T
Theo520
Guest
You got a supporting example of anyone here who denies CO2 is a GHG?
I haven’t seen it here, so he’s just fighting a convenient strawman.
- Status
I haven’t seen it here, so he’s just fighting a convenient strawman.
J
John10
Guest
It is very worrisome, we already start to see it with more frequent and severe weather (floodings, draughts, heat waves). Also France experienced record temperatures, with a very severe heat wave which puts at risk seniors and children.
Thankfully we have not reached the point of no return, but if we do not act and do something we will.
Thankfully we have not reached the point of no return, but if we do not act and do something we will.
T
Theo520
Guest
The US has been doing remarkably well in reducing our CO2 output vs projections, thank you very much.
The global issue is in China, India and other 3rd world countries becoming developed countries. You can’t develop without increasing CO2 output significantly.
Last edited:
J
John10
Guest
I understand it is a global problem, so it should also be globally addressed. However the US recently left the Paris agreement.
T
Theo520
Guest
Integrity should matter, it was a bad agreement and that’s why not a single major emitter is meeting their Paris goals. In spite of all that, US is leading in reductions
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
T
Theo520
Guest
This reliability issue with green energy is going to be in the news more and more as green energy is slotted to fill base load requirements.
T
Theo520
Guest
Michael Moore’s new documentary isn’t getting much press coverage.
It’s critical of green energy.
It’s critical of green energy.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I think phaster was speaking about science understanding in society at large and not accusing anyone here of explicitly denying the CO2 is a GHG. And even if no one here explicitly has denied CO2 produces a GHG effect, I would guess that some here are silently doubting it.LeafByNiggle:
You got a supporting example of anyone here who denies CO2 is a GHG?
I haven’t seen it here, so he’s just fighting a convenient strawman.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Unfortunately, a far, far,…far less brilliant man is doing all he can to thwart the brilliant solutions. 
O
on_the_hill
Guest
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The issue is one of perspective. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn’t in dispute. The extent to which it is and the extent to which feedbacks are in play ought to be disputed, critiqued and questioned until a far better understanding of both is achieved.
There are brilliant scientists who do NOT “lack the basic understanding of the primitive action of CO2 in the climate…” who nonetheless question the “consensus” both points.
Here is a good example of one…
Not only is CO2 a greenhouse gas, it is also the crucial source of carbon – the key building material for all life on earth – for all life on earth.
So there is the tradeoff: label CO2 a “pollutant” and a danger to life, or view it as a crucial element in the existence and prolongation of life on earth. Which will you choose, Leaf?
Last edited:
J
John10
Guest
And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. “Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:2-3)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
False choice.
Limiting new CO2 to present historically high levels does not eliminate it. There will still be historically high levels for the foreseeable future.
Y
YourNameHere
Guest
All I know is that it is hot as H where I live. The heat index has been between 105 to 115 each afternoon. Hottest that I can remember. No rain in sight.
Praying for rain and some heat relief.
Praying for rain and some heat relief.
P
pnewton
Guest
I have made it clear my opinion of statistics, but this is a perspective we need to keep in mind. It is good to see both sides of the ecology debate. America should lead the way in carbon emissions, as it is one of our great national sins.
Protecting the planet, and protecting the poor go hand in hand. As long as we see the same moral directives as Catholics, I think discussion is fruitful, not divisive.
Protecting the planet, and protecting the poor go hand in hand. As long as we see the same moral directives as Catholics, I think discussion is fruitful, not divisive.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Current levels of CO2 are at “historically high levels,” but they are barely above starvation levels for plants. Whether or not the levels of CO2 pose a great danger or great opportunity is the question that ought to be debated not just assumed.
E
Elf01
Guest
Then how have the plants been surviving?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Survival is quite a different matter from thriving.HarryStotle:
Then how have the plants been surviving?
Prehistorically, the levels of CO2 were far higher than today and plants (along with animals) flourished.
Oh, and there was no “run-away” greenhouse effect due to high levels of CO2.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes CO2 is sometimes added to greenhouse air to make the plants grow better. But that is because a commercial greenhouse has other ways of controlling temperature. It is not subject to the climate effects of CO2. That is why it is silly to talk about the botanical effects of CO2 for the whole earth system and ignore all the rest of the effects.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Prehistorically we did not have millions of people living close to sea level and a population dependent on high efficiency monoculture farming, which is more vulnerable to climate change.
- Status