Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Maybe any amount in excess of that which occurs naturally? So around 280 ppm? I don't know just thinking out loud right now...

 

What 'wrong conclusion' do you feel was reached? FWIW the conclusion I reach from that is along the lines of, "OMFG that's a lot of scientifically ignorant people out there O.O !!" But lets look at the data a bit ...

Per the article linked the poll asked (with response %):

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. (31%)
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. (19%)
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (42%)

What would the "shove it" response be to this question? Are the people most likely to respond with a "shove it" more proportionally represented from one category? What do you think these numbers should really look like? Because even if the numbers were waaaay out of whack and the proportion of #3 responses was only 30%, my conclusion of "OMFG that's a lot of scientifically ignorant people out there O.O !!" would not really change.​

 

aaaahh you accidentally edited out the pertinent part of my post, here let me help you put it back...

at one time I worked with a born again christian, a nice guy but his conversational/debating tactics sucked...every time he was cornered without a logical response he'd bail on the conversation and looking skyward ended with "only god knows the answer"...that's when I knew I'd made my point and won the debate...he could never admit defeat because to do so would throw his entire belief system in question....

yeah that happened every time we discussed anything that would contradict his faith...every single time!

 

96"]aaaahh you accidentally edited out the pertinent part of my post, here let me help you put it back...

at one time I worked with a born again christian, a nice guy but his conversational/debating tactics sucked...every time he was cornered without a logical response he'd bail on the conversation and looking skyward ended with "only god knows the answer"...that's when I knew I'd made my point and won the debate...he could never admit defeat because to do so would throw his entire belief system in question....

yeah that happened every time we discussed anything that would contradict his faith...every single time![/QUOTE]


You ARE debating a born again Xn in the real world in the real time.

Anyone can see that I made no editing to your fantasy and the essence of it, I quoted it word by word.

Feel sorry for you not capable to live in the real world

 

Deforestation is a much bigger problem than industrialization but gets a brief mention in the AGW crowd because the movement itself is more about punishing America than doing anything for the environment. The Paris Accord has a couple of paragraphs dealing with deforestation compared to a hundred pages on industrialization.

 

Oh! Bullshit!!!

What a typical example of someone who has not bothered to check the facts for themselves

Google "Bali Roadmap" and realise that other countries are doing more, far far more than the USA

 

It was like pulling teeth to get forest preservation into the mix and it took decades to do so. Now a bone has been thrown in this direction but it's too little too late.


"The inclusion of REDD+ was no small feat. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, excluded forest conservation in developing countries, where most emissions from deforestation are produced, over concerns of efficacy. Though REDD+ was brought back to the negotiating table in 2005, it took the international community another 10 years of painstaking work to address the details that previously prevented its adoption. Now REDD+ is permanently enshrined in Article 5 of the Agreement, finally providing the necessary political signal to mobilize much-needed action around forests."

http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/01/forests-are-paris-agreement-now-what

 

It took decades because THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BLOCKED THE PROPOSALS!!!!

In fact it was Papua New Guinea - you know the small island nation north of Australia, that stood up at the Bali Summit and told the American delegation to "lead, follow or get out of the way!!""

 

You ARE debating a born again Xn in the real world in the real time.

Anyone can see that I made no editing to your fantasy and the essence of it, I quoted it word by word.

Feel sorry for you not capable to live in the real world[/QUOTE]"anyone can see" ?...yeah in the "REAL" world your edit is clearly underlined in bold...so either you can't see or your lying...

 

Inquistor does not live in the real world. He denies that CO2, or any gas for that matter, has the ability to produce a warming effect. He also denies that there is a global mean temperature or that climate is even a thing. And that's only scratching the surface of his denial.

 

Deforestation (and other land use changes) account for a much smaller percentage of the anthroprogenic effect than the burning of fossil fuels. That's not to say that deforestation isn't a problem because it is and it should be addressed. But, even if we corrected that problem with 100% efficacy the planet would still warm beyond the IPCC's 2C target goal.

 

Every yard of concrete poured and every ton of asphalt laid down causes more flooding and more heat build-up on the earth. And a part of that is because the former trees are gone.

"One large tree can lift up to 100 gallons of water out of the ground and discharge it into the air in a day."

"A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and can sequester 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old."

https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm

 

Trouble is we are burning 93 million barrels of oil PER DAY!!!

 

Except for baseball and football stadiums there is way too much open green space in this country, and what has been done to the highways and interstates is a crime. Besides, barren highways and barren interstates are ugly. Really, really ugly, as damn ugly as the tundra in Russia.

 

Have you driven to the junkyard, poured sugar in the gas, run it until it quits, and turned it into scrap?

If you buy at the pump you love petroleum for the soft and easy life it brings.

Lots of people squawk, but they vote for petroleum at the pump.

 

None of what you say is based in fact, nothing, nada. There is no evidence to back up your claim the Medical doctors have no use for evolution when the use and miss use of antibiotics is entirely based upon evolutionary factors. Nearly every cure for Cancer and many other ailments has the genetics of evolutionary studies as their backing. You obviously are completely out if your league as far as medical science. But I bet you can tell me when the bogus Ark was built.

There are no institutes of higher learning that agree with deniers, as far as Man induced climate change is concerned. It’s a simple statement. It’s factual. Live with it. It’s not a straw man statement. It’s made to counter the idea that a few people with Dr. after their name ( and Drs are not all MDs, that’s your idea) know what they are talking about. Like a Dr of theology would get that....unlikely.

 

And because America consistently denied that there was a problem it has had the march stolen from it as China develops an electric car industry as well as forging ahead with the solar industry

 

China has a far worse problem with automobile combustion pollution and smokestack pollution than the USA.

 

And yet, economically China could benefit more then the US by jumping on the CC bandwagon earlier. There are more people working in the solar industry then the petroleum industry. That’s not changing. Clean energy is where more jobs are then farming the seas for whale oil. That’s about as useful as opening more coal mines for energy.

 

That’s funny. You just bailed out on the statement. My experience in debating them is, when confronted with facts, they start quoting from scripture.

 

actually they don't, total emissions are high but they have four times the US population so they produce much less per person than americans...and they're way ahead of the US in green energy development...

 

Source please.

 

Trouble is we are slashing and burning one and one-half acres of rainforest every second , well not we as in the United States but other countries so people like you don't care. Can't blame America so what's the point. By the way I source my claims.

http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm#.Ww2r_99lCf0

 

Ahh yes beautiful "downtown china" the darlings of enviromentalnuts.

BEIJING (REUTERS) - China's war on pollution is at risk of reaching a "stalemate", with poor weather conditions undermining the country's efforts to reduce smog, an Environment Ministry spokesman said on Thursday (April 19).

Air pollution rose by more than a quarter in parts of northern China in March, and the region has been hit by another bout of smog in the second half of April, which the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) has blamed on weak air circulation.

"Weather conditions last month in Beijing were the worst over the past six years with slow wind, little rain and high temperatures, but average pollution readings were able to stay at same level as the past five years," Mr Liu Youbin, spokesman for the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE), said at a regular press briefing."

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/e...ry-warns-of-stalemate-in-war-on-air-pollution

 

By "correct"do you mean magically restoring in one second the 50% of rainforest we have cut down or do you mean suddenly stopping 100% of the new cutting? And your source for your claim is?