actually publish research.

I find it fascinating that its Objectivists, the ones who so revere trailblazers in science and technology, are throwing some of these very scientists under the bus for telling us what we don't want to hear.

Edit: I wanted to add that it should give one pause to find oneself on the side of Senator James Inhofe. This is the same man who believes in Creationism/Intelligent Design, who said we should support Israel "because God said so," the same man who won a "100% True Blue" award from the Christian think-tank the Family Research Council, and the same man who ended a speech against gay marriage by quoting from Genesis and Matthew.

Edited by Michael McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Merry Carbon Belch Day... ;) Everyone do your part to act like a "nihilist", "skeptical" Objectivist and INCREASE your footprint of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide. Maybe go for a run and breathe harder.

Let's pretend for a second that the world isn't what it is and that humans have the capacity to impact the world's climate... so what??? The climate has been continuously changing for billions of years without man's help, so what if man--a natural part of this world-- also effects it? My question is why such a possibility would even be thought to be a "bad" thing, let alone a "global catastrophe"? What does it say about these supposed men of science that they believe that if man does it it's "bad", but if it happens naturally, well, that's "alright".

The whole premise of man-made "global warming" at this stage of our technological progress is simply preposterous and with so many believing in this nonsense without any real empirical that isn't slanted by poor philosophical premises it is direct damnation of this modern ages intellectual underpinnings and a direct call for a new rational philosophy to step forward and dominate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Merry Carbon Belch Day... ;) Everyone do your part to act like a "nihilist", "skeptical" Objectivist and INCREASE your footprint of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide. Maybe go for a run and breathe harder.

Let's pretend for a second that the world isn't what it is and that humans have the capacity to impact the world's climate... so what??? The climate has been continuously changing for billions of years without man's help, so what if man--a natural part of this world-- also effects it? My question is why such a possibility would even be thought to be a "bad" thing, let alone a "global catastrophe"? What does it say about these supposed men of science that they believe that if man does it it's "bad", but if it happens naturally, well, that's "alright".

The whole premise of man-made "global warming" at this stage of our technological progress is simply preposterous and with so many believing in this nonsense without any real empirical that isn't slanted by poor philosophical premises it is direct damnation of this modern ages intellectual underpinnings and a direct call for a new rational philosophy to step forward and dominate.

Here's a link to get you started on understanding on why global warming is a concern, man made or not. See part IV. I can only conclude by your post that you have made some erroneous presumptions about what this whole thing is about. The "real empirical" is actually quite substantial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only could this be expensive but the goal itself appears to be nihilistic.

Instead, we should focus on a positive. For example, establishing a day where we celebrate the heroic achievements of the industrialists who revolutionized coal, electricity, oil and other vital resources?

As always, your posts provide some of the best insight and suggestions around. 100% agreed. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It dosen't take an environmental scientist to realise that CO2 is an integral part of the natural cycle. We breathe it out, plants absorb it, photosynthesis occurs and they give off Oxygen. Both parties benifit (kind of Objectivist, is it not?).

Yes, all chemicals have their place in small amounts, but even water can kill you in a high enough dose. This is true for everything, including CO2. Now what that "maximum dose" is for CO2, I don't know, but my only point here is to show that your argument only seems true if one ignores dosage.

Take into consideration the fact that one volcanic eruption puts into the atmpsphere more so-called "greenhouse gases" than man has emmitted since the dawn of the industrial age. What are we supposed to do about that?

Make a machine that will suck the same amount of CO2 out of the air that a volcanic eruption, if and when it occurs, puts into the air. ;)

Now, we hear that the 0.6 degree increase in mean global temperature has gone the other way, decreasing 0.7 degrees, and we are now to expect a thirty year cooling phase. DOH! :wacko:

Clearly, our scientific understanding does not yet account for all possibilities, but it is getting closer by the minute and we should not disregard it because every possibility is not covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions (human made) are only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon.

Sure, the number 3 is much lower than the number 100, but is that all you're going on when you decide that human CO2 emissions are not impacting? I would think one could only make that argument if the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to humans was immeasurable.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remarkably, you have actually provided no evidence, at least of the empirical variety scientists relish, contrary to your claim of having done so.

I meant specifically to you, under the topic of C02. I used The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change as a way to show that there is no consensus - that there are a lot of scientists who provide evidence which contradict global warming claims. (this was a statement but on that site there are a lot of scientific evidence provided)

Are you saying you found documentation that the IPCC no longer considers CO2 a contributor to global warming?

I am not. I made a mistake about that.

I believe more than one study has been done to support the conclusion that the oceans are acidifying. Like this one last month, or I will find others if you aren't convinced.

I will read it.

Even if the Earth was heating up like Dom Deluise on a stationary bike in the Mohave, there would be at least some way of claiming it was something other than man causing it.

You have to look at the scope of influence of human activity on Earth's C02 cycle.

With a system as elusively complex as the globe's weather, we must deal in probabilities.

Not when you are asking for drastic changes in life style and affecting one of the most crusial resources for human life - energy.

And the fact that more scientists get on board every day with the anthropogenic global warming consensus, your claim that it is a theory that is "falling apart" doesn't hold water.

Who is getting on board are not scientists but politicians.

Hard to believe so many scientists from all over world, from different cultures, could be so uniformly obtuse, so cravenly subject to the political pressures you say warps their scientific judgment. This would be a conspiracy of staggering proportions, involving tens of thousands of scientists across the globe. How can this be possible when you can't get even 3 people to keep a secret? This is what assures me that the moon landings weren't faked, and that aliens didn't crash in Roswell, NM.

I have never said conspiracy. But people - scientists included are/can be influenced by their own personal philosophy, their own view about the world and man's place in it. And then you have people like AlGore who are dishonest in presenting scientific data and not including all of the context.

And this IS a scientific issue and as such, as any other scientific claim, needs to be put through the same rigorous factual evaluation.

I can similarly say that I can't believe that God does not exist (or insert any other widely accepted FALSE claim - maybe that a democracy is the best system) because there is so many people around the world, very successful businessman, scientists, judges who believe in it. All of those people can not be wrong given their knowledge.

Again who believes it is irrelevant. Facts are relevant. Correspondence with reality is relevant.

Oh, so in your spare time you have examined the thousands of studies related to global warming?

No I went through the relevant evidence presented and made a judgment.

The point is its absurd to make such a statement. In today's world we must rely on the judgment of experts in the field for many things, and expect those experts to have high standards of professionalism and ethics, to critique one another, and to be held accountable.

This can be a topic of a whole new thread.

Most of the time, accepting ideas does not have the same sense of urgency of decision making as it is required, for practical reasons, in our daily activities. It is that need for fast action in order to remain efficient which is a limiting factor when it comes to an otherwise correct principle of independent evaluation; at time it becomes necessary for me to relay on build trust (like past history of a company who has made a specific product - consumer reports ect).

When it comes to ideas, however, trust only determines for me how seriously I will consider a claim. The mentioned, limiting factor does not exist and thus I am unlikely to accept ideas on trust. I only do so (act on trust) when it becomes necessary and never do when it does not.

Responsible scientists don't make blanket statements without strong evidence.

Again this is an issue of understanding of the scope.

CHALLENGE ISSUED: Present a list of climatologists who you feel would say, as you have here, that man cannot possibly alter Earth's temperature cycles. The one caveat is that they must actually publish research.

I feel they would say? As you stated it - it is rediculous. I don't have the knowledge about the content of another person's consciousness.

Edit: I wanted to add that it should give one pause to find oneself on the side of Senator James Inhofe. This is the same man who believes in Creationism/Intelligent Design, who said we should support Israel "because God said so," the same man who won a "100% True Blue" award from the Christian think-tank the Family Research Council, and the same man who ended a speech against gay marriage by quoting from Genesis and Matthew.

Again the truth is not determined by who believes it. You have a strange way of assessing the validity of knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a link to get you started on understanding on why global warming is a concern, man made or not. See part IV. I can only conclude by your post that you have made some erroneous presumptions about what this whole thing is about. The "real empirical" is actually quite substantial.

And I think the "erroneous presumptions" are being made by you on a pre-scientific philosophical level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have now said that science has not demonstrated that humans are impacting the earth's climate. Yet you say that no amount of data collection or research is needed, because it has been proved that man cannot affect temperature cycles.

Where did I say that?

When I said that no resources should be spend on it this was the context:

Therefore it is a mistake and a huge injustice to make people feel guilty and ask them to drastically change their way of living, to spend huge amounts of money on it, to introduce additional taxes, ect. It is a mistake to spend any resources intellectual or otherwise.

I mean trying to reduce world emission of C02. (as it carries a drastic cost for us yet - it will make 1.5% difference in terms of the amount of C02 in the atmosphere).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, the number 3 is much lower than the number 100, but is that all you're going on when you decide that human CO2 emissions are not impacting? I would think one could only make that argument if the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to humans was immeasurable.

If the system was shown to be sensitive to small changes ... but it is not. Plant life grows better under higher C02 levels (higher level is more optimal as those are the condictions under which it evolved). Not so long ago scientists were saying that we have not enough C02 and it would have been better if we did for that very reason.

I don't mean no impact at all (we are contributing to C02 levels abeit to a small degree) but definately not causing global temperature changes. There is no evidence for that. That has been eliminated as a cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying you found documentation that the IPCC no longer considers CO2 a contributor to global warming?

IPCC has a vested interest in promoting claims that would guarantee its funding and justify its continued existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a link to get you started on understanding on why global warming is a concern, man made or not. See part IV. I can only conclude by your post that you have made some erroneous presumptions about what this whole thing is about. The "real empirical" is actually quite substantial.

I read part IV. Claims made by IPCC and used here already been discredited.

For example: Projected warming would be much larger and faster than anything that has occurred over

the past 10,000 years (IPCC 2001).

This prediction was made in 2001 using a model which has been shown to be wrong. Since then...Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed "warming" which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the urban heat island effect (local heat retention due to urban sprawl), not global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plant life grows better under higher C02 levels.

On how large a scale and under what environmental conditions is this statement valid, and how has its validity been related to the global biosphere?

Not so long ago scientists were saying that we have not enough C02 and it would have been better if we did for that very reason.

Not so long ago scientists in all fields were saying a lot of false things. It seems irrational to me to use such a statement as the basis of an argument against the conclusions of today's scientists, who have better equipment, more data, and better methods of analysis.

I don't mean no impact at all (we are contributing to C02 levels abeit to a small degree) but definately not causing global temperature changes.

What is your evidence for this statement other than that 3/100 is qualitatively a "small" number?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read part IV. Claims made by IPCC and used here already been discredited.

Which claims and how have they been discredited? Just saying "we don't accept claims from this group" is like a reverse appeal to authority, just as equally fallacious.

Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years

With how much confidence can you use evidence from only a couple years to compare to evidence over the last few decades or centuries? This is like saying "today was the hottest day on record" or "today was the coldest day on record" to show evidence of a long-term global trend.

that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway

Again, yes, qualitatively, "one degree F" is a small number compared to what we're used to. How does that statement relate to reality, though? Wasn't the average global temperature during the ice age - when N America was covered in an enormous block of ice - only a few degrees different from what it is now?

and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings

How much is "part of"? Enough to discount the conclusions, or not? All experiments have systematic error, but the only thing that matters is the relative size of that error.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which claims and how have they been discredited?

Why don't you do your own research and find out? They have made numerous claims, projections and prognoses which now have been found to be false or misleading. There is much information available on the internet. This topic is too extensive for me to present here (nor I have any personal interest in doing so). I can give you few examples though if you insist.

Just saying "we don't accept claims from this group" is like a reverse appeal to authority, just as equally fallacious.

No it is not. The fallaciousness of their reports (even some scientists who wrote the primary research those reports are based upon do not agree with the spin and presentation of IPCC) have been demonstated numerous times.

I do look at what primary research they cite.

With how much confidence can you use evidence from only a couple years to compare to evidence over the last few decades or centuries?

When you look on a very large scale our planet is approaching a cooling cycle.

a great presentation of relevant data. (youtube - I encourage you to watch all 4 parts) Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...