Why I no longer even care about climate change deniers.

Don't see the word flux in here and even if it was it means basically the same thing. You are really getting desperate here. Only a true zealot could morph 4% into "Earth is warming and their own products were the cause" but then again you morphed second hand smoke into smoking and occasional contract forcasting into funded by so.....

"The fossil fuels Shell consumed and sold at the time "account for the production of 4 percent of the CO2 emitted worldwide from combustion."

 

Flux is a rate. It can have both a positive or negative sign. Emissions are a positive flux.

And yes. I know what the quote is. Shell is saying they, personally, only account for 4% of the worldwide man made emissions. I totally get that. But, I'm not talking about Shell personally. I'm talking about the industry as a whole here. The industry as a whole is responsible for 30%+ of the total concentration. And yes, I know Shell is only responsible for 4% of that. When I said Shell acknowledges that their product is the cause of warming I wasn't saying that it was their specific quantity of product. I was saying that it was the product itself...the fossil fuels.

 

Moving of goal post noted. The quote from Shell was extremely clear about their limited contribution to man's C02 and you are now playing the same games of obfuscation that the left plays in all threads which proves they and you can't defend your own stance on issues without these dishonest tactics. Three times now you have been caught at this in this thread alone which makes all your long winded dissertations highly suspect of containing the same distortions of facts. I used to consider you an honest opponent but now I see you are not and you were my last hope for honest discussion of this subject so at this point I'm left to make drive by comments on things I see in here and unfortunately will have to give up on rational debate. Have a nice day.

 

A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. This assumes the average gasoline vehicle on the road today has a fuel economy of about 22.0 miles per gallon and drives around 11,500 miles per year. Every gallon of gasoline burned creates about 8,887 grams of CO2

What are the potential health effects of carbon dioxide? Inhalation: Low concentrations are not harmful. Higher concentrations can affect respiratory function and cause excitation followed by depression of the central nervous system. A high concentration can displace oxygen in the air.

1000 to 2000 ppm, the air quality is low. From 2000 to 5000 ppm, CO2 concentration starts to cause problems (headaches, insomnia, nausea). It is a dirty air. From 5000 ppm, the presence of other gases in air is altered, arising a toxic atmosphere or poor in oxigen with fatal effects as the concentration increases.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), when inhaled pure (100%), causes the death of the human body due to asphyxia or suffocation. When any amount is inhaled, it stops oxygen to the brain (asphyxia).

Effects of high CO2 levels (hypercapnia) The presence of a high CO2 level in the blood is known as hypercapnia and can cause headaches, lethargy, drowsiness, confusion and, if severe, can lead to coma and death.

 

This is not true at all...1000's of legitimate scientists, from around the world, have reasonable consensus on potential climate change and how humans exacerbate climate.

Legitimate scientists DO NOT 'seek to disprove or approve' hypothesis? It's peer review and either hypothesis' succeed or fail.

 

Well. I don't know what to tell you. The goal post is that Exxon and Shell own research concluded that their product causes global warming. Shell even concluded that the climate sensitivity will likely be 1.5C to 3.5C per doubling of CO2 concentration. So if the goal post is being moved it is because you picked a statement from the report that only focused on their specific contribution relative to the entire industry which does not in any way refute their own conclusion that their product causes warming. I only bring up oil companies because I know your strategy. If the research comes credible scientists you'll dismiss it out of hand. Afterall, you dismissed the tens of thousands of lines of evidence reviewed by thousands of scientists in the IPCC AR5 summary. But, maybe, just maybe I thought, if it comes from the very companies that actually have skin in the game then maybe that will convince you.

 

Scientists aren't really worried about the toxicological effects of CO2 but it doesn't typically build up in high enough concentrations to be harmful to humans. They are worried about CO2 because of it's quantum electrodynamic effect where it "captures" an infrared photon and converts it's energy into thermal energy via molecular vibrations. It's the warming effect in the atmosphere that scientists are concerned with.

 

So we agree. You were confused in thinking C02 is what kills you in a closed garage when in reality it is C0. Glad you learned something here.

 

"
Einstein said "A thousand scientists can’t prove me right, but one can prove me wrong’. We can’t prove a hypothesis but we can disprove it.

It is easier to disprove a hypothesis – it would take just one observation to refute the hypothesis, than it is to prove a hypothesis – it is impossible to test every possible outcome".

 

I understand this...my point was CO2 at certain levels is a problem. Just because we can't see it, or smell it, or understand it's impacts does not mean we should ignore it. 30% of CO2 emissions are attributed to burning gasoline and diesel. As CO2 increases above 410 ppm, nearly a vertical rise on historical charts, with nothing that says this will slow, the questions remain what is the potential, how will it effect mankind, and is there anything that can be done about it?

 

I never said 'kills you' and I still invite you to breathe in high levels of CO2 and let us know what happens...

 

All I said was scientists don't set out to disprove a hypothesis...in the peer review process they either get the same answer or they don't...if they don't then the hypothesis failed examination. A hypothesis is nothing but a starting point needing further examination...

 

We both know what you said and meant and we both know you are trying to wiggle out of it.

 

And you were mistaken. In real science that is precisely what is done. In AGW fake science anyone who dares try and disprove the hypothesis is immediately ostracized. Only scientist that nod in approval and try to shore up the hypothesis even when it fails real world test by coming up with piggyback hypothesis to explain away the failure are acceptable.

 

Your claims are false, as usual. I know the difference very well: in CO2 hysteria-land, when it is warmer than normal, that's a change in climate; when it is cooler than normal, that's just weather.

<yawn> How many times do I have to prove you wrong before you will become willing to consider the possibility that you actually ARE wrong?

Every day in every way, the actual climate proves me righter and righter.

 

Garbage. The evidence of tampering is overwhelming.

Go outside and compare it to 50 years ago. Ask someone in their 90s who remembers the 1930s if it is warmer now. As you could.

 

And yet....for some odd reason you cannot seem to provide it.

 

Nonsense... just do some simple searches on the subject and look at the websites of those you call "deniers".

I watched a presentation by Heller the other day in which he showed an original graph from the IPCC side by side with a doctored one that showed up in a warmist paper.

Climategate?? Forget about that?? Jones was publicly flogged by Parliament committee for his obvious fraud.

I can't link anything right b/c I'm on the road and can't link from my phone. Will gladly do so when I get home and have some time.

 

You can only fool ignorant people with your conspiracy theories. You can't fool me with your conspiracy jabber, because I'm familiar with the actual data, which says it keeps getting warmer.

So, you fell for one of Goddard/Heller's frauds. You never even considered fact-checking it, did you? You just _believed_.

Everyone remembers the open fraud of the denier side there. It's a big reason why the denier side is now always initially assumed to be lying, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

I almost pity you. We've seen your type many times before. You're kept in the dark by your cult, which feeds you these wild conspiracy yarns and tells you how all the real science is a socialist plot. So you run off to the message boards, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, ready to own those libs ... and reality smacks you in the face. Proceed. Unless you'd like to make your declare-victory-and-retreat speech right now, and save everyone some time.

 

You clearly don't, being you keep providing examples of weather as proof that climate is not warming. That's incredibly stupid, and it's a technique you rely on.

None of us here have used that technique. You and your side use it constantly. Clearly, one side is both lying and confusing weather with climate, and it's your side.

Once.

Here's a clue. You can't just _say_ you've proven people wrong. You have to actually _do_ it, or you just look whiny and butthurt.

The warming climate that matches the models spot-on proves you did a faceplant into a cow patty. Everyone sees that. That's why you have to fabricate a conspiracy-kook reality, so you don't have to admit to your total failure.

 

Sure, that's what your goofy conspiracy cult tells you, but it's completely at odds with reality. Your kind of butthurt crazy talk only works on the already-converted cult rubes. People of normal intelligence know you're just faking nonsense. It's the only tactic open to you, as honestly is not an option for you, and all the hard data flatly contradicts you.

Now, speaking of real-world tests, what tests could falsify your denier beliefs? If you can't name several, then by your own standards, you're doing religion instead of science.

That's one reason why it's so good to be part of the reality-based community. Our science is falsifiable, because it's real science. There are many pieces of hard data that could disprove AGW theory. But being how it's such good science, none of the data does disprove it.

 

Yeah, well the earth is extremely resilient... so true. The same was true of the dinosaurs... the earth was resilient as they died out. Of course it is unlikely humans will die out. And the earth will resiliently endure .....come what may. But the resilient earth has no obligation to host us on the terms to which we are accustomed .

Lots of scientists disagree with your pronouncement

The “truth” is that you cannot prove your view is true.

Broadly speaking, the possibilities are that
1. You are totally right and in response we do nothing and all is swell
2. You are totally wrong, we do nothing because we listened to you and life on earth becomes considerably less comfortable
3. You are totally right, never the less we ignore you and therefore we invest some added resources in addressing a non existent problem “just in case you are wrong”. And life goes nicely on.
4. You are totally wrong, and we ignore you, and invest resources in addressing a problem that you wrongly dispute, and as a result of ignoring you..., the problem is somewhat mitigated, and life goes on better than if we had not ignored you.


We do not know if you are right or wrong
But we do know that even if you are right
There is not much cost in ignoring you
We also know that there is a potentially large cost in believing you if you are wrong. (Option 2)
And a potentially large benefit from ignoring you if you are wrong

So regardless of whether you are right or wrong
The best options are to ignore you. (Options 3 or 4)
And if it turns out you are right... ignoring you is still not a bad option (option 1 and 2)

 

You appear to believe that all of the skeptics’ scientific objections to the AGW-proposition have been refuted. But they have not been and far from it in fact. There are lots of counter-arguments against AGW, both theoretical and observational. I’m sorry, but what you AGW-advocates are doing with all of this is not real science. You have started off with a belief and a conviction – that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming – and have sought to gather evidence selectively to prove that conviction.

 

You alarmists claim to be on the side of science - yet, when evidence doesn't support the theory you ignore it and set about attacking the messengers.

You blindly accept the data of alarmist "scientists" as if it is infallible; again, ignoring the facts and evidence which clearly show they are manipulating data sets and the temperature record to produce a prescribed result.

You are not advocates of science, you are adherents to a faith, and defend orthodoxy like it is life and death.

The observations and underlying physics do not support the contention that an increase in man made CO2 will lead to catastrophic run away global warming or climate change.

 

Then make some of those counter-arguments, and we'll discuss them. Don't just claim you have evidence. Present the evidence. If you're not just parroting political dogma, that should be no problem for you.

I'm sorry, but that's delusional talk on your part. You appear to be projecting the way your side thinks and acts on to the rational and ethical people. Try to understand that we are not like you. Don't assume that just because you'd lie and fake data on behalf of a political movement, that we would do so as well. We won't.

AGW science crosses all political boundaries all across the world. That's because it's real science. In contrast, your denialism is restricted exclusively to members of the extreme right-wing-fringe political cult. Denialism is entirely about politics, and cares nothing about the actual science. If right-wing extremist politics vanished, denialism would instantly vanish as well. In stark contrast, if left-wing politics vanished, it wouldn't affect the science in any way.