DE: 100 Reasons Why Climate Change is Natural

[Larry]

Larry, is CO2 a pollutant? Yes or No.

Ah, the old "if it exists anywhere in nature, then it's OK for man to dump unlimited quantities of it into the environment" argument, phrased as a question.

Any artificially produced chemical which is dumped into the environment is a pollutant.

Is mercury a pollutant? Yes or no.

[The Evil Genius]

sacase,

I would say that the man made (through breathing out) CO2 isn't the problem. The Earth is able to handle that (like the naturally occurring wind in my barn question).

I would also say that the industrially created CO2 more than likely is tipping the scales on what the planet can handle (like the added wind from the fan in my question). That is, unless you (and me) start planing a hell of a lot more plants and trees to handle the added CO2 output.

[Burgold]

PeterMP, can you say that it is a fact, that if we completly stop CO2 emissions, our climate will change? Yes or No.

I think the easiest way to answer that is to talk about diet. Iron is good for you. People should eat spinach. Carrots are good for you too. However, if you eat too much iron or eat too many carrots you can actually make yourself ill and sometimes very ill. What's that point? What's the equaliberum, balance point at which nature is all fine and dandy and at what point does it say.... Whoa! That's killing me dude!

CO2 is a part of the natural cycle... too much isn't good. That's what science has been telling us anyway. Are we producing that extra that might send us over the edge? And even if we aren't if we are naturally getting past that tipping point, shouldn't we do our best not to push it even further down the dial?

[PeterMP]

PeterMP, can you say that it is a fact, that if we completly stop CO2 emissions, our climate will change? Yes or No.

Yes, our climate will continue to change (NOT necessarily warm). If you quit mantaining your house, nature will take it back over that space.

Are you going to quit cutting your grass, pulling weeds/trees, trimming branches, etc?

If we COMPLETELY quit releasing CFCs, the ozone layer would continue to change (as it is affected by natural processes too). Should we not try and curb CFCs?

[Larry]

I have literally caught you creating a straw man out of my argument. I refuse to respond to you until you bring me something of merit

Just went back to go quote your post so I could call you a liar.

And came to the discovery that you're simply mistaken. (Although, in your defense, you're mistaken because of my mistake.)

No, I was not "creating a straw man out of [your] argument".

I was responding to somebody else's argument which I thought you had made.

Apologies.

[skinfan133]

Just went back to go quote your post so I could call you a liar.

And came to the discovery that you're simply mistaken. (Although, in your defense, you're mistaken because of my mistake.)

No, I was not "creating a straw man out of [your] argument".

I was responding to somebody else's argument which I thought you had made.

Apologies.

very well, I accept, no hard feelings

[sacase]

sacase,

I would say that the man made (through breathing out) CO2 isn't the problem. The Earth is able to handle that (like the naturally occurring wind in my barn question).

I would also say that the industrially created CO2 more than likely is tipping the scales on what the planet can handle (like the added wind from the fan in my question). That is, unless you (and me) start planing a hell of a lot more plants and trees to handle the added CO2 output.

Great, let's planet more trees, I am all for that.

Ah, the old "if it exists anywhere in nature, then it's OK for man to dump unlimited quantities of it into the environment" argument, phrased as a question.

Any artificially produced chemical which is dumped into the environment is a pollutant.

Is mercury a pollutant? Yes or no.

Answer the question Larry, quit avoiding it. When are you going to do what you demand of others. I won't hold my breath on this one.

I think the easiest way to answer that is to talk about diet. Iron is good for you. People should eat spinach. Carrots are good for you too. However, if you eat too much iron or eat too many carrots you can actually make yourself ill and sometimes very ill. What's that point? What's the equaliberum, balance point at which nature is all fine and dandy and at what point does it say.... Whoa! That's killing me dude!

CO2 is a part of the natural cycle... too much isn't good. That's what science has been telling us anyway. Are we producing that extra that might send us over the edge? And even if we aren't if we are naturally getting past that tipping point, shouldn't we do our best not to push it even further down the dial?

But how do we know how much CO2 is bad? Seriously, there have been much higher levels of CO2 in the air and life has still been present. What is too much?

Yes, our climate will continue to change (NOT necessarily warm). If you quit mantaining your house, nature will take it back over that space.

Are you going to quit cutting your grass, pulling weeds/trees, trimming branches, etc?

If we COMPLETELY quit releasing CFCs, the ozone layer would continue to change (as it is affected by natural processes too). Should we not try and curb CFCs?

So basically you are advocating a "global climate staisis" and that climate change is good as long as we can do it in our best interest.

So, as the expert, how do we warm and cool our climate to suit our tastes?

[skinfan133]

I'm not using it as a model to explain climate change. I'm using just to make the point that you can't call CO2 output passive. Lot's of people have said the CO2 output is an issue. Ignoring them is NOT a passive act.

well, I personally think limiting CO2 will not solve the problem since the problem is natural, so around we go (although my observations certainly include the possibility of man exacerbating natural trends through CO2 output, something maybe I should have mentioned earlier and that one is on me)

Actions can be taken to reduce CO2 out on a personal level and at a political/national level.

This is ridiculous, the notion that an individual can change CO2 levels is preposterous. Even if every individual average citizen engaged in "co2 reducing" activities, the vast majority of CO2 would still be produced by industry. even then, I still do not think it will make much difference. We are coming out of the last Ice Age, and taking account of history, warming will occur regardless of us.

EVEN if you are correct, don;t you think it would be foolish NOT to prepare for scenarios in which warming is absolutely inevitable?

The best way to deal with any problem is almost always at the cause. Long term it is the most effecient.

this is true, but if the cause is something natural, how do you fight this? the answer is you don't: you invest your time, energy, and wealth toward dealing with the outcome, not trying to prevent the inevitable. :2cents: This is why I say we should approach this problem from the realist paradigm, we can save the most lives this way.

My solution is to start controlling green house gas outputs. Cap and trade has worked for various issues in the past. Where exactly to set the goals is an issue, but the great thing about legislation in this country is it can be changed. I'd be biased to setting to high of goals with the idea that you can come back and reduce them later if needed.

again, utterly useless imo, see above

Well in terms of real and immediate, only if you assume the vast majority of the scientists that work in the field are wrong.

again, what I am saying does not hinge on whether we are right or wrong on the cause. we need to game solutions.

The as well part I agree with, but none are likely to have the global impact climate change can have.

this is true, yet we do nothing and I think that is shameful. as stewards of God's creation we are failing miserably.

Your argument is that we have a history of "accidently" creating situations that could drastically alter the future of the human population and by changing our behavior at the source we managed to prevent those situations from happening even though various people at the time were telling us that the we really weren't causing the problem, AND the prescribed solution to the problem was to expensive?

If that's your argument, you really need to be more clear.

that's not my argument at all, in fact I can't even tell what you are trying to say here.

I'm saying we need to address this "as is." I honestly think there is nothing we can do to stop it even under the assumption that you are correct, therefore we need to adapt, and sooner than latter.

[Burgold]

But how do we know how much CO2 is bad? Seriously, there have been much higher levels of CO2 in the air and life has still been present. What is too much?

That to me is an interesting question. It's not one usually approached as we politicize the topic sadly.

[Larry]

Answer the question Larry, quit avoiding it.

I have answered it. Dozens of times.

(For some reason, you never have. At least not that I can recall. (I won't claim to have read every post you've ever made.) Care to answer your own question? Care to actually have the guts to stand up like a man and state your argument, instead of hinting at at (because you know it won't stand up)?)

Care to actually define pollution? I have. You run away. (And make arguments that even you are ashamed to actually state in black and white.)

Or to actually state what you're trying to avoid saying? Your own question: Is CO2 a pollutant? And why or why not?

But how do we know how much CO2 is bad?

Half a billion tons a year. And accelerating.

How much is "too much" for you?

Seriously, there have been much higher levels of CO2 in the air and life has still been present.

Yeah, it just wasn't human life.

Do you really want to argue that an Earth without humans is OK with you, if it means we don't have to actually put any effort into reducing pollutants?

[Hunter44]

Great, let's planet more trees, I am all for that.

Trees are carbon neutral. What they take in over their life is released when they die.

What's kinda scary is all the "stored" carbon in things like permafrost. When it gets warm enough for that stored carbon to be released then we're in trouble...

[PeterMP]

So basically you are advocating a "global climate staisis" and that climate change is good as long as we can do it in our best interest.

So, as the expert, how do we warm and cool our climate to suit our tastes?

There is no reason to believe a single method is the best method. Climate is controlled by multiple variables, mantaining stasis will likely best require manipulating multiple variables, but we can already do that.

There are various ways by which we can control climate, and they will likely change as we better understand climate and technology changes.

[Larry]

this is true, but if the cause is something natural, how do you fight this? the answer is you don't: you invest your time, energy, and wealth toward dealing with the outcome, not trying to prevent the inevitable. :2cents: This is why I say we should approach this problem from the realist paradigm, we can save the most lives this way.

. . .

I'm saying we need to address this "as is." I honestly think there is nothing we can do to stop it even under the assumption that you are correct, therefore we need to adapt, and sooner than latter.

Your point is that beginning the conversion to energy forms that don't depend on burning dead things and dumping the residue into the atmosphere is too hard and expensive and disruptive, and instead we should be beginning the migration of the entire human race, starting with the abandoning of every place on Earth that's less than 100 feet above sea level, and continuing with shifting all climate-related activities (such as agriculture) to new locations (in order to utilize the new climate) and dealing with any and all unpredictable other effects that climate change might have on the environment is the way to go?

Converting to nuclear power is too expensive, we should be evacuating the entire coastline of the US, instead?

(Yes, I'm exaggerating. But only a little.)

[The Evil Genius]

Larry,

Please don't evacuate New Jersey. Or Richmond.

[Predicto]

To be fair, new scientist is not a peer reviewed journal and Michael Le Page is an environmental activist.

That's a fair criticism. I would never have started this thread by posting the New Scientist list.

I was trying to fight fire with fire, as it were. He threw in a cut and paste job, so I responded with an on-point cut and paste of a refutation to his.

I was trying to point out how useless his laundry list driveby posting was by countering it with another laundry list.

My effort might have gotten a little lost in translation.

[Larry]

Larry,

Please don't evacuate New Jersey. Or Richmond.

Wasn't that in the first Superman movie? "I'll remove that Kryptonite, but you have to promise to save New Jersey"?

[PeterMP]

well, I personally think limiting CO2 will not solve the problem since the problem is natural, so around we go (although my observations certainly include the possibility of man exacerbating natural trends through CO2 output, something maybe I should have mentioned earlier and that one is on me)

Except that your point of view doesn't agree with the vast majority of scientists in the field.

This is ridiculous, the notion that an individual can change CO2 levels is preposterous. Even if every individual average citizen engaged in "co2 reducing" activities, the vast majority of CO2 would still be produced by industry.

Note the inclusion of a political/national level. People acting on a personal level can have signficant affects.

even then, I still do not think it will make much difference. We are coming out of the last Ice Age, and taking account of history, warming will occur regardless of us.

Haven't you heard, we are suppossed to be in a cooling trend? An ice age is coming (in about 50,000 years (if you ignore the CO2 effect that is))

EVEN if you are correct, don;t you think it would be foolish NOT to prepare for scenarios in which warming is absolutely inevitable?

See my comments to sacase.

this is true, but if the cause is something natural, how do you fight this? the answer is you don't: you invest your time, energy, and wealth toward dealing with the outcome, not trying to prevent the inevitable. :2cents: This is why I say we should approach this problem from the realist paradigm, we can save the most lives this way.

Change green house gases and/or particles (which cause cooling).

that's not my argument at all, in fact I can't even tell what you are trying to say here.

Read about CFCs and the ozone hole.

[Predicto]

Wow just found a great video

That video is fantastic.

[skinfan133]

(Yes, I'm exaggerating. But only a little.)

no you're exaggerating quite a bit, and this time you really are putting words in my mouth.

eliminating fossil fuels is beneficial for more reasons than 'climate-change.' you seem to think me one dimensional. but I digress, lets unpack your absolute hackery shall we? and please, for the record, I am simply the devil's adovate.

Your point is that beginning the conversion to energy forms that don't depend on burning dead things

notice your choice of terms. you couldn't have simply said fossil fuels or oil, or petroleum, could you? You assume I am in favor of the status quo in terms of energy, especially in oil, you therefore feel it is necessary to use a term that makes such a stance (one which I do not hold) appear to be stupid by the connotation of "[a form of energy based] on burning dead things."

and dumping the residue into the atmosphere is too hard and expensive and disruptive,

please quote where I said this. I never said it was too expensive, in fact I never commented on the matter of reducing airborne pollution. well here's my opportunity to go on the record: reducing airborne pollution is a wonderful thing. In fact, I believe I even said something along the lines of ' who isn't for breathing clean air?' so let me ask you: why do you insist on creating straw-men in order to make yourself appear intellectually superior? Oh but wait, I'm not finished...

and instead we should be beginning the migration of the entire human race, starting with the abandoning of every place on Earth that's less than 100 feet above sea level, and continuing with shifting all climate-related activities (such as agriculture) to new locations (in order to utilize the new climate) and dealing with any and all unpredictable other effects that climate change might have on the environment is the way to go?

you are insinuating sir that this is my solution. I clearly stated that I personally offer no solution. I simply said:

-preventing climate change is futile

-how are we going to respond to that?

there are multiple ways of dealing with the issue that do not include your highly exaggerated example.

Converting to nuclear power is too expensive, we should be evacuating the entire coastline of the US, instead?

preposterous. that is my only response to this sentence. transference of our infrastructure from coal and oil to nuclear power is not only preferable, it is also profitable and not overly expensive.

do me a favor Larry. in all seriousness. drop the act, or simply do not respond to my posts. thanks

[Predicto]

Predicto, stop with the little game you are playing, you are better than that. By your standard the only person that can probably talk about climate change is PerterMP. 95% of the converstation here is generated by people posting articles and using the information in them to back up their points.

H4R didn't stifle discussion, he just knew what was coming. Just like many of the left in this forum do when anything is posted that they don't agree with, they attack the source rather than discussing the article. He was pretty much mocking you and the stance you have taken with anything global warming related.

If H4R had picked a single point, quoted it, and then discussed it, you might be right. But he didn't. He cut and pasted a tabloid laundry list, and didn't discuss any of it at all.

It got the response it deserved. If I started this thread by posting the New Scientist list and not commenting on it in any substantive way, I would deserve mockery too. But I didn't.

[sacase]

I have answered it. Dozens of times.

(For some reason, you never have. At least not that I can recall. (I won't claim to have read every post you've ever made.) Care to answer your own question? Care to actually have the guts to stand up like a man and state your argument, instead of hinting at at (because you know it won't stand up)?)

Care to actually define pollution? I have. You run away. (And make arguments that even you are ashamed to actually state in black and white.)

Or to actually state what you're trying to avoid saying? Your own question: Is CO2 a pollutant? And why or why not?

No you never answer the simple question of wether CO2 is a pollutant. You deflect, obtusely talk around it and basically show a fundamental lack of moral courage to answer a yes or no question. Your answer to my question was just a question. You have still didn't answer the question only to turn around and ask a question yourself.

Well you obviously know my arguements so that must mean they are in black and white. Larry, I am still here, I am not running. I would try and hold you accountable for what you say, but there would really be no point in doing something you are not used to.

Please show me where I have said that we should pollute (note, I said pollute, not CO2) till our hearts content.

Yeah, it just wasn't human life.

Do you really want to argue that an Earth without humans is OK with you, if it means we don't have to actually put any effort into reducing pollutants?

From a philisophical point of view, what is wrong with Earth without human life? It wouldn't matter to the planet one way or another. Hell, they way many enviromentalists talk, it probably would be better off without human life.

[Larry]

Actually, I'll point out that Larry's Solar Energy From Space Scheme not only allows us to convert to an energy source which produces zero greenhouse gasses (in fact, zero pollution of any kind, with the notable exception of heat itself. (That pesky First Law thing.)).

Complete energy independence.

Zero pollution (once built).

Pays for itself (including interest, inflation, and a profit).

In 20-25 years.

It also give us the power to easily regulate the Earth's climate, still without introducing anything into the atmosphere whatsoever.

[PeterMP]

you are insinuating sir that this is my solution. I clearly stated that I personally offer no solution. I simply said:

-preventing climate change is futile

-how are we going to respond to that?

Preventing the CURRENT climate change that is going to cause REAL problems isn't futile (unless you believe the vast majority of the scientists that study the subject are wrong).

[sacase]

If H4R had picked a single point, quoted it, and then discussed it, you might be right. But he didn't. He cut and pasted a tabloid laundry list, and didn't discuss any of it at all.

It got the response it deserved. If I started this thread by posting the New Scientist list and not commenting on it in any substantive way, I would deserve mockery too. But I didn't.

This is what we do here. People post articles to get responses. People respond and discussion is generated, often times dtraying far from the orginal topic. I tend to learn things most of the time from these discussions even if I disagree with them.

I just noticed that in the global warming threads you do this, not other threads. Hell, posting a rebuttle article doesn't bother me but attacking people for posting articles is kind of rediculous, it serves its point, which is to generate discussion.

[Predicto]

No you never answer the simple question of wether CO2 is a pollutant.

I'm not sure why this question is relevant to the discussion.

Water is not a pollutant, but you can drown in it, or die of water toxicity if you drink too much water too fast.

CO2 is a naturally occuring substance and necessary for life on this planet, so it is not a pollutant in one context, but that does not mean that it can't be considered a "pollutant" in another context. Sulfer dioxide is also a naturally occuring substance, but it is also a heavily regulated pollutant.

So why does this "simple question" matter?