The ethical question no climate denier will answer

You have got to be kidding? Okay...maybe you aren't.

Because the question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety, it deserves an appropriately loaded response.

Of course it is ethically acceptable because: human life to even ask the question requires CO2 emissions, and has since the day the first human started breathing. If you feel human life is unethical as the warmers can no more stop breathing than the deniers, and it bothers you that much, you can stop being a hypocrite and do something about it any time you wish.

 

What does breathing have to do with excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

LOL, a fine bit of dancing! truly...It's clear you don't know what you agree or disagree with from one minute to the next. You say one thing and then say the opposite when you need to..

 

Yes poor debater a fitting name. The man who got caught talking in circles and trying to hide it by pedantic quoting of every sentence. He got caught having to defend the same nonsense you got caught with. You first claim Air a good emitter, than you claim its a good insulator, failing to realize that air in it's natural state allows for convection, therefore air in its natural and unhindered state is a bad insulator. Air with convection removed or limited is a good insulator, but again that depends on it's temperature.

We went over it in that thread until your pal felt it was best to quit. Gases thermal properties change with temperature and temperature effects convection as well. he tried to claim heat transfer is the same for gas solid and liquid, he was wrong. He also tried to claim that a bodies thermal capacity at rest (natural state) is how much energy it can store, he was wrong there as well. His intention was to claim that gas can actually store energy. Which is complete lunacy. it cannot, it lacks the extra molecular bonds of a liquid or solid to allow it. You know the thing that keeps solids as solid rather than molecular dust,, Or that thing that creates surface tension in a liquid...

Now please continue trying to claim up is down and right is left, it's amusing...

 

Human life, and life in general, only gets its carbon from the environment to which it returns. There is no net change to the atmosphere from biological activity. As you should know -- or maybe not. As a denier, your ignorance is astounding but hardly unexpected.

 

ROFL, oh good now we see the belief system at work here. You just tried to substitute CO2 with Carbon and vice versa and hoped no one would notice... Lets clarify things here.. Carbon and element, CO2 not an element. CO2 is relatively quickly broken down into Carbon and Oxygen in natural processes, Carbon isn't broken down in natural processes quickly. Carbon is one of the elements CO2 is broken down into.

Claiming the creation and break down of CO2 in nature by biological activity cannot effect net change in the atmosphere,is about as ignorant a claim as I have ever seen by any AGW cultist anywhere..Nice work, now care to explain what your new theory regarding past climate changes is? The old AGW theory you claim correct requires that past CO2 rises caused rises in temperature. And if that is the case we certainly weren't around for all of those changes, so then what caused this out-of-balance CO2 warming back then? If biological activity couldn't effect net change, then how did it change then?

Please submit your new theory here if you like...

 

There is only one natural process that can quickly break down CO2 into carbon and oxygen, and that photosynthesis. Plants get their carbon by extracting it from the air, and animals get their carbon by extracting it (directly, if herbivores, or indectly, if carnivores) from plants. Thus the ultimate source of all carbon for plants and animals is from CO2 in the air.

It is in fact 100% true. The fact that you find it "ignorant" tells us only that you're the ignorant one.

Non-biological changes in CO2 are slow processes, not rapid ones. Which is why natural climate change is a slow process, not a rapid one. The main reason the current climate change is dangerous is its speed, which is much much faster than anything nature does.

 

Excessive amounts? Excessive means what? In the past 500 million years of planetary history, the world has been in approximately 3 icebox phases. We are in one now. When we aren't in one of those climate configurations, CO2 is generally quite a bit higher, say, 2000-3000 PPM? So no, CO2 levels aren't "excessive", they are relatively low, they can be expected to be higher if the world is deciding it wants to be in its warmer configuration rather than its colder configuration, and humans are CO2 emitting biologics. By choosing this as their rallying cry, it is pretty clear what the advocates of "make no more CO2" actually mean behind the words they say. Sure, dropping CO2 levels allows them to target nearly any type of economic activity (usually focused on the kind don't like...as though you can build an economy without some sort of energy and mineral extraction) but it also allows them to reveal, perhaps subconsciously, the other thing they hate. People.

 

The current carbon cycle has adapted to CO2 levels between 180ppm and 350ppm. The current carbon cycle is not adapted for levels above 350ppm. At the levels of 2000 - 3000ppm the carbon cycle was adapted to those levels. Different conditions which are not comparable. So, yes, 400ppm are excessive for current carbon cycle adaptation.

 

What part of natural processes confuses you?

Perhaps if you were to try quoting my posts honestly and fairly you wouldn't seem so off the mark?

Your intentional and immature quote editing will not go well with me, we have gone over this before.

Lastly your ignorance is outed by the parts of my post you edited out in your quotes. Want to debate what I say, fine do so without cutting it up and editing it to suit you. I don't understand why this is tolerated here..

 

None of them. I wish you could say the same.

Where have I quoted you dishonestly?

It's tolerated because people here are more tolerant than you are. If you can't stand the tolerance, run and hide in Limbaugh-land.

 

Pre-industrial climate is the one that we humans, and pretty much everything we eat, have evolved to live in. Conservative people-haters like you are the ones who have decided that, "hey, let's just change every ecosystem on the planet and see what survives, and see if whether or not we still have enough food to feed the planet, and if not, tough beans" is a completely ethical position to take.

"The world" isn't deciding anything. We human beings are making that decision, every time we use fossil carbon as a fuel.

CO2 emitted by animals originates in the air to begin with, so we're carbon neutral. It's fossil fuels that are the problem. <<< Mod Edit: Flamebait >>>

What we mean is, use a different energy source than fossil fuels. There are dozens of them. Pick one. Or pick all of them. Just don't pick fossil fuels.

Strawman! Use as much energy as you want and I couldn't care less. As long as it's non-fossil energy, we're cool. <<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>

 

The current carbon cycle? What the hell is that? I seriously doubt that the planet really gives a rat's behind about what YOU or even HUMANS think the carbon cycle is SUPPOSED to be, and will go on its merry way with a total disregard for what you or anyone else thinks on the topic. 400ppm? Bubcuss to the planet, a drop in the bucket, the largest land predators this world has ever seen just LOVED 2000ppm, and to be honest humanity hasn't done all that bad since the world came out of the last ice age...with nary the help from a single coal fired power plant I might add.

 

LOL, I get it now. You cite each line because you really can't follow the points any other way can you... ROFL, I'm sorry dude.. It's obvious now, you can't even remember your previous post which I was responding to.. Hence cutting up the post and along with that wrecking any context or implications from your previous postings...

Wow,man... That's,perhaps the most pathetic display of obfuscating a sequence in debate I have ever seen..

If you want to debate, you should do so fairly and openly without ruining context of what is said in regards to the debate. Your deliberate actions and cutting up of peoples posts, and removing your own previous words which led to that posting, are immature, dishonest and completely disrespectful of others and doesn't follow in the spirit of proper debate.

Now if you can't follow the concept, I feel sorry for you. If you simply choose not to for selfish reasons, I feel even more sorry for you. Want fair debate, give it...

 

Begs the question. How are we to know if climate denial or climate change is the correct representation of the facts and hence which of them is the one performing the "irreversible experiment"?

I'm a neutral observer, I have no horse in this race. I just call em how I see em.

 

That is more or less how I see it as well.

To me, the biggest issue with the "MMGW" crowd is the extreme short-sightedness of their "theories". They scream "Our facts go back millions of years", when in fact they do not. They go back about a century and a half, and the rest is all speculation, interpretation, and conflicting data points.

Heck, our weather predictors can't even decently predict the weather we are having now! We were told my area was going to be cool and windy this last weekend, wrong. It was almost 100 and no wind at all. But these are the people we should listen to in order to change how we all live and work and enjoy ourselves.

I am not one to say "Oh yea, go ahead and pump out those pollutants!". I am a conservationist, and believe we should do everything within reason to protect and preserve our environment. But when some group appoints itself as the "Captain Planet" and starts to dictate to us how we should live, I smell a giant rat.

Maybe that is one of the reasons I take the former VP so seriously (not). Somebody who takes private jets all around the world, organizes "Carbon Banks" and "Carbon Credits" and lives in a house that has a carbon footprint so big that his one day energy consumption is more then my house uses in a year, I consider to be somebody like that a clown, not somebody to really take seriously.

And I am sure he laughs all the way to the bank, since the vast majority of his families fortune comes from... coal and oil. I simply see another case of "Rich man's guilt" when I consider his works.

 

why don't you post this in Chinese or Indian. No matter how much the western world cuts CO2 emissions it will not matter much unless China, India, the rest of Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East is in on it.

are you advocating we revert to a 19th century lifestyle, if so set an example by destroying your computer, abandoning your car and having your electrical turned off, otherwise you are just a hypocrite on a forum

I consider myself fortunate to be able to have all those modern conveniences so you first

 

The carbon cycle is not "SUPPOSED to be" anything. The important factor is what our environment has adapted to. Our environment, including oceans, soil, plants and animals, is adapted to variations of atmospheric CO2 between about 180ppm and 300ppm for the last 400,000 years. Any excessive CO2 is detrimental to an environment that is unable to quickly adapt to extremes.


I have no doubt the planet would survive, but with levels of 2000 - 4000ppm, our current environment would not survive.
The abundance of coal fired power plants in the past is irrelevant as the mechanism for the retreat of the last ice age has little to do with CO2. The primary factor is the variations in the earth's orbit.

 

And breath. The atmosphere, and our environment, cares about CO2, not where it comes from. People trying to avoid that fact are just playing semantic games, because certainly the planet doesn't care in the least. CO2 = CO2. If you feel that strongly about a trace gas in the atmosphere, feel free to do something about it. Or not.

A problem for you maybe. If you are above the age of 30 you probably wouldn't even be alive to complain if it weren't for fossil fuels, and more importantly, the ingenuity required to turn an otherwise worthless item into something quite useful.

Why? You chose fossil fuels in one form or another to make this post deriding fossil fuels. I recommend less hypocrisy, more honesty.

 

I don't think you really believe this otherwise you would be living a 1800's lifestyle. kind of hypocritical wouldn't you say? Guess it is easier to tell others what they should be doing while you continue to enjoy modern conveniences

 

So you are saying plants won't like a higher CO2 environment? Sort of like, if the the oxygen levels went up, humans wouldn't like it? Certainly you haven't defined "excessive" as anything other than "something other than what it was at some point in the past I wish wouldn't have changed". A nice idea, but it makes as much sense to argue that just fear of the change itself is really what is driving the vitriol in this debate.

Once upon a time there was a different environment on this planet. Then the world warmed, and we got Canada...and New York City! Once upon time, it was much, much warmer than it is now, and the world has been in that climate configuration alot longer than its current ice box phase. So it is not going to be an icebox any more? Okay...it isn't like humans have shown at desire to modify their behavior yet, it therefore follows logically that if indeed we are changing things, we will continue to change things.

Fortunately, the very thing which has made us the apex predator on this planet doesn't disappear in a warmer environment. Lucky us!

Fortunately, we humans live in many environments. Even more amusing, when the planet last warmed up and made countries like Canada available to humanity, we learned how to live in a COLDER environment even as the world warmed! We be clever monkeys! As far as what "survives", that is an interesting speculation, I believe the fear revolves more around the CHANGE itself, with those who don't like change instantly equating it with disaster of some sort or another. Undoubtedly a natural response in humans, it doesn't work very well from a more objective perspective.

Sounds like you just made the point that we should be worrying about stuff which matters, rather than running around acting psychotic over just the idea of change. So when do we start funding space based systems to control the effect of solar flux reaching the planet instead of all this nonsense about CO2 emissions?

 

Show me one post of mine where I've told "others what they should be doing".
Show me how "Any excessive CO2 is detrimental to an environment that is unable to quickly adapt to extremes." makes any statement on my values.
AS long as the rest of the world continues its use of FFs, explain to me how my " living a 1800's lifestyle" would solve the problem of excessive CO2?

 

Why don't all the warmists insist that Obama sign one of his famous executive orders mandating the use of NG for ALL federal gov't vehicles? Why doesn't he do this anyway? This would be a huge step toward stopping/slowing so-called green-house warming yet, not one warmist or 'greenie' will lift a finger to solve the 'problem' they claim will destroy civilization as we know it. How can any of you GW believers expect to be taken seriously?

 

Some plants will benefit; others won't.
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

I've defined "excessive" for you. If you don't understand, try harder or get a fifth grader to explain it to you.

no idea what this rant is addressing.

Humans have never lived in an environment where CO2 in the atmosphere is 2000ppm. So your scenario is not only not relevant, but pretty stupid.

Read it again and understand it this time.

 

Trick question. You haven't even been able to DEFINE excessive, other than by saying it is different than what it once was. Which isn't excessive. How about we start with a neutral definition?

Excessive: Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper limit.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/excessive

Okay, so a normal limit for CO2 on this planet in the 600 million years or so appears to be 2000-4000ppm, CO2 levels occasionally dipping to excessive low levels:

http://www.hugovandermolen.nl/envir...sphericCO2andtemperature,600million-years.gif

and the usual levels look like...if you eyeball them and average...maybe an average of 3000 ppm over the given time span? And everything from excessively low (like now) to maybe 6000ppm looks reasonable from the information provided, and anything in that range might certainly be proper.

So you want to explain how the range of 200ppm to 6000 ppm is reasonable, usual, and not excessive? You wouldn't want to try and claim that just because humanity hasn't been laying around sunning themselves when CO2 was higher has ANYTHING to do with the planet's perspective on this topic? Because in all honesty, the instant humans (mostly subjective animals worried about when they will get laid next, or can afford that new fossil fuel involved gadget) get involved, their belief systems, howl at the moon routines, religious concerns, pessimism, and all around hubris get in the topic and just turn it into cherry picked data, assumptions of correlation and causality, "only the time frames I like" episodes, and demonstrate for anyone watching why science matters.