Climate change accelerating fast.

[BrianG]

CO2 is in my baby's breath, it's emitted with every word, sigh, cry or song. Freedom of speech is freedom to emit CO2.

 

We don't light our way, cook our meals, move ourselves and our goods to emit CO2, that's just a byproduct, the most benign possible from combustion (excepting water vapor).

 

We don't know how much of our fossil fuel CO2 is in the air, or how long it stays. We need more time to study the questions, before we try this untested, new climate change mitigation scheme.

[freeztar]

CO2 is in my baby's breath, it's emitted with every word, sigh, cry or song. Freedom of speech is freedom to emit CO2.

 

We don't light our way, cook our meals, move ourselves and our goods to emit CO2, that's just a byproduct, the most benign possible from combustion (excepting water vapor).

 

We don't know how much of our fossil fuel CO2 is in the air, or how long it stays. We need more time to study the questions, before we try this untested, new climate change mitigation scheme.

 

I just posted a link in the other thread, but I'll post it here too. The science is sound.

 

Carbon-14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

We don't need a scapegoat, we need a solution! Otherwise, we have to face the fact that we are still animals. That's not "comfortable" for most people.

[REASON]

I kind of see it as if the climate mitigation promoters are the ones seeking to limit wealth and freedom. If there are good solutions to global warming, the market would be the best place to find them. Instead, this mitigation thing seems to be central, government directed investment, new taxation and limits on freedom.

 

Well you appear to have a grasp of the talking points anyway.

 

First of all, I don't advocate climate mitigation. I advocate efforts to mitigate the adverse effects we are having on the climate and the environment in general. It often requires government regulation or other incentives to accomplish those things. What is to stop industry from polluting our water or air, for example? A good conscience? That hasn't been very effective in the past. If it were, it wouldn't have been necessary to create the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

 

I also do not advocate limiting wealth. I would just prefer that wealth be generated in ways that are less destructive and more environmentally conscious.

 

So how much freedom do you think we should have to ravage our environment?

[BrianG]

.... What is to stop industry from polluting our water or air, for example? ...

 

The folks down stream and down wind can sue, if their neighbors harm them. The benefit of that, they have to prove with a preponderance of the evidence, that harm was done. That's where climate science fails, to show that CO2, our breath, our cars, our coal power plants, cause harm to the climate and us.

 

We need more data before we let our government's act. History will laugh at politicians who negotiate climate treaties.

[REASON]

The folks down stream and down wind can sue, if their neighbors harm them. The benefit of that, they have to prove with a preponderance of the evidence, that harm was done.

 

And what laws do you think they would base their lawsuit on, the ones established by the free market?

 

 

That's where climate science fails, to show that CO2, our breath, our cars, our coal power plants, cause harm to the climate and us.

 

We need more data before we let our government's act.

 

The fact is science has not failed in this regard. Some people simply choose not to listen. They prefer instead to listen to those who are mounting the resistance. You know, knowledgeable people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Based on the arguments you are making, this seems to be your approach to this issue. But having knowledge of the arguments against AGW doesn't make you knowledgeable about the science that predicts it. Apparently, you are more fearful of government than the effects of climate change. If you are at all objective in your approach, why not spend more time researching the arguments of the proponents?

 

 

History will laugh at politicians who negotiate climate treaties.

 

Kinda like it did at those who negotiated the United Nations Convention Against Torture? Let's hope not.

[lemit]

I'm not sure I understand this conversation. Are we suggesting, traditionally, that climates change, so it's all right for us to do whatever we do no matter how much that changes the rate of change? Are we also suggesting, in newer, more green thinking, that it is up to us to do whatever is needed to keep the climate from changing, no matter how it would have behaved otherwise?

 

How about just getting us out of the equation as much as possible and neutralizing our effect on climate so we can, as has been said a few times in other contexts, let nature take its course?

 

--lemit

[maikeru]

What are the health benefits of reduced CO2 consumption?

 

Less uranium and mercury falling out the sky. Good things, no? Or do you like them in your food and water?

[Michaelangelica]

Our technology will certainly allow us to survive and even thrive in a changed environment. .

Is that blind faith? or just hope?

[Michaelangelica]

 

The fact is science has not failed in this regard. Some people simply choose not to listen.

.

Who wants to know?

We will just be re-united with God a little quicker?

Climate change and apocalypse fatigue.

November 23, 2009

In the lead up to Copenhagen, it’s worth asking where public opinion is on climate change. And if it isn’t fully onside, what are the reasons? Are people simply overloaded with the warnings of disaster?

. . .

One interesting argument, coming out of Yale is that people simply have a case of “Apocalypse Fatigue”. The researchers say a threat in 20 years time or more is simply too far off and, perhaps, too awful to contemplate.

. . .

People have difficulty seeing a future more than 10 years away and scientists say that ability has been fading over the years. Maybe it has something to do with today’s culture of instant gratification. It doesn’t lend itself to long term thinking and analysis.

. . .

Then there is the question of whether people are switching off because they have been overloaded with disaster scenarios.

Climate change and apocalypse fatigue - Management Line - Executive Style - Sydney Morning Herald Blogs

 

Apocalypse Fatigue: Losing the Public on Climate Change by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger: Yale Environment 360

[BrianG]

Less uranium and mercury falling out the sky. Good things, no? Or do you like them in your food and water?

 

If you want to cap mercury and uranium, that's fine with me, CO2 isn't the same thing. CO2 is vital for life, I like the taste and the tiny bubbles, the hiss and cool spray, it's delicious.

[freeztar]

The problem is...you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[BrianG]

The reason cake is light and fluffy: CO2.

[TheBigDog]

Is that blind faith? or just hope?

I would call it 20/20 faith. I am not saying that the most catastrophic scenarios of climate change would not dramatically reduce the number of people, but that they are insufficient to make us extinct. Our technology, our science, our knowledge, our education; all of these combine with out will to live make it certain in my mind that humans will weather the storm and continue to dominate the earth as they choose.

 

Bill

[Michaelangelica]

I would call it 20/20 faith. I am not saying that the most catastrophic scenarios of climate change would not dramatically reduce the number of people, but that they are insufficient to make us extinct.

 

Bill

Thanks for the reassurance. Which way do you hope for the Earth to go--Venus or Mars?

 

I did think that we could stop GW whatever its cause.

I did think that people would be motivated to do something about it.

I did think that the extreme predictions would be proved false or ameliorated by our collective action.

 

Now I'm not sure, maybe natural selection needs to have another go at producing intelligence. She may get it right next time.

[BrianG]

If we are going to fool around with climate mitigation, Mars and Venus need it more than Earth. That's where I'd like to start, a proof a concept, sample or demonstration.

 

My father always told me, "Don't buy a pig in a poke."

[REASON]

If you want to cap mercury and uranium, that's fine with me, CO2 isn't the same thing. CO2 is vital for life, I like the taste and the tiny bubbles, the hiss and cool spray, it's delicious.

 

You must think we're a bunch of idiots around here, Brian. Do you believe anyone who takes this issue seriously thinks the fizz in your friggin' soda pop is causing global warming? This little snarky comment of yours only reveals the depth of your ignorance of the subject. Maybe you think you would enjoy spending some time in a room full of nothing but delicious CO2. Somehow, I don't think you'll find it all that tasty as you're gasping for a breath. Or mayby you'd like to suck on a tailpipe so you can take in gobbs of that savory CO2.

 

Of course carbon dioxide is vital for life, but too much of it can be destructive to life. Consider the acidification of ocean waters due to the increase in CO2 levels caused by human activity. Or the impacts of warming on important oceanic features such as the Great Barrier Reef. What about Arctic shrinkage, glacial retreat, permafrost melting and the associated release of methane, the reduced albedo of polar ice causing feedback loops that accelerate the warming process, or the destruction of large portions of North American pine forests due to the enormous increase in Mountain Pine Beetle populations?

 

There is evidence all around us pointing to the effects of increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere and biosphere, yet we're supposed to ignore the warning signs because people like you like to have your nose hair tickled by the carbonation in your soda pop. Do you think we haven't already seen the likes of you around here with your petty talking points about babies' breath and cabonated drinks, and pointing to every denialist source you can find without ever identifying alternate scientific explanations for the effects of climate change that are evident all around us.

 

The fact is, we are rapidly converting stored carbon into energy by digging it up or pumping it out and burning it generating carbon dioxide, an established greenhouse gas. Simultaneously, we have been rapidly causing the decline of rainforests which are natural carbon sinks. Do we seriously think we can continue to do this and not have an impact on natural ecosystems and the climate? No!

 

So the questions then becomes, do we give a ****?

 

Apparently you don't.

[BrianG]

Reason,

 

I'm sorry you feel my posts are condescending or snarky, I'm new to the forum, may I please beg your indulgence? I can assure you, I really do give a ****.

 

I want to break this problem down to the simplest possible terms, I don't want to see a rainforest burnt down, any more than you do. I know you are care about our planet, maybe I'm more concerned for the people living on it. I hope we can find a middle ground.

 

I'm glad I'm posting new information sources, I try to keep up with this issue. I don't think our CO2 from fossil fuel is doing much to change the climate. This isn't the most popular view, but from what I've seen of the world, that's what I believe. I was in the first Gulf War and I saw the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire. The particulates, smoke, really did change the weather. It was much cooler than before or outside the smoke cover. I have no issue with greenhouse theory, but I find the IPCC estimates wildly high. From what I know, doubling atmospheric CO2 produces about [math]0.5\celsius[/math] temperature increase. I don't think man is responsible for all the increase shown in the Keeling Curve, either.

 

Thank you for your post. I hope we will be able to discuss this further.