can i tell you something?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
If CO2 is the cause of the warming then why is it that the places with the largest warming have been FAR AWAY from sources of CO2 and pollution, such as large cities?...

I'm not say CO2 is THE cause of warming, but I do accept the science that says it should be A cause of warming.

That more warming is occuring in polar regions (especially the Arctic, which ought be cooling very slightly due to reduced axial tilt) is, in my opinion, partly due to other factors - such as black carbon.

And anyway, CO2 at very low levels does not have a local effect (that I'm aware of - but I may be wrong?), it's impact is felt when CO2 is dispersed through the atmopshere at much higher levels.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


On any ATS page you get 20 posts.

This is the list of ElectricUniverse's posts


page 2 - 1 post (first post)

Page 3 - 9 posts

Page 4 - 6 posts

Page 5 - 11 posts

Page 6 - 6 posts

Page 7 - 12 posts

Page 8 - 13 posts

Ignoring page 2, thats an average of 9.5 posts per page!!! Surely this constitutes as spam... one person responsible for almost half the posts in a thread. And not just this thread... Electronic Universe does it in others. Its a cheap tactic to give the appearance of winning a debate. Just flood the person with a mass of information... and when they address some of the points, accuse them of ignoring other points from the mass of information. And then, before the person has a chance to respond, post another mass of information. Like I mentioned before winning a debate with quantity rather than quality... simply drowning other opinions.

The other thing is this accusation that he/she throws around about Environmentalism being a religion. Very good article in the Guardian regarding exactly that issue...

Environmentalism is not a religion

Of all the blithering nonsense climate deniers throw at the environmental movement, there is perhaps one criticism that does real damage – that "green is the new religion"

It's worth a read and highlight just how devious the sceptics arguments, and tactics, can be. It’s the reason why I refuse to address some people directly anymore. I refuse to play their game.

Peace

Climate Change doesn't even need to be part of the debate. Those against claim the science is wrong and that the effect of our CO2 emmisions on climate are negligable at best.

Lets say they are right. So what.

What nobody can deny is that we are polluting the air we breathe and for that reason alone we need to change our ways and move to a clean energy. Climate Change doesn't even need to be part of the debate. Nobody can deny pollution, you don't need scientific proof, you can see it, taste it and smell it in the air. We know its bad, many people that decide they no longer want to live in this world use car exhaust fumes to kill themselves, its toxic and it is just one example of the toxins all of us breathe everyday.

In Australia, the climate sceptics argue that even if we reduced our carbon emmisions by 100% it would have no effect on the global problem because our overall emmisions are nothing compared to the likes of China. Again I say, what does that matter. There are radio shock Jocks in Australia that have basically called for the Prime Minister to be murdered because of a Carbon Tax. What they don't tell listeners is that their employers are up to their necks in the coal mining industry. The hypocracy is that these shock jocks will spend all day every day pushing their agenda to stop the Government implementing a carbon tax and then in the next breath issue a public safety announcement relating to the days high pollution levels and how people suffering from asthma or other respiratory illness should try remain indoors. Its ludicrous.

Sure, if Australia cut 100% of carbon emmisions it would have little effect on a global scale, but at least we would be breathing fresher air locally. Go read the latest medical reports about the toxins we all have in our bodies. The latest studies on toxins in breast milk and the risks associated with them are alarming to say the least.

Try this - Report on health effects of some enviromental toxins

Citation: Wigle DT, Lanphear BP (2005) Human health risks from low-level environmental exposures: No apparent safety thresholds. PLoS Med 2(12): e350.

Yes!

Regardless of whether it affect climate, cutting CO2 emissions - which means less reliance on coal and oil, more efficient engines, not wasting electricty, etc will mean a better environment for everyone, and it will save us money! The only people who lose out are those who make billions in the coal and oil industries. Little wonder they don't like the idea

(Personally I think carbon taxes are as useful at cutting CO2 emissions and improving the environment as a chocolate raft in a lava pool. Or indeed, as useful as a politician*. And at best a political sop, more often ust a disingenous scam to tax us more, whilst sticking our heads in the sands and ignoring the real problem. But that's for another debate)


* a politician in a lava pool is quite amusing, but otherwise still not very useful

reply to post by AndyMayhew

above levels they should be naturally

I think it would be a mistake in assuming that the ice-core data is an accurate representation of paleo-atmospheric CO2 levels. The ice-core data suffers from 'fractionation processes' such as gravitational compression which forces CO2 to the surface and back into the atmosphere, so I think it's more than likely that it underestimates past CO2 levels. It also contradicts other paleo-climate evidence, such as Stomata-data which shows atmospheric CO2 as high as 459ppmv. It is also in harsh contradiction with 90,000 very accurate direct chemical measurements dating back to 1880 showing atmospheric CO2 as high as 440ppmv. Furthermore, the ice-core data has also been edited, and high measurements have been arbitrarily removed from the record by the likes of Neftel. These are just a few reasons why I doubt the validity of the ice-core data, there are numerous other reasons which I touch upon in my article 'The validity of paleo-climate ice-core'.

So, the idea that CO2 rising to unprecedented levels is not a known fact. It is at best an uncertain conjecture that one may, or may not think is justified depending on one's chosen criteria of credibility. Likewise it is not a known fact that humanity is causing CO2 to rise to the unprecedented levels that you are not really certain it is rising to anyway. That too is at best only a conjecture and it is one which does not meet my chosen criteria of credibility.

Also it completely ignores the simple scientific argument which demonstrates from the IPCC's own basic data that humanity can not be adding to the CO2 component of the atmospheric greenhouse at a rate of more than 0.08ppmv/year at present. The amount of global warming that we can expect from this rate of CO2 increase must be less than 0.001C/year. That is the maximum possible rate of AGW from human CO2 emissions at the present time, based on the IPCC's figures and the accepted laws of science and arithmetic. It's hardly catastrophic, don't you agree?

[MUCKSTER]
The other thing is this accusation that he/she throws around about Environmentalism being a religion

I don't think that the Christian religion presents a very serious brainwashing threat to our children these days. Today the main threat comes from the 'scientific' religion of the political green movement, which has even less connection with true science than the Church of Rome had with real Christianity. At least the Roman Church had the mystical experiences of its saints and prophets to inform its worldview, but the greens don't have any experiences of anything to inform theirs. Their claim to know, by scientific observation, that the world is warming due to human CO2-emissions, is empty and false and in conflict with real science. The green worldview is one that the greens have invented all by themselves without reference to physical reality. And now they are trying to impose it on the world through the brainwashing power of the media and our education systems.

reply to post by Nathan-D


If human activity results in carbon emissions, then CO2 levels must become higher than they would otherwise be, regardless of what that figure might be. We also know that CO2 levels are rising year on year - what other mechanism can explain this? Regardless of what it was in the past, it is rising now and looks set to continue to rise form some considerable time.

I'm not sure where you get that 0.08ppm figure from????

I understand that the suggestions of higher CO2 levels in the recent past are based on controversial low level measurements close to industrial centres and do not reflect long term global levels.

A discussion with David Middleton regarding his claims about stomata data here:

www.skepticalscience.com...

One good point made there: is CO2 levels were much higher in the recent past, as some claim, what made them fall before rising again in the past few decades?

Notwithstanding which, CO2 isn't the only cause of AGW.

And as for religion, you think Christian fundamentalism isn't a danger?

rt.com...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

You forget (again) that CO2 levels are not the only factor that determine global temperature.

However, all else being equal, a world with 280ppm CO2 will be cooler than one with 560ppm CO2.

Wrong again... For example, there was a time during the middle of the Jurasic period when CO2 levels were around 2100 ppm, and temperatures were 16C, but at the beginning of the Jurasic period CO2 levels were around 1000ppm - 1,500 ppm and temperatures were 22C...

That is one of the many examples that shows when CO2 levels were higher temperatures were cooler, and when CO2 was much lower temperatures were much hotter...

There have only been a few million of years when tempereatures and CO2 levels were as low as today. Most of the 4.6 billion time that Earth has existed CO2 levels were much higher and temperatures fluctuated a lot with no indication that CO2 causes "massive warming"...

At the end of the Ordovician there were millions of years when temperatures were close to today's and CO2 levels were 4,100 ppm...



ff.org...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Yes, warming causes CO2 (and methane) levels to rise naturally (no-one denies this) - but that increase in CO2 then causes more warming. A positive feedback.

CO2 at the levels it exists on Earth cannot cause the massive warming claimed by the AGW believers like yourself, and there is evidence for what I say... Meanwhile your GCMs have had to be modified and changed time and again because they are wrong...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Currently, CO2 levels are rising significantly above the levels they would naturally be -

Ah so YOU decide what natural levels of CO2 should be?... Thank you for letting us know you are a control freak...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

there has been no warming in the past few thousand years, indeed,
....

WRONG... the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Periods were WARMER than at present and atmospheric CO2 levels were between 270 ppm - 290ppm...

OF course you DISMISSED/IGNORED all the "peer-reviewed" research papers I posted which show the contrary to the claim you are making...

So you see, AGAIN, the one making red herrings, and strawmans WITH NO EVIDENCE TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS IS YOU...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
....
And as for religion, you think Christian fundamentalism isn't a danger?

rt.com...

The AGW religion is the worst of them all because your religion is allowing governments to implement plans for the sequestration of atmospheric CO2, which will cause worldwide starvation due to plants not having enough CO2 to grow and produce food...

reply to post by Muckster


Wow...so we can see what your responses are... LIKE ALWAYS...

You talk about quality but you present NOTHING AT ALL to corroborate your arguments, when in fact I do present evidence for EVERYTHING I have written... But you claim your posts have quality?...

Again, when you can't debate a person resort to ad hominem attacks and claim how "poor us, he is posting too many facts that we can't debate"... Which is exactly what you are whining about

Put up or shut up...

reply to post by Seagle


You CAN'T taste or smell carbon dioxide, and I have alredy presented evidence at what levels it is harmful and fatal to humans, levels which we WILL NEVER REACH...

Not to mention that CO2 has NOTHING to do with pollution...

You see, it is members like you who decide not to read at all what is being debated and just post your uneducated opinion just because you think that without knowing anything about CO2, or the topic being discussed, that your opinion must be right...

If you search for what "smog" is you will find that NOWHERE is CO2 included, the real pollutants are other gases.

The following is directly from wikipedia, the leftists number 1 source for news, and information, which also happens to be rigged....but anyway...

Smog is a kind of air pollution; the word "smog" is a portmanteau of smoke and fog. Classic smog results from large amounts of coal burning in an area caused by a mixture of smoke and sulfur dioxide. Modern smog does not usually come from coal but from vehicular and industrial emissions that are acted on in the atmosphere by sunlight to form secondary pollutants that also combine with the primary emissions to form photochemical smog.

Photochemical smog
In the 1950s a new type of smog, known as photochemical smog, was first described.
This forms when sunlight hits various pollutants in the air and forms a mix of inimical chemicals that can be very dangerous. A photochemical smog is the chemical reaction of sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere, which leaves airborne particles (called particulate matter) and ground-level ozone.

Nitrogen oxides are released by nitrogen and oxygen in the air reacting together under high temperature such as in the exhaust of fossil fuel-burning engines in cars, trucks, coal power plants, and industrial manufacturing factories. VOCs are released from man-made sources such as gasoline (petrol), paints, solvents, pesticides, and biogenic sources, such as pine and citrus tree emissions.

This noxious mixture of air pollutants can include the following:

nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide
tropospheric ozone
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN)
aldehydes (RCHO)

All of these chemicals are usually highly reactive and oxidizing. Photochemical smog is therefore considered to be a problem of modern industrialization. It is present in all modern cities, but it is more common in cities with sunny, warm, dry climates and a large number of motor vehicles.[1] Because it travels with the wind, it can affect sparsely populated areas as well.

..........

en.wikipedia.org...


Where is CO2 in that list?.... it is NOWHERE simply because CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT, despite the EPA claiming the contrary.

Now, who will benefit from taxing to death a gas which ALL LIVING CREATURES EXHALE?.....

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

You forget (again) that CO2 levels are not the only factor that determine global temperature.

However, all else being equal, a world with 280ppm CO2 will be cooler than one with 560ppm CO2.

Wrong again... For example, there was a time during the middle of the Jurasic period when CO2 levels were around 2100 ppm, and temperatures were 16C, but at the beginning of the Jurasic period CO2 levels were around 1000ppm - 1,500 ppm and temperatures were 22C.

Er, read what I wrote again

I'll come back when you've looked up the meaning of straw man argument. You might care to look up ad hominen as well.

Originally posted by pasiphae
i miss the days when this forum had more posts per day and i could learn things about climate change. now climate change is taboo here. you get run off and chastised for falling for the "conspiracy". but what if the conspiracy is that you've been tricked into falling for the big corporations say in things that it's all okay? corporations who say "eh. it is what it is and we shouldn't have to stop polluting the planet because it can take care of itself" and pay for scientists to back them. they are rolling in profit.

what if the planet is like our body? you can't shove crap in it every day and expect it to continue to work right. it takes care and proper balance. otherwise you are setting yourself up for possible cancers. no? a doc would never recommend for you to smoke, drink, and eat big macs every day. it's not good for you. so why is it okay to do that to the planet?

i think it's not and it really bums me out that people don't seem to care.

Electricuniverse is a classic example why people dont discuss global warming. As someone else already had said he swamps the threads with cut and paste jobs most of which he dosent read. HE then says the same arguement over and over again then he swamps the thread with more cut and paste jobs. You provide links which counteracts his point of view and he dosent bother to read and he also selectively quotes missing out other points etc etc etc. Noone can have an intelligent discussion on this site anymore with people like him.

reply to post by AndyMayhew

m not sure where you get that 0.08ppm figure from????

I have explained as to how I arrived by that figure on a few occasions in this thread and linked to my article giving a more depth explanation as to how I arrived at that figure. The actual figure I calculated is 0.076ppmv, but I then rounded it up to 0.08ppmv for simplicity. The IPCC's figures (in AR4 2007) give us 29 gigatonnes/year for anthropogenic CO2-emissions. Henry's law, which governs the dissolution of gases in liquid ordains that about 98% of anthropogenic CO2 must be absorbed into the oceans in order to maintain equilibrium in the partitioning ratio. The 'partitioning ratio' is the ratio between the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the total amount dissolved in the oceans at a given temperature and this is about 1:50. This means that every tonne of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere 0.98 tonnes must be transferred down to the oceans. The IPCC's own figures for the amount of CO2 absorbed and emitted yearly even confirm the 1:50 partitioning ratio, but they treat human CO2 differently. The IPCC do not take into account Henry's law and instead apply the Revelle Factor, which to my mind is completely crazy and in conflict with reality. For instance, if the Revelle Factor were true, making soda pop would be impossible. I explain why this is so in my article 'The Revelle Factor vs Henry's law'. I have posted links to this before in this thread, although people seemed rather disinterested, and so I won't bang on about it anymore.

One good point made there: is CO2 levels were much higher in the recent past, as some claim, what made them fall before rising again in the past few decades?

I agree, it is a good-point and I have an equally good explanation. The oceans are warming, and as the oceans warm more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. As I stated a few pages back, the correlation between oceanic surface temperature and the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is remarkable, at about 0.0959. Essentially it's almost a perfect correlation. Because CO2's solubility is temperature-dependent, increasing the temperature of the oceans ever-so-slightly changes the partitioning ratio, and this is the only way that a permanent increase in atmospheric CO2 can occur, i.e. by permanently changing the partitioning ratio. It cannot be done any other way, because as soon as you introduce CO2 into the atmosphere, as man is currently doing, you increase the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and force the CO2 down into the ocean to maintain equilibrium in the 1:50 partitioning ratio. The higher the partial pressure, the greater the force exerted on the CO2 in the atmosphere down to the ocean. But the IPCC's Revelle Factor has apparently superseded a 200 year-old physical law of chemistry and if it were true making soda would be a physical impossibility. You must understand the implications of Henry's law to see why this is so.

Notwithstanding which, CO2 isn't the only cause of AGW

Perhaps not. But it is the main cause according to the IPCC, as CO2 the concentration even regulates the amount of water vapour (I don't believe this is so but that is what the IPCC thinks happens). CH4 is a bit-player and does not contribute that much radiative forcing (so far about 0.45 I think) according to the IPCC despite being 20 times more potent than CO2.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Er, read what I wrote again

I'll come back when you've looked up the meaning of straw man argument. You might care to look up ad hominen as well.

And read what I wrote again, and all the EVIDENCE Nathan and I have presented. "All things being equal" and a doubling of CO2 there wouldn't be any noticeable warming at all. At the levels that CO2 exists on Earth it doesn't cause any noticeable warming in the least.

Now try this, try imagining that you are in a city like Los Angeles in a clear day with the regular smog and CO2 levels that it has. Now imagine that Los Angeles is overcast with low clouds all over the place. I am sure you have experienced this. Down here in Florida it happens.

Anyway, at what time do you think it is warmer, during the clear day in Los Angeles, or in Florida or during the overcast day with low, dark clouds in the sky?...

And btw, I know exactly what ad hominem means.... and it is what your friend, and some others have been doing because none of you can debate facts that refute your religion.

Originally posted by minor007

Electricuniverse is a classic example why people dont discuss global warming. As someone else already had said he swamps the threads with cut and paste jobs most of which he dosent read. HE then says the same arguement over and over again then he swamps the thread with more cut and paste jobs. You provide links which counteracts his point of view and he dosent bother to read and he also selectively quotes missing out other points etc etc etc. Noone can have an intelligent discussion on this site anymore with people like him.

Actually I read, and I understand the evidence I posted... I proved that it is YOU the one that didn't get it.

I presented EVIDENCE from "peer-reviewed" research by scientists from ALL OVER THE GLOBE that prove the Medieval Warm Period, as well as the Roman Warm Period and the LIA, Little Ice Age, were GLOBAL events, and during the MEdieval and Roman Warm Periods temperatures were much HOTTER than now with atmospheric CO2 levels being LOWER than now.

I also showed with graphs that the Earth has experienced many times when CO2 levels were much higher than now and temperatures didn't increase for millions of years...

CO2 levels changes LAG temperature changes. Even the current ongoing Climate Change started in the early 1600, 250-260 years before CO2 levels even began to increase.

Apart from that we are in a time period when atmospheric CO2 levels are TOO LOW... If the CO2 levels were higher we would have stronger trees, and plants, as well as more yields and harvests which would allow us to feed MORE people. Not to mention that I also proved that with higher levels of CO2 than now plants and trees make better use of water, which means they use less water which leaves more potable water for animals and humans.

CO2 is not the problem, the problem are the real toxins that are emitted daily by unscrupulous companies and people.

CO2 has been blamed because the blame can then be shifted on humans, their pets and other animals, such as farm animals. Meanwhile companies laugh their butts off meanwhile they buy "carbon credits" from an affiliate company that they invented and doesn't even have to produce anything as long as it doesn't emit CO2 carbon credits can be bought off such companies.

The CO2 carbon credit, as well as the CO2 taxes are nothing but a scam to redistribute wealth... Meanwhile companies continue doing what they were doing as if nothing was happening...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

I'm not say CO2 is THE cause of warming, but I do accept the science that says it should be A cause of warming.

The only science that claims that is the GCMs which have been proven to be wrong time and again. The infrared absorption of GHGs is a "guestimate" It is not 100% certain, and when you add up the geological record of Earth, it's temperature and changes in atmospheric CO2 you see that CO2 has never really been the cause of any noticeable warming.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
That more warming is occuring in polar regions (especially the Arctic, which ought be cooling very slightly due to reduced axial tilt) is, in my opinion, partly due to other factors - such as black carbon.

Remote regions include oceans, and black carbon would not affect the oceans. Not to mention that the entire artic and Siberia, among other places, would have to be full of carbon soot for this to be true and they are not. Also, if this were true there would be more land warming than ocean or atmosphere warming. Yet the oceans are warming just as much as the land is.

According to worldwide borehole temperatures, a field in which I have worked in, the surface of the Earth has been warming even before the atmosphere began to warm.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
And anyway, CO2 at very low levels does not have a local effect (that I'm aware of - but I may be wrong?), it's impact is felt when CO2 is dispersed through the atmopshere at much higher levels.

CO2 levels are lower in remote regions like Siberia, and the Arctic, and "the impact of CO2 shouldn't be felt just when it disperses... All cities have more CO2 content than rural and remote areas, hence if CO2 was the cause of the warming cities should have been the ones with the largest warming in the last 50 years, yet this is not so.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Where have I introduced a straw man into this discussion on whether or not human activity is causing climate change? I have pointed out in my first post in the thread what I believe to be some of the problems with such discussions on the internet, but that is all.

By claiming I use strawmans, and non-sequiturs when I did no such thing is in itself using strawmans and non-sequiturs...

You, like some other members, keep trying to use underhanded tactics because you don't have a real argument to present...

and again posting from skeptical science BLOG?...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
No-one here is refuting that increased levels of CO2 may be good for plants (although there are caveats to that) or that warming has occurred in the past.

There is no "CO2 MAY be good for plants"... Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present ARE in fact BENEFITIAL to all gree biomass on the planet which includes trees, plants, brushes etc, etc...

BTW, AGAIN that claim you linked to in "skectical science BLOG" is nothing more than BULL#... It is a known fact that more atmopsheric CO2 than at present is benefitial for plants, trees, etc...

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

MUCH HIGHER levels of atmospheric CO2 content than at present is used DAILY by people who own greenhouses to increase the grow of their plants/trees and increase the yields/harvests...

The claim from "skeptical science BLOG" that "there is a wise saying that too much of a thing can be bad" does not apply because CO2 is NOWHERE close to levels to being "bad" for anything...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Nor is anyone denying that human activities are detrimental to the environment in other ways - though some of the other pollution you talk about IS a contributory factor in climate change - brown clouds, for example.

edit on 27-6-2012 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)

Human activities can and have an impact on local environments yes, but not on climate.

Methane levels for example were stable for several years when the Eath was still experiencing warming in the current period. Not to mention that the UN/IPCC are not calling for any way to stop methane levels from increasing.

The "brown cloud problem" happens frequently for example in China, and other major cities, and has been happening for decades, yet the largest warmings have occurred in areas far away from "pollution from cities".

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

I am nominating your reply to my post for the 'Dumbest Post on ATS Award'. I hope this is a proud moment for you because it can be a fiercly contested award so to even be nominated is acknowledgement that you sit in the upper echelons of the moron food chain. Just one step down from clinically brain dead.

I have no intention of getting into a debate with you on this subject because I live by the rule that you should never argue with an ideot because they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience. However, I can't help but point out a few little things from your post

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
You see, it is members like you who decide not to read at all what is being debated and just post your uneducated opinion

Maybe you should practice what you preach. My post is very relevant to the OP but I look at the climate change debate from a different perspective. The sceptics like to keep the argument strictly about CO2 because the big Energy and mining companies have managed to create enough doubt in the public arena about the science of climate change that it has given people such as yourself confidence to spread mindless crap thinking that you actually know something.

You are right on one thing, I did not waste my time reading through YOUR posts. If I was interested in studying someone suffering Chronic Copremesis I would have went to medical school.

My argument is that the CO2 debate should be irrelavent. The fact which cannot be denied is that our current methods of Power generation and manufacturing create far more than just CO2 emmisions that may or may not affect climate. We are creating a highly toxic enviroment where the air we breathe is slowly poisoning us all. That should be all the reason we need to implement change.

The rest of your post just contradicts itself and shows your complete lack of understanding in what your own argument. For the record, cutting and pasting wikepedia is not evidence of being educated or intelligent.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Not to mention that CO2 has NOTHING to do with pollution...
If you search for what "smog" is you will find that NOWHERE is CO2 included, the real pollutants are other gases.

Photochemical smog.....
a mix of inimical chemicals that can be very dangerous. A photochemical smog is the chemical reaction of sunlight.....exhaust of fossil fuel-burning engines in cars, trucks, coal power plants, and industrial manufacturing factories. VOCs are released from man-made sources such as gasoline (petrol), paints, solvents, pesticides, and biogenic sources,

Where is CO2 in that list?.... it is NOWHERE simply because CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT, despite the EPA claiming the contrary.

Thank you for proving my point. How can you argue a topic such as this when you clearly don't understand the basic concept that 96.5% of man made CO2 emmisions comes from our burning of fossil fuels and at the exact same time the highly toxic pollution and smog is produced as proven in your evidence above.

Unless you have developed and mastered a cost effective clean coal technology that you plan to roll-out across the world I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself.

reply to post by Seagle


Yay, another post from a member who only uses INSULTS as evidence and claims to be smart "just because he says so"...

I didn't get my knowledge from "oil companies" I got it from studying the topic and all the evidence presented by both sides...

Taxing, and sequestering CO2 is not going to do ANYTHING about SMOG or any of the other toxic chemicals and gases being released every day... That's what people like you don't get...

You don't want to debate the topic simply because, like the mayority of the AGW religous believers, you have no idea of what you are talking about...

Making ad hominem attacks does not prove your point, it shows what you really are, and that you have NO ARGUMENT to corroborate your point...

We got here another "mankind is doing it because I say so, and I don't want to hear/read any evidence, its happening just because i say so and anyone who thinks differently is an oil kook and an "insert string of more insults which AGW believers think it's proof"...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


what you dont seem to understand is that while it correct we cant do much about the pollution, but by having a tax and making ppl pay for the pollutants they create it is hoped that the extra cost to their business would make them turn to other alternative sources where the cost of the co2 is much lower.......