How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[pixelsmith]

The warming is everywhere.. ok then.. wow
My position is that the climate is very chaotic and a tiny amount of an essential life sustaining gas necessary for all life on earth is not causing catastrophic global warming, cooling or change of climate.

 

[Myself]

Ok, I can respect your position pix. I'm leaving the heavy lifting for the guys who went to school for this stuff. Good on you and everyone for doing your research. Let's not fight anymore over this. We all want humanity to keep going, we are brother and sisters locked in arms. Right?

The warming is everywhere.. ok then.. wow
My position is that the climate is very chaotic and a tiny amount of an essential life sustaining gas necessary for all life on earth is not causing catastrophic global warming, cooling or change of climate.

 

[pixelsmith]

Thanks for your input Myself. If you want humanity to keep going you can help by creating a little more CO2.. The earth is CO2 starved right now.

 

[Burnt State]

Burnt you do realize the poles have been thawed thousands of times in earths history right? And that without extreme natural climates we would not have polar bears or humans... Right? And that CO2 has rarely been this low in concentration throughout earths history?

I'm good with what you are saying right up to the last point which I think requires some qualification regarding time periods - can you define these concentrations across time leading up to the last ten thousand years and then up against the last hundred, then the last ten, as i don't have those figures.

Do you acknowledge any discussion at all ocean acidification due to increased absorption of co2 by our major bodies of water and some of the effects we are currently seeing in shellfish, jellyfish blooms etc? You often want others to bring their 'facts' to the table but never do you ever respond to critiques of your 'facts' or the origin of the sources. That's why there's nothing going on here but posturing, no real dialogue except in rare moments.

Regarding participation absence: it's hard to continue a discussion that includes a blatant disregard for what humanity does in fact have the capacity to do in terms of environmental consciousness. I find the contrary position that is often commentary sponsored by the Koch brothers to be even more distasteful in that it also is loaded with many factual inaccuracies and manipulations of out of context data for the sake of more petroleum profits and the deregulation of anti-environmental industries. These values are often supported in the name of the conspiracist's fear of green taxes. At this point I find the discussion delusional IMHO. But every now and then I come back just to see if new blood is injecting new paradigms into the immovable rock vs. immovable rock debate still going nowhere. Usually there's nothing new and so I feel compelled to spit back Dr. Seuss propaganda for the sake of the trees etc.; it's a repetitive mantra, nothing more.

 

[manxman]

Im only to painfully aware of what 'we' do to our environment, but pollution is pollution, and big polluters,, should be strung up by their nutz imo.
However, the 3% of co2 that we add to the natural cycle being the cause of man's ultimate demise, i personally think you need to be brain dead to suck that up.

Whats happening in the oceans etc, would have happened anyway co2 wise with the natural carbon cycle, 3% extra is just a drop in the ocean, [pun intended] pollution from oil pesticides etc etc, is a completely different ball game, and is being bundled together with co2 and completely mis-represented by those with differing agendi for their purposes.

 

[Burnt State]

And just for the record regarding your constant reference to sea ice increase: I would really encourage you to understand the difference between sea ice vs. land ice, and then research what's been happening to the total volume of ice in the polar regions over the last 60 years. I know your fallback position to this is that the poles melt all the time, but can we just address your counterclaim of recent record sea ice for once?

I've pointed this out to you on a number of occasions but you completely fail to address your shortsighted version of what's really been going on at the poles during our souped up, carbonated, industrial era. The total volume of ice is rapidly on the wane. Yes, sea ice has grown recently and it's keeping the polar bears going a little longer, but the indicators are that these regions will indeed be ice free, and then we will go drill, mine and frack up the arctic so we can pollute some more. Good luck to all the grand kids. Yes, I know your fallback position here is that humans die all the time, and it's that callousness and lack of depth of thought that is highly disconcerting, and not really worth engaging.

Btw, I'm already prepared for another one of your highly detailed one line rebuttals like, "why not use current data?" even though that's exactly what I'm doing. This statement, I predict, will be followed by more brief taunts regarding how quickly the liberals are running away from your argumentative prowess. Been there, done that, but I think I owe some posters statements that will confirm this prophetic reality. Apologies to all the reasonable folk who try to interject real thought out positions that stand outside these standard responses coming from the Butter Battle play book.

 

[Burnt State]

Im only to painfully aware of what 'we' do to our environment, but pollution is pollution, and big polluters,, should be strung up by their nutz imo.
However, the 3% of co2 that we add to the natural cycle being the cause of man's ultimate demise, i personally think you need to be brain dead to suck that up.

Whats happening in the oceans etc, would have happened anyway co2 wise with the natural carbon cycle, 3% extra is just a drop in the ocean, [pun intended] pollution from oil pesticides etc etc, is a completely different ball game, and is being bundled together with co2 and completely mis-represented by those with differing agendi
for their purposes.

Ocean Carbon Uptake

Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide

Honestly, I think that the poisoning of the oceans with our various toxins (pesticides, heavy metals, plastics, radiation, pharamceuticals, microbeads etc.) are a separate issue fom the increased carbonation of the seas and their impact is different. The second link engages this specific feature. I am not bundling these two very different ocean human impacts.

 

[pixelsmith]

Why is it so hard for these guys to answer one simple question?!? The very foundation of the pro agw scam is that humans are generating CO2 that is catastrophically warming the planet. CO2 has risen and temps have flatlined for 18 years now.
Burnt, focus now, where is the warming?
When you answer this we can discuss oceans and polar bears etc..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

Im still not personally decided as to if we are observing Climate change, or Changing climate.

The question is a distraction imo.

Whether or not (was tempted to spell it weather for Manx) our runaway growth is changing the weather, isnt as important as the fact that we are polluting the planet.
Polluting it faster than it can absorb, depleting it faster than it can replenish

And we need to wind that back. we need to adopt best practise

Best practice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In our strategic management of the biosphere. We are currently not doing so and its likely to have catastrophic consequences

 

[pixelsmith]

We are always experiencing climate change. I would be worried if we weren't.
Yes we pollute and destroy, so does Mother Earth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

Why is it so hard for these guys to answer one simple question?!? The very foundation of the pro agw scam is that humans are generating CO2 that is catastrophically warming the planet. CO2 has risen and temps have flatlined for 18 years now.
Burnt, focus now, where is the warming?
When you answer this we can discuss oceans and polar bears etc..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, that's right I totally forgot about the whole rhetorical "where is the warming" pat response to any specific challenge that greets you. But this issue of where's the warming is really a silly piece on its own. The one thing I've personally learned in exploring this topic is that no one really agrees on this issue of warming per se or as Mike put it, changing climate vs. climate change. Any piece of reputable science that highlights warming trends you respond by mocking those scientists - it's a circular event that goes nowhere really. Also, another feature of climate that has shaken loose for me is that climate is exceptionally complicated and can not be simplified at all. How heat disperses & is absorbed across the globe, is not a simplistic question nor does it have simle asnwers as you claim.

For example the mystery of Anarctic sea ice growth is unique as it is a sea surrounded pole, and going theories suggest that warming oceans (could the warming be found there? If not check your socks next time Santa swings by - I'm betting he's dropping you off some coal again this year) create polar vortexes that cause low water surface temperatures creating sea ice, but still the total volume is decreasing - so yes you can look to the warming by looking at the shrinking volume of total ice and extreme weather which has been a recent trend no?

These are not isolated points to be hammered at with ignorant, bulldozing one liners. It requires some real consideration of the intricacies of the situation. This is what Muadib has been trying to get across to you. It's simply not about simple answers at all, but there are shifts, and these have been documented across this thread and previous ones. Maybe it's best to find a new topic that isn't built upon conspiracist thought or sponsored by the Koch Brothers. I hate to keep saying that but then your record player is also on repeat. At least I'm offering something new to respond to.

For all the big talk and commentary of your fleeing opponents (again, it's not a game that has winners, this discussion of human impact on the planet) it would be nice for you to present something new to digest for once that follows the same challenges you ask others to meet. The glove is on the floor. Your turn.

 

[manxman]

Can you show us that theres less frozen water on the planet now than 20 years ago burnt.

And by the way, the poles only account for 1.7% of the total water on and in the planet, but ofcourse account for a much larger percentage of the fresh water on the planet.

 

[pixelsmith]

Oh, that's right I totally forgot about the whole rhetorical "where is the warming" pat response to any specific challenge that greets you. But this issue of where's the warming is really a silly piece on its own. The one thing I've personally learned in exploring this topic is that no one really agrees on this issue of warming per se or as Mike put it, changing climate vs. climate change. Any piece of reputable science that highlights warming trends you respond by mocking those scientists - it's a circular event that goes nowhere really. Also, another feature of climate that has shaken loose for me is that climate is exceptionally complicated and can not be simplified at all. How heat disperses & is absorbed across the globe, is not a simplistic question nor does it have simle asnwers as you claim.

For example the mystery of Anarctic sea ice growth is unique as it is a sea surrounded pole, and going theories suggest that warming oceans (could the warming be found there? If not check your socks next time Santa swings by - I'm betting he's dropping you off some coal again this year) create polar vortexes that cause low water surface temperatures creating sea ice, but still the total volume is decreasing - so yes you can look to the warming by looking at the shrinking volume of total ice and extreme weather which has been a recent trend no?

These are not isolated points to be hammered at with ignorant, bulldozing one liners. It requires some real consideration of the intricacies of the situation. This is what Muadib has been trying to get across to you. It's simply not about simple answers at all, but there are shifts, and these have been documented across this thread and previous ones. Maybe it's best to find a new topic that isn't built upon conspiracist thought or sponsored by the Koch Brothers. I hate to keep saying that but then your record player is also on repeat. At least I'm offering something new to respond to.

For all the big talk and commentary of your fleeing opponents (again, it's not a game that has winners, this discussion of human impact on the planet) it would be nice for you to present something new to digest for once that follows the same challenges you ask others to meet. The glove is on the floor. Your turn.

Omg... Much of what you say is what I have said for years but was told "shut up it's warming from CO2".. Now that it isn't warming the pro agw group comes up with 55 different reasons global warming is not happening.
I know climate is not changing from CO2 alone but that is what pro agw scientists are saying thus the carbon tax scheme.
You seem to forget everything about this scam is related to CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant at 400ppm.
Global policies are set and CO2 emissions cut. Carbon taxes and trading, etc..Coal plants shut down, etc etc. ALL because CO2 is to blame for global warming. SO... Where is it? If CO2 is now NOT causing it then those 97% of scientists have LOTS of explaining to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

For years all I have been saying is CO2 is not causing catastrophic global warming.
I agree about not polluting, less fossil fuels, better alternate energies, less deforestation, etc etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manxman]

Yes pixel i knew and could see clearly the distinction you make, your argument is solely c02 based, the ''greenies'' can obviously see the distinction, they just dont want to acknowledge it, otherwise their just back to square one, putting everything into one mix has more ''crowd'' appeal, .

SAVE THE WHALES.

edit

AND THE CUDDLY CUTE POLAR BEARS.

I mean what did people think would happen when they cut out the earths lungs and burnt them releasing millions of tons of co2 back into the atmosphere. [Brazilian rain forest destruction among others]

 

[pixelsmith]

Yes pixel i knew and could see clearly the distinction you make, your argument is solely c02 based, the ''greenies'' can obviously see the distinction, they just dont want to acknowledge it, otherwise their just back to square one, putting everything into one mix has more ''crowd'' appeal, .

SAVE THE WHALES.

edit

AND THE CUDDLY CUTE POLAR BEARS.

I mean what did people think would happen when they cut out the earths lungs [rain forest desruction]

I am an original tree hugging hippie who has seen our environmental movement get hijacked by those just looking to green their pockets. CO2 is good. It's the "Greenies" that are bad for mankind. Tyger Burnt Maudib Angelo are all well meaning people they just don't know the whole story yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

Can you show us that theres less frozen water on the planet now than 20 years ago burnt.

And by the way, the poles only account for 1.7% of the total water on and in the planet, but ofcourse account for a much larger percentage of the fresh water on the planet.

Glaciers, Ice Sheets, and Climate Change - river, sea, temperature, important, largest, salinity, human

I'll throw a few things at you but I think the article above us interesting for its connection to CO2, for those still following such discussions.

Environment: Trends | National Snow and Ice Data Center

I won't bother posting anything from NASA or any other agency you feel is corrupt or suspect, but any general search in changes of global ice volumes will produce an image like this which is from skeptical science.

Anyways, still waiting on a response to that record sea ice thing...

 

[manxman]

Im not being funny burnt, but my question was

Can you show us that theres less frozen water on the planet now than 20 years ago burnt.

You spent time on the post i appreciate that, but as soon as i clicked the link i get this.

Glaciers, Ice Sheets, and Climate Change




An article about a conclusion, i dont believe theres any significant climate change, ice melts, water freezes, all around the planet, one pole looses ice the other pole gains ice, an ice sheet diminishes, another somewhere else gains, canada has a longer harsh winter, russia has a mild one, etc etc etc, i was looking for unbiased data on the earths total amount/volume of frozen water, in a per annum form.

The poles only contain 1.7% of the earths total water, hardly important on a world scale, even if every molecule of ice on earth melted, sea levels would rise only 17 inches, i appreciate thats alot, but hardy the end of man kind, and it would be patently absurd to believe every bit of frozen water would become liquid.

Its my belief that the volume of frozen water on the earth stays stable, the distribution on a local basis changes, same as the poles thinning or growing has mainly local impacts, the same as they always have.

 

[Tyger]

Why not just look around yourself, manxman? Why all the setting of tasks for others? Curious the way you - and Pixel - go about this. And if the object/target of your request doesn't cooperate and dance for you, you get mighty petulant.

The information is there for anyone to check out. Pretty simple.

It's as though you feel you have the 'true gospel' and must carefully steer your targets to the 'correct way of thinking'. Not the first time I have encountered this modus operandi on this chat site. A lot of true believers here, seems to me.

 

[manxman]

I have looked thats why ive led burnt down this path, i want to know why he thinks the thinning of ice in one pole that holds less than 1% of the worlds total water is anything to worry about.

Its as absurd as worrying about the 3% carbon we add to the natural cycle, carbon levels are rising, very slowly, and it is mans fault, its bound to happen when you clear millions of hectacres of rain forest and burn it.