Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

What exactly does that mean for us?

The planet's climate shifting so rapidly from one to which we and much other life on this planet are well-adjusted, to one to which we and other life are poorly-adjusted that we are unable to contain a major loss of life, resources, and "habitat" in general. Surely you knew this already though?
 
A fee and dividend scheme (tax carbon but return the taxed money directly to taxpayers), along with encouraging (directing, if necessary) a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, eliminating (or simply minimising) animal agriculture, especially at industrial scales, plus encouraging various other means of lowering carbon emissions too numerous to have to mind, let alone list.

The implications are broader than you realize I think. It will affect every product, food, fuel, electricity everything. You will not receive a return on these things. And there is nothing to say that it would make even the slightest difference. Co2 is not a pollutant. It would not stop the very real toxic pollution that is a result of the civilized world. It is no use having a mild climate when the water is toxic. It is misdirected.
I am all for renewable options, absolutely it should be encouraged and that is happening, but be realistic, there is no replacement at this point in time for fossil fuels. I am not for yet more government theft, it would push many below the poverty line. If this were all that was at stake it would not be as bad, however the solution that is being formulated is far grander than just that.
 
The planet's climate shifting so rapidly from one to which we and much other life on this planet are well-adjusted, to one to which we and other life are poorly-adjusted that we are unable to contain a major loss of life, resources, and "habitat" in general. Surely you knew this already though?

That is just not true. What of soil depletion, pesticide run offs, dead zones in the oceans, deforestation, plastics, toxic building materials, land fills, polluted water ways, depleted uranium etc.... ? All of these are second fiddle to the Co2 that is greening the planet! How absurd this is.
 
You will not receive a return on these things.

The point isn't to get a "return", just for everybody on average to break even, whilst at the same time discouraging carbon-intensive products. I honestly don't see why anybody would object to this.

It would not stop the very real toxic pollution that is a result of the civilized world.

It is not designed to. Other policies and actions are required to address that.

be realistic, there is no replacement at this point in time for fossil fuels.

Renewables with storage (including hydro batteries) are a sufficient replacement. And of course there's nuclear too, but I don't advocate for that because it generates toxic waste.

I am not for yet more government theft

Nor am I.

If this were all that was at stake it would not be as bad, however the solution that is being formulated is far grander than just that.

But you don't think it will come to that. So, why wouldn't you support the realistic, non-power-grabbing solutions for which folk like me are advocating?
 
That is just not true.

Well, you might form that opinion if you took seriously only the minority rather than accepting consensus.

What of soil depletion, pesticide run offs, dead zones in the oceans, deforestation, plastics, toxic building materials, land fills, polluted water ways, depleted uranium etc.... ?

Those all need to be addressed too. It's not an either-or situation, it's a both-and.

All of these are second fiddle to the Co2 that is greening the planet!

I've addressed this already. It's not as simple as you make out. Excess CO2 only helps plant life up to a point. Then it becomes a problem.
 
What of soil depletion, pesticide run offs, dead zones in the oceans, deforestation, plastics, toxic building materials, land fills, polluted water ways, depleted uranium etc.... ?

These are the type of things most people agree on, there’s no real big debate about these sort of things. Those like me that are undecided can concentrate on them while leaving others to decide if man made CO2 levels are heating the planet up. There’s enough work for everyone here I think.

Clean energy is better than coal fuelled power stations.
Wave energy.
Heat from volcanoes.
Wind turbines. Etc
Nuclear has been very useful so far, but having watched the mini series ‘Chernobyl’ recently, it should not be taken for granted. I’d rather it wasn’t the main source, in fact I’d rather it wasn’t used at all. But would I be content without it? I doubt it.
I’ve little interest or knowledge about such topics, but although I’m on the fence about GW I’d be interested in starting to learn more.

Naive? Impractical? A Waste?
If the proponents are right, surely it will need effort in all these aspects if we’re to move forward. I’d be quite willing to sacrifice quite a bit of 21st century luxuries to achieve a more balanced world. I’m not the enemy, I’m a sceptical but ‘open to suggestions’ friend.
 
Last edited:
Well, you might form that opinion if you took seriously only the minority rather than accepting consensus.



Those all need to be addressed too. It's not an either-or situation, it's a both-and.



I've addressed this already. It's not as simple as you make out. Excess CO2 only helps plant life up to a point. Then it becomes a problem.

I did have a longer reply, but I thought it was a bit too.... confronting. So I'll give you a free pass, I'm not looking to insult you.

My opinion is not based on others, it is my own, based on my own research. I do not see anything substantial to respond to but I would love to hear how a greener Earth is a problem. You did not address it at all, except to imply it will poison the planet as in the water intoxication analogy. Will the Earth suffer vegetation toxicity? Can you point me to some published papers?

Let me guess, there is a limit to greening and the amount of Co2 absorbed by plant life. Then we have to once again contend with the excess. And around and around we go. Am I right?

Please, I get it, as I said before. You have made up your mind. I won't waste my time. I have heard your argument. Consensus. OK, I get it.
 
I would love to hear how a greener Earth is a problem. You did not address it at all, except to imply it will poison the planet as in the water intoxication analogy. Will the Earth suffer vegetation toxicity? Can you point me to some published papers?

Let me guess, there is a limit to greening and the amount of Co2 absorbed by plant life. Then we have to once again contend with the excess. And around and around we go. Am I right?

Here's an article in Scientific American which addresses this issue: Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?

Some key excerpts:

Norby notes the results scientists produce in labs are generally not what happens in the vastly more complex world outside; many other factors are involved in plant growth in untended forests, fields and other ecosystems. For example, “nitrogen is often in short enough supply that it’s the primary controller of how much biomass is produced” in an ecosystem, he says. “If nitrogen is limited, the benefit of the CO2 increase is limited…. You can’t just look at CO2, because the overall context really matters.”

while rising carbon dioxide might seem like a boon for agriculture, Moore also emphasizes any potential positive effects cannot be considered in isolation, and will likely be outweighed by many drawbacks. “Even with the benefit of CO2 fertilization, when you start getting up to 1 to 2 degrees of warming, you see negative effects,” she says. “There are a lot of different pathways by which temperature can negatively affect crop yield: soil moisture deficit [or] heat directly damaging the plants and interfering with their reproductive process.” On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants.

Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. “We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.”

Please, I get it, as I said before. You have made up your mind. I won't waste my time. I have heard your argument. Consensus. OK, I get it.

Please, don't put that on me whilst implicitly exculpating yourself. Your mind is just as made up as mine is. I have tried to offer a reasonable approach which cuts through the hype of partisanship, by appealing to those who are more qualified to assess the state of play than you and I, but you are determined to preference the hysterical minority who see those qualified scientists as hoaxers. That's on you.
 
These are the type of things most people agree on, there’s no real big debate about these sort of things. Those like me that are undecided can concentrate on them while leaving others to decide if man made CO2 levels are heating the planet up. There’s enough work for everyone here I think.

Clean energy is better than coal fuelled power stations.
Wave energy.
Heat from volcanoes.
Wind turbines. Etc
Nuclear has been very useful so far, but having watched the mini series ‘Chernobyl’ recently, it should not be taken for granted. I’d rather it wasn’t the main source, in fact I’d rather it wasn’t used at all. But would I be content without it? I doubt it.
I’ve little interest or knowledge about such topics, but although I’m on the fence about GW I’d be interested in starting to learn more.

Naive? Impractical? A Waste?
If the proponents are right, surely it will need effort in all these aspects if we’re to move forward. I’d be quite willing to sacrifice quite a bit of 21st century luxuries to achieve a more balanced world. I’m not the enemy, I’m a sceptical but ‘open to suggestions’ friend.

Good post Steve,

Despite what the proponents say. The Co2 issue is not settled science. It has left the realms of science and become political. Has the null hypothesis been falsified? Of course not. Has it been proven? Of course not. How is it falsified? These are crucial criteria for the scientific method. There is discourse on this issue not a consensus. We should not make grand sweeping political policies based on something so very, very flimsy. We have covered a lot of things here that definitively show that we do not have all the pieces yet in understanding how the climate works. It is extremely complex, and we are talking about a trace gas. 0.04% of the atmosphere of which 3% of that 0.04% is supposedly man made. Even the IPCC admits that perhaps 50% of the increase is due to natural cause.

Bottom line, it is still hypothesis. The track record so far for supporting this hypothesis in the last few decades is an abysmal failure. It is entirely based on inaccurate and incomplete computer models.

What Dr. Mototaka Nakamura stated is one of the most powerfully true statements I have heard. And time has shown this to be true.

“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”

Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.

And there are yet more factors that are not accounted for, such as particle forcing that impacts basically every single aspect of the weather.

It is absurd to think we have this all figured out. Such arrogance! And yet we want to implement huge and potentially dangerous wide sweeping GOVERNMENT policies. Maybe we need to be told how to live, maybe we should just plead for them to control us, because this certainly seems psychotic to me.
 
Ok Laird.
What do you think I’d have to change if I were to fully agree, and go along with you & Greta?

Is there a consensus within the proponents about how to move forward?
 
Ok Laird.
What do you think I’d have to change if I were to fully agree, and go along with you?

I'll simply repeat what I wrote to you privately:

The most important action we can take, in my view, is to support policies which lead to reduced carbon emissions. Following that, we ought to put our money where our mouths are and limit our own carbon emissions. There are all sorts of ways to do that with which you will probably already be familiar.
 
I'll simply repeat what I wrote to you privately:

The most important action we can take, in my view, is to support policies which lead to reduced carbon emissions. Following that, we ought to put our money where our mouths are and limit our own carbon emissions. There are all sorts of ways to do that with which you will probably already be familiar.

One thing I can do, is tell someone how difficult it is to find out even the most basic of info about where our energy actually comes from, I searched for it using a number of sentences just now, but in vain.

I’ve just driven my daughter into town, and asked her what she thought about the whole thing. Not a jot of interest there.
 
Here's an article in Scientific American which addresses this issue: Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?

Some key excerpts:









Please, don't put that on me whilst implicitly exculpating yourself. Your mind is just as made up as mine is. I have tried to offer a reasonable approach which cuts through the hype of partisanship, by appealing to those who are more qualified to assess the state of play than you and I, but you are determined to preference the hysterical minority who see those qualified scientists as hoaxers. That's on you.

Thank you Laird I did a little follow up and you have some points. In regards to crops that is.
As you see I am able to accept evidence despite what I would like it to say.

Your reasonable approach is to throw money at it. When we do not even know if it is a real threat or if it would actually make a difference. It is not settled science. Can you admit this?
 
One thing I can do, is tell someone how difficult it is to find out even the most basic of info about where our energy actually comes from

Which information exactly are you looking for, Steve? The breakdown of the sources of the power grid, i.e., X% coal, Y% solar, Z% nuclear, etc etc?
 
Back
Top