Climate Change is a fad.

Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
Actually they're not. Both are caused mainly by fossil fuels. If you choose not to believe in climate change, fine. But the ocean is filling with plastic, coal ash ponds are getting into people's drinking water, there's mercury in the fish, etc.

Why don't you care about that?
Pollution: the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

Co2; because it is essential to life has a cycle where animal life runs on oxygen and adds carbon as a byproduct and plant life that uses that carbon and water to metabolize. That places co2 as a nutrient.

Nutrient: a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life.

When you talk about the massive amounts of plastics, chemical by-products, and other pollutants (harmful or poisonous) that is bad and should be mitigated. The thing is; in the western world this is already being done. Take pulp and paper (a source of some really noxious pollution), in the west, the laws are so stringent that these are now produced in closed loop systems, meaning that they add water and the chemicals get reused.

Methods are constantly being improved to produce less pollution and where possible to capture it; but to assume that I don't care about pollution because I take a realistic, scientifically valid, and objective position instead of actually validating your own position says far more about your character than it does mine.
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
As soon as the unqualified politicise the subject, all hope of rational discussion is lost.
Yes, the cultists are unqualified repeaters of flat earth theory combined with malthusian catastrophism.

All hope of rational discussion IS lost with people so hopelessly illiterate as to aspire to willing ignorance of the subject.
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
55,678
43,529
Ohio
Pollution: the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

Co2; because it is essential to life has a cycle where animal life runs on oxygen and adds carbon as a byproduct and plant life that uses that carbon and water to metabolize. That places co2 as a nutrient.

Nutrient: a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life.

When you talk about the massive amounts of plastics, chemical by-products, and other pollutants (harmful or poisonous) that is bad and should be mitigated. The thing is; in the western world this is already being done. Take pulp and paper (a source of some really noxious pollution), in the west, the laws are so stringent that these are now produced in closed loop systems, meaning that they add water and the chemicals get reused.

Methods are constantly being improved to produce less pollution and where possible to capture it; but to assume that I don't care about pollution because I take a realistic, scientifically valid, and objective position instead of actually validating your own position says far more about your character than it does mine.
Less pollution is produced when the government demands it. That's what drives the innovation.

As to the rest of your garbled post, when we get away from fossil fuels, we not only lower the carbon in the atmosphere, we lessen the other kinds of pollution as well. So let's do that. Or do you want future people to wear a fit bit type device to register the amount of mercury and lead in their bodies because it will be in everything?

This stuff doesn't just go away by itself, you know. Remember how everyone freaked out about the ozone layer? "OMG how will survive without aerosol cans?!!!!"

The lightbulb transition went pretty well also. Now light bulb technology is advancing quite rapidly resulting in better, longer lasting bulbs at reasonable prices.

Imagine in the future not being entirely without electricity after a storm because every house has solar panels & you can still run your refrigerator and use your phone & computer.

Why are you desperate to save old, dirty fuel sources when we could create newer, cleaner and better ones which won't be any more expensive than what we have now?
 
Mar 2015
30,407
15,813
Mad Prophet
Yes, the cultists are unqualified repeaters of flat earth theory combined with malthusian catastrophism.

All hope of rational discussion IS lost with people so hopelessly illiterate as to aspire to willing ignorance of the subject.
I'm guessing THIS is your idea of rational discussion?

... By labeling people who recognize global warming "cultists?" Do YOU like being called a cultist? I would imagine that you don't, I wouldn't.

Excess carbon in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. This is irrefutable, but my guess is that you are arguing that it isn't a huge problem and that it isn't the actual cause of the earth warming and that the earth warming is indeed temporary? Again, not arguing with you right now, just attempting to understand your position.

How does my position make me a flat-earther? Because I believe in Science? That's a pretty weak argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldGaffer
Mar 2015
30,407
15,813
Mad Prophet
My wish is for Republicans to work on their own ideas and lead the way passing legislation and that we as a nation can enact changes that are cost-effective and common sense. For example, I STRONGLY disagree with California's answer to their own drought problem - fines for watering grass has lead to less greenery to fuel the rain cycle. I would think that desert reclamation and creating more rain would permanently fix the problem.

What will NOT fix the problem is posting condescending memes about deniers and mocking them. Most of the reason they oppose MGW is that they are forced into a corner by "save the world" liberals who unfairly punish working folks and small businesses, expecting them to foot the bill. We could do a better job of trying to include conservatives into the issue of conservation.
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
I'm going to start at the end, you called my words "garbled" as a way to act dismissive when you cannot address the argument. So, I checked the spelling and grammar, there was a singular grammatical error noted. So, don't project your illiteracy onto other people. Pretending to be stupid is NOT the way to try and look smart, it has the opposite effect.

Less pollution is produced when the government demands it. That's what drives the innovation.
What is your basis for this position?
The only truth in this is if you are explicitly referring to military innovation.

As to the rest of your garbled post, when we get away from fossil fuels, we not only lower the carbon in the atmosphere, we lessen the other kinds of pollution as well.
If you are going to try and insult me, at least have the integrity to read what you are insulting first.

Co2 is NOT a pollutant. NOT a pollutant. It is a NUTRIENT. The LC50 for co2 is around 20 000 ppm, atmospheric average is around 400 ppm. That's 50 times the atmospheric concentrations. For perspective with all CO2 machines have produced, the last 120 years we have added about 60 ppm that's a 15% change when the change you are implying requires 5000% change.

Yes, fossil fuels ALSO contain some pollution; the sulfur oxides, nitrous oxides, heavy metals, etc... the interesting thing is that facilities are required to filter those things out to the best the technology will allow (most smoke stacks are really only pumping out water vapour and CO2)

It's the developing world that produces many times the actual pollution and releases it in the atmosphere, by actual pollution AND in terms of CO2. The solution would be to industrialize the third world, not return the first world to third world status.

So let's do that. Or do you want future people to wear a fit bit type device to register the amount of mercury and lead in their bodies because it will be in everything?
You know those fancy light bulbs that save energy, they each contain a lethal dose of mercury. As in, you break the bulb, environmental standards call for a hazmat team for cleanup.

This stuff doesn't just go away by itself, you know. Remember how everyone freaked out about the ozone layer? "OMG how will survive without aerosol cans?!!!!"
Yes, I was in school at the time. It wasn't until years later where I found out that that had more to do with Dupont. Their patent on the R-22 refrigerant was expiring and they needed to modify the laws to prevent competitors from using their chemical formula, so they could get their patent on R-134 created. Which actually contains the same chemicals that are damaging to the ozone...

The lightbulb transition went pretty well also. Now light bulb technology is advancing quite rapidly resulting in better, longer lasting bulbs at reasonable prices.
Yes, and LED lights are now being produced AT the theoretical maximum efficiency. However, that's a third topic now. AGW, pollution and energy efficiency. And as noted, it's not without its own set of problems.

Imagine in the future not being entirely without electricity after a storm because every house has solar panels & you can still run your refrigerator and use your phone & computer.
Until the solar energy conversion rate reaches over 60% for panels at the same cost as today, solar power is not suitable except for on an individual level where a person can invest in 5k worth of car batteries to hold enough power to last overnight (based on averages, and applicable across the globe, not just in geographically specific regions).

Why are you desperate to save old, dirty fuel sources when we could create newer, cleaner and better ones which won't be any more expensive than what we have now?
I'm not, that's something you've been programmed to believe, that anyone who wants a responsible energy policy is just a shill for the oil companies. Sorry, but I have a realistic perspective on the pros and cons of these technologies, and if the agw cult had their way, their solutions would cause the deaths of billions because of their short-sightedness.
 
Apr 2016
601
246
Seattle
who knows ... it could be our place in the solar system ... constantly changing ... for sure, if the climate specialists cant even forecast where hurricanes will land, how can they forecast weather millions of years in advance. climate is constantly changing. They just stuck it on fossil fuels because that is what we use the most. Yet, the liberals trash our cities and ruin the environment. go figure ...
 
Mar 2015
30,407
15,813
Mad Prophet
Yes, I was in school at the time. It wasn't until years later where I found out that that had more to do with Dupont. Their patent on the R-22 refrigerant was expiring and they needed to modify the laws to prevent competitors from using their chemical formula, so they could get their patent on R-134 created. Which actually contains the same chemicals that are damaging to the ozone...
This is Tetrafluoroethane:

1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane.svg.png

It is a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) and haloalkane refrigerant with thermodynamic properties similar to R-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) but with insignificant ozone depletion potential and a significantly lower global warming potential (1,430, compared to R-12's GWP of 10,900).[2] It has the formula CH2FCF3 and a boiling point of −26.3 °C (−15.34 °F) at atmospheric pressure.

This is Chlorodifluoromethane or difluoromonochloromethane:

800px-Chlorodifluoromethane-2D-skeletal.png

It is a hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC).

R-22 is prepared from chloroform:

HCCl3 + 2 HF → HCF2Cl + 2 HCl


These two chemicals have different properties even though they have similar composition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bmanmcfly
Mar 2015
30,407
15,813
Mad Prophet
who knows ... it could be our place in the solar system ... constantly changing ... for sure, if the climate specialists cant even forecast where hurricanes will land, how can they forecast weather millions of years in advance. climate is constantly changing. They just stuck it on fossil fuels because that is what we use the most. Yet, the liberals trash our cities and ruin the environment. go figure ...
So....you're OK with with sea levels rising another 75 feet? This doesn't really effect you?
 
Apr 2016
601
246
Seattle
So....you're OK with with sea levels rising another 75 feet? This doesn't really effect you?
OMG .... like that is going to happen .... LOL ..... ALGORE was wrong .... The libs are still purchasing land near the water ... Obviously they dont believe it either ... Funny ... No worries here whatsoever