Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
booboise blueboys said:
V10leptoquark said:
The only solution on the table for the left wingers seems to be to take current civilisation back to before the industrial revolution - as that is when the cherry picked date starts in order to portray a warming trend.
If not pre-industrial civilisation then what level of human CO2 production is acceptable for it to happily fit in with the crazy catastrophic predictions of the immediate future 10 years (or was it 12?), anyways its been more than 10 years since Al Gore's got it wildly wrong.
Why is this a left right thing?If not pre-industrial civilisation then what level of human CO2 production is acceptable for it to happily fit in with the crazy catastrophic predictions of the immediate future 10 years (or was it 12?), anyways its been more than 10 years since Al Gore's got it wildly wrong.
Pre industrial revolution is not a cherry picked date. It's the point we started releasing larger amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Makes complete sense.
Anyways, with your acceptance that the beginning of the industrial revolution was where it all started to go wrong - would it be correct to say that for pro-climate change people, that you would wish to see humans go back to those emission levels? And with that you would presume the climate would what?-would start to get cooler again, or stay at our current catastrophic condition?
V10leptoquark said:
You don't think there is a huge stench of anti-capitalism in what they are proposing?
Anyways, with your acceptance that the beginning of the industrial revolution was where it all started to go wrong - would it be correct to say that for pro-climate change people, that you would wish to see humans go back to those emission levels? And with that you would presume the climate would what?-would start to get cooler again, or stay at our current catastrophic condition?
On the contrary, it's not anti capitalist. If the aim is more local, renewable energy under our control vs sending billions of pounds to Russia and the Middle East for oil then in effect it's more nationalistic and just as capitalist. Ignore the bearded weirdos, the outcome of going green is not what they expect.Anyways, with your acceptance that the beginning of the industrial revolution was where it all started to go wrong - would it be correct to say that for pro-climate change people, that you would wish to see humans go back to those emission levels? And with that you would presume the climate would what?-would start to get cooler again, or stay at our current catastrophic condition?
If the CC theory is correct, then yes over the long run it would probably become cooler. If not then at least as a country we've got control over our own energy supply.
Edited by booboise blueboys on Friday 20th September 15:20
Man's effects on the planet should be reduced in most ways, not just AGW but for all pollution or reduction of habitat for other species and also the massive reduction in biodiversity.
I'm concerned that just concentrating on climate change reduces action on some other items like the ones mentioned above. Reduction in habitat and biodiversity is just as important !
I'm not keen on children being used to push forward action on climate change, adults should be doing that. Ironically children use far more resources unknowingly than they ever did when I was growing up, so they are actually part of the problem. They won't want to give up their mobile phones for sliding down a hill on a piece of cardboard though I bet ? And who can blame them.
I'm concerned that just concentrating on climate change reduces action on some other items like the ones mentioned above. Reduction in habitat and biodiversity is just as important !
I'm not keen on children being used to push forward action on climate change, adults should be doing that. Ironically children use far more resources unknowingly than they ever did when I was growing up, so they are actually part of the problem. They won't want to give up their mobile phones for sliding down a hill on a piece of cardboard though I bet ? And who can blame them.
booboise blueboys said:
robinessex said:
That image says nothing. 
Anything above 10ppm or 0.001% chlorine in a swimming pool and things are becoming unsafe. You'll be dead long before it reaches eve 0.1%. The same applies to the atmosphere.
Edited by booboise blueboys on Friday 20th September 14:57
PS. I think your mathematical ability is a bit weak as well.
robinessex said:
Try sending something that isn't gibberish. Did you do English and Grammar at school? It's already been said here, you can't compare poisonous substances with CO2.
PS. I think your mathematical ability is a bit weak as well.
CO2 isn't poisonous? Try breathing a large amount of it and let me know how that turns out. PS. I think your mathematical ability is a bit weak as well.
There's even a medical condition called Carbon Dioxide Poisoning. Jesus Christ.
That's 4 posts from you and you've yet to post anything remotely accurate.
booboise blueboys said:
CO2 isn't poisonous? Try breathing a large amount of it and let me know how that turns out.
There's even a medical condition called Carbon Dioxide Poisoning. Jesus Christ.
That's 4 posts from you and you've yet to post anything remotely accurate.
It is not poisonous in the true meaning of the word:There's even a medical condition called Carbon Dioxide Poisoning. Jesus Christ.
That's 4 posts from you and you've yet to post anything remotely accurate.
"a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed."
or
"a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health."
Jinx said:
booboise blueboys said:
CO2 isn't poisonous? Try breathing a large amount of it and let me know how that turns out.
There's even a medical condition called Carbon Dioxide Poisoning. Jesus Christ.
That's 4 posts from you and you've yet to post anything remotely accurate.
It is not poisonous in the true meaning of the word:There's even a medical condition called Carbon Dioxide Poisoning. Jesus Christ.
That's 4 posts from you and you've yet to post anything remotely accurate.
"a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed."
or
"a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health."
Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant not a poison.
As posted earlier, the planet has seen x10 current levels of carbon dioxide naturally and life thrived, humans work continuously in x20 current levels and see no adverse effects, gas given to patients in a medical emergency is 125x current levels and they are helped not killed.
Some poison
booboise blueboys said:
CO2 isn't poisonous? Try breathing a large amount of it and let me know how that turns out.
There's even a medical condition called Carbon Dioxide Poisoning. Jesus Christ.
That's 4 posts from you and you've yet to post anything remotely accurate.
Yes, CO2 is poisonous, just like water.There's even a medical condition called Carbon Dioxide Poisoning. Jesus Christ.
That's 4 posts from you and you've yet to post anything remotely accurate.
Kawasicki said:
booboise blueboys said:
CO2 isn't poisonous? Try breathing a large amount of it and let me know how that turns out.
There's even a medical condition called Carbon Dioxide Poisoning. Jesus Christ.
That's 4 posts from you and you've yet to post anything remotely accurate.
Yes, CO2 is poisonous, just like water.There's even a medical condition called Carbon Dioxide Poisoning. Jesus Christ.
That's 4 posts from you and you've yet to post anything remotely accurate.
Kawasicki said:
Both insufficient and excessive CO2 levels are less than optimal for life on Earth.
Optimal CO2 is ideal for life on Earth.
We should definitely aim for optimal CO2.
What is the optimal level?
We're in the realm of angels dancing on a pin head here. Currently it is c.0.04% of the atmosphere and in pre-industrial times it was c.0.0125 points lower. It's mighty powerful stuff if such minute quantities can have as destructive an influence as we're expected to believe. Optimal CO2 is ideal for life on Earth.
We should definitely aim for optimal CO2.
What is the optimal level?
turbobloke said:
Correct.
Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant not a poison.
As posted earlier, the planet has seen x10 current levels of carbon dioxide naturally and life thrived, humans work continuously in x20 current levels and see no adverse effects, gas given to patients in a medical emergency is 125x current levels and they are helped not killed.
Some poison
CO2 is an asphyxiant? So it strangles you of oxygen?Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant not a poison.
As posted earlier, the planet has seen x10 current levels of carbon dioxide naturally and life thrived, humans work continuously in x20 current levels and see no adverse effects, gas given to patients in a medical emergency is 125x current levels and they are helped not killed.
Some poison
Oh, that's ok then.
The mental gymnastics in this thread is something else.
motco said:
Kawasicki said:
Both insufficient and excessive CO2 levels are less than optimal for life on Earth.
Optimal CO2 is ideal for life on Earth.
We should definitely aim for optimal CO2.
What is the optimal level?
We're in the realm of angels dancing on a pin head here. Currently it is c.0.04% of the atmosphere and in pre-industrial times it was c.0.0125 points lower. It's mighty powerful stuff if such minute quantities can have as destructive an influence as we're expected to believe. Optimal CO2 is ideal for life on Earth.
We should definitely aim for optimal CO2.
What is the optimal level?
The maths is correctly reflected in an analogy where a room (the atmosphere) has a light bulb (heat) and a window with roller blinds (route for energy to escape, with roller blinds as carbon dioxide).
Pull one roller blind down and a lot of energy is delayed in its escape. Pull ten down and the tenth has little additional effect. At 400 ppmv we're up to the 400th roller blind and think it matters if we get to 450 etc. A similar logarithmic decrease in effect is operating with carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is not acting like a blanket around the planet, carbon dioxide molecules are not acting like tiny mirrors reflecting heat back. These comparisons are nonscience (yet found in school books) and are not only wrong physically but they suggest that e.g. a thicker blanket or more mirrors would be a proportional worsening of the situation when in fact carbon dioxide at 400 ppmv has shot its bolt. See above analogy. Hence the IPCC require ever more positive feedback to keep up the scary stories, and even there satellite data shows that's wrong too.
Politicians are of course totally up to speed with all this, it's a compulsory part of their PPE degrees or in the case of many of them, the nothing qualification they possess as required to be an MP. This is how they get to make such brilliant policy on the subject and are not susceptible to flimflam from bunk'n'junk
booboise blueboys said:
turbobloke said:
Correct.
Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant not a poison.
As posted earlier, the planet has seen x10 current levels of carbon dioxide naturally and life thrived, humans work continuously in x20 current levels and see no adverse effects, gas given to patients in a medical emergency is 125x current levels and they are helped not killed.
Some poison
CO2 is an asphyxiant? So it strangles you of oxygen?Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant not a poison.
As posted earlier, the planet has seen x10 current levels of carbon dioxide naturally and life thrived, humans work continuously in x20 current levels and see no adverse effects, gas given to patients in a medical emergency is 125x current levels and they are helped not killed.
Some poison
Oh, that's ok then.
The mental gymnastics in this thread is something else.
You do know that you would die if CO2 levels fall too low? Some 'poison' if you can't survive without it.
turbobloke said:
Especially when actual science as opposed to bunkum shows that each additional increment has a smaller effect, not the same effect and indeed not a bigger effect than previously.
The maths is correctly reflected in an analogy where a room (the atmosphere) has a light bulb (heat) and a window with roller blinds (route for energy to escape, with roller blinds as carbon dioxide).
Pull one roller blind down and a lot of energy is delayed in its escape. Pull ten down and the tenth has little additional effect. At 400 ppmv we're up to the 400th roller blind and think it matters if we get to 450 etc. A similar logarithmic decrease in effect is operating with carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is not acting like a blanket around the planet, carbon dioxide molecules are not acting like tiny mirrors reflecting heat back. These comparisons are nonscience (yet found in school books) and are not only wrong physically but they suggest that e.g. a thicker blanket or more mirrors would be a proportional worsening of the situation when in fact carbon dioxide at 400 ppmv has shot its bolt. See above analogy. Hence the IPCC require ever more positive feedback to keep up the scary stories, and even there satellite data shows that's wrong too.
Politicians are of course totally up to speed with all this, it's a compulsory part of their PPE degrees or in the case of many of them, the nothing qualification they possess as required to be an MP. This is how they get to make such brilliant policy on the subject and are not susceptible to flimflam from bunk'n'junk
At what point do you stop pulling down blinds/pumping out CO2 faster than it can be absorbed?The maths is correctly reflected in an analogy where a room (the atmosphere) has a light bulb (heat) and a window with roller blinds (route for energy to escape, with roller blinds as carbon dioxide).
Pull one roller blind down and a lot of energy is delayed in its escape. Pull ten down and the tenth has little additional effect. At 400 ppmv we're up to the 400th roller blind and think it matters if we get to 450 etc. A similar logarithmic decrease in effect is operating with carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is not acting like a blanket around the planet, carbon dioxide molecules are not acting like tiny mirrors reflecting heat back. These comparisons are nonscience (yet found in school books) and are not only wrong physically but they suggest that e.g. a thicker blanket or more mirrors would be a proportional worsening of the situation when in fact carbon dioxide at 400 ppmv has shot its bolt. See above analogy. Hence the IPCC require ever more positive feedback to keep up the scary stories, and even there satellite data shows that's wrong too.
Politicians are of course totally up to speed with all this, it's a compulsory part of their PPE degrees or in the case of many of them, the nothing qualification they possess as required to be an MP. This is how they get to make such brilliant policy on the subject and are not susceptible to flimflam from bunk'n'junk
booboise blueboys said:
turbobloke said:
Correct.
Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant not a poison.
As posted earlier, the planet has seen x10 current levels of carbon dioxide naturally and life thrived, humans work continuously in x20 current levels and see no adverse effects, gas given to patients in a medical emergency is 125x current levels and they are helped not killed.
Some poison
CO2 is an asphyxiant? So it strangles you of oxygen?Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant not a poison.
As posted earlier, the planet has seen x10 current levels of carbon dioxide naturally and life thrived, humans work continuously in x20 current levels and see no adverse effects, gas given to patients in a medical emergency is 125x current levels and they are helped not killed.
Some poison
Oh, that's ok then.
The mental gymnastics in this thread is something else.
Next, when you realise that we're not going to see 400 ppmv increase to 8000 or 50000 ppmv (125x current levels in gas given to people in medical emergencies) then the 'prospect' you appear to think is real is in fact non-existent and the threat from it likewise. Nothing strangly is going to happen, fret not. Why do you think the gas given to people in need of emergency care is 125x current atmospheric levels if it was actually dangerous - it's fine.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff