[paraclete]

Yes Tut I'm sure Ex has a long list of trash after all it's an easy argument, just call it trash

[excon]

Hello clete:

Water is a natural occurring substance.. We can't live without it. Yet, too much, and you're dead... CO2 in the atmosphere is the same thing, but too much and we're dead.

Now, you can wear your blinders and deny that too much CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth to heat up... But, it will in SPITE of your blinders... So, I call it trash.. You call it wonderful... It's going to kill us no matter what we call it.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello clete:

Water is a natural occurring substance.. We can't live without it. Yet, too much, and you're dead... CO2 in the atmosphere is the same thing, but too much and we're dead.

Now, you can wear your blinders and deny that too much CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth to heat up... But, it will in SPITE of your blinders... So, I call it trash.. You call it wonderful... It's going to kill us no matter what we call it.

excon

OK so now water is trash. I think you don't realise that what we are arguing about is how much as too much. We can't have too much H2O because the amount of H2O always stays the same. You think we are making more CO2 but are we? All that is happening is that we are realising it from where it is trapped. I don't think you are in danger of being killed by CO2 Ex unless you deliberately place yourself in a tank of CO2. The whole argument is spirious, put together by a bunch of wankers. The Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 and we are all still here, it didn't kill anyone

[TUT317]

ok so now water is trash. I think you don't realise that what we are arguing about is how much as too much.

Hi Clete,

I think this is where the discussion needs to focus.

As you are aware the Murray-Darling Basic is suffering form a salinity problem. Nothing too unusual here salt has long been a natural part of the environment in this particular area. A problem comes about when there is too much. Salt becomes toxic to the natural flora of the area.

In a similar fashion CO2 has been around for a long time in various quantities. Again, nothing too unusual. However, CO2 like salt can cause toxicity when excess amounts are dissolved in the oceans of the world.
Apparently it raises the PH levels near the surface.

It only poses a problem for small organisms and coral. It is not a problem for us because we are at the other end of the food chain. Or is it?

Tut

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, but what's the POINT you're making??? From what I can gather, it's that global warming ISN'T a result of throwing your trash into the air... I'm left with the impression that you don't think throwing your trash into the air HAS a downside...

If you BELIEVE that throwing your trash into the air ISN'T good, which is what I THINK you're trying to say, what DO you believe it's doing?

excon

It's a really simple point ex, the expert in this case says, "yes, we're wrong, but we don't care." Maybe I'm being picky but that doesn't inspire much confidence in the expert or their research.

P.S. I've already told you a gazillion times that I like clean air.

[paraclete]

Hi Clete,

I think this is where the discussion needs to focus.

As you are aware the Murray-Darling Basic is suffering form a salinity problem. Nothing too unusual here salt has long been a natural part of the environment in this particular area. A problem comes about when there is too much. Salt becomes toxic to the natural flora of the area.

In a similar fashion CO2 has been around for a long time in various quantities. Again, nothing too unusual. However, CO2 like salt can cause toxicity when excess amounts are dissolved in the oceans of the world.
Apparently it raises the PH levels near the surface.

It only poses a problem for small organisms and coral. It is not a problem for us because we are at the other end of the food chain. Or is it?

Tut

Tut the Murray Darling salinity problem arises out of excessive irrigation, you could blame water, or you could put the blame where it lies with agriculture on unsuitable land. We should not be using European and American techiques when growing stuff in our soils.

As far as the acidity of oceans is concerned this is a natural process and the only reason we are concerned is coral bleaching. Nothing we do in Australia will have any effect on that. I don't know to what extent it affects krill but the fish stocks are being depleted by commercial fishing not CO2 absorption.

So what do we have here; two pieces of environment damage caused by blatant commercialism and of course CO2 emissions have the same cause

[TUT317]

Tut the Murray Darling salinity problem arises out of excessive irrigation, you could blame water, or you could put the blame where it lies with agriculture on unsuitable land. We should not be using European and American techiques when growing stuff in our soils.

as far as the acidity of oceans is concerned this is a natural process and the only reason we are concerned is coral bleaching. Nothing we do in Australia will have any effect on that. I don't know to what extent it affects krill but the fish stocks are being depleted by commercial fishing not CO2 absorption.

So what do we have here; two pieces of environment damage caused by blatant commercialism and of course CO2 emissions have the same cause

Hi Clete,

I didn't quite get your last point. Are you say that CO2 is the result of commercialism in a similar fashion to salinity?


ALso,I should have included the study.

Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology


Cities and rainforests are very good at absorbing excess CO2 and apparently so are the oceans of the world. Commercialism is the problem. Nothing wrong with commercialism, we all need the benefits of that. The problem seems to be that we are producing CO2 at a rate that is not sustainable in terms of the environment.

By this I mean we cannot keep increasing the amount of CO2 and expect the natural process to rectify the problem for us.


Tut

[tomder55]

Who is we ? I've yet to see the evidence that human emission of
C02 contributes significantly to any overall global levels.

[paraclete]

Hi Clete,

I didn't quite get your last point. Are you say that CO2 is the result of commercialism in a similar fashion to salinity?


ALso,I should have included the study.

Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology


Cities and rainforests are very good at absorbing excess CO2 and apparently so are the oceans of the world. Commercialism is the problem. Nothing wrong with commercialism, we all need the benefits of that. The problem seems to be that we are producing CO2 at a rate that is not sustainable in terms of the environment.

By this I mean we cannot keep increasing the amount of CO2 and expect the natural process to rectify the problem for us.

. Tut

Tut

This world has survived various levels of CO2 concentration, the CO2 problem is a furrfy. You rightly agree commercialisation is the problem but there is another problem we don't want to address and it ultimately will do more damage to the human race than CO2, that is population. We have exceeded our population limit, this is made obvious by the incidence of famine and various food availability problems. We take up 1% of available land apparently but already we have problems. Our lifestyle is unsustainable. It wasn't a problem when the population was 2 billion just a short century ago but now at 7 billion we are the problem, not CO2. We are rapidly depleting the resources of the world

Tom is right our CO2 emissions represent 20% of all emissions, this is a beat up problem for political purposes. In Australia it is being used as an excuse for socialist wealth redistribution.Yes commercialisation is the problem. Our processes are wastefull and inefficient whether it is commercial fishing, crop production, oil and coal usage, energy consumption, the list goes on.

[TUT317]

who is we ? I've yet to see the evidence that human emission of
C02 contributes significantly to any overall global levels.

Hi Tom,

It can be seen in the first paragraph of, "Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology". Posted earlier.

It is not an argument for global warming but an argument to say why we shouldn't be putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. It is starting to have toxic ramifications for organisms at the bottom of the food chain.

As to human contributions in all of this?

Taken from first paragraph:

A group of fifty international experts discussed how the release of huge amounts of CO2 from fossil fuel burning, land-use pracitices and cement production will affect the chemistry and biology of the oceans.

For 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution,atmospheric CO2 concentrations remained between 200 to 280 ppm. As the result of industrial and agricultural activities, current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are about 380 ppm and increasing at a rate of 1% per year.



Tut

[paraclete]

Hi Tom,

It can be seen in the first paragraph of, "Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology". Posted earlier.

It is not an argument for global warming but an argument to say why we shouldn't be putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. It is starting to have toxic ramifications for organisms at the bottom of the food chain.

As to human contributions in all of this?

Taken from first paragraph:

A group of fifty international experts discussed how the release of huge amounts of CO2 from fossil fuel burning, land-use pracitices and cement production will affect the chemistry and biology of the oceans.

For 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution,atmospheric CO2 concentrations remained between 200 to 280 ppm. As the result of industrial and agricultural activities, current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are about 380 ppm and increasing at a rate of 1% per year.

Tut

Tut

Time to forget the studies and use common sense, which is in short supply. Modelling tells us only that something might happen. Observation tells us what has happened. In between there is a vast gulf which has been poorly intrepreted. You cannot extrapolate what has happened into a truthfull scenario because we do not know the peremeters, Yes, CO2 concentrations are increasing but not at the rate predicted and there are parts of the world seeing effects but many of the effects attributed to the effect of rising CO2 concentrations are within normal and past experience, what is making it more obvious is greater population and better communications. Maybe you should read Asimov's trilogy to understand the effect of runaway modelling. Tomorrow I have a one in 3200 chance something will fall on my head. Do you realise this is a greater chance that the possibility the predictions are right?

[excon]

Time to forget the studies and use common sense, which is in short supply.

Hello again, clete, flat earther:

Common sense says that more CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more heat.. Common sense says that burning carbon based stuff creates, or releases MORE CO2. It's common sense to think that stuff will melt if it gets warmer.

I call what comes out of smoke stacks, trash. You call it wonderful... You can call it whatever you wish, but you're fooling yourself.

Most people ain't fooled, though.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, clete, flat earther:

Common sense says that more CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more heat..

Common sense? What happened to science?

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete, flat earther:

Common sense says that more CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more heat.. Common sense says that burning carbon based stuff creates, or releases MORE CO2. It's common sense to think that stuff will melt if it gets warmer.

I call what comes out of smoke stacks, trash. You call it wonderful... You can call it whatever you wish, but you're fooling yourself.

Most people ain't fooled, though.

excon

What part of the brain you were born with tells you CO2 traps heat or that burning releases CO2? Someone told you this Ex because observation tells you that which is burned reduces to ash. I don't call smoke and ash wonderful but the ash can be useful, which more than can be said for the people who told you CO2 is trash. You speak of most people and you are right, most people aren't fooled by this nonsense, in fact, they are becoming quite angry when confronted with the costs being imposed on society by those who think as you do.

You don't like CO2, plant some trees

[paraclete]

Common sense says that burning carbon based stuff creates, or releases MORE CO2. Most people ain't fooled, though.

excon

Hey Ex you really need to get the facts it appears switching away from coal to gas actually makes things worse or so the scientists think
Coal seam gas could 'accelerate' warming
Who is for throwing some trash in the air now?

[TUT317]

Time to forget the studies and use common sense, which is in short supply.

There seems to be a disagreement here at the moment as to what is common and sensible. Why is my common sense better than yours? It's not. Yours is just as good as mine. That's why I prefer the studies.

Modelling tells us only that something might happen. Observation tells us what has happened. In between there is a vast gulf which has been poorly intrepreted. You cannot extrapolate what has happened into a truthfull scenario because we do not know the peremeters,

I probably would disagree with that. Most of the studies of CO2 ocean sinks are based on actual data . What is most useful in this argument are not the linear extrapolations used for modelling the future but what has happened from the beginning of the industrial age to the present.

Yes, CO2 concentrations are increasing but not at the rate predicted and there are parts of the world seeing effects but many of the effects attributed to the effect of rising CO2 concentrations are within normal and past experience, what is making it more obvious is greater population and better communications. Maybe you should read Asimov's trilogy to understand the effect of runaway modelling. Tomorrow I have a one in 3200 chance something will fall on my head. Do you realise this is a greater chance that the possibility the predictions are right?

I haven't read it. You would have to explain the 'possibility' and 'prediction' thing to me.

Tut

[paraclete]

I haven't read it. You would have to explain the 'possibility' and 'prediction' thing to me.

Tut

It is about relying too much on predictive mathematics

[TUT317]

Hey Ex you really need to get the facts it appears switching away from coal to gas actually makes things worse or so the scientists think
Coal seam gas could 'accelerate' warming
who is for throwing some trash in the air now?

Hi Clete,

Interesting article.

Right from the very beginning I was suspicious that in Australia we were just going to swap one form of pollution for another. I wasn't actually thinking in terms of other greenhouse gases. I was thinking more about such things as erosion and damage to the water table form gas exploration.

To be honest I don't really see why our small country has to be the white mice in a green experiment. I though the carbon tax was a good idea in the beginning. Now I have cold feet on the issue.


Tut

[paraclete]

Hi Clete,

Interesting article.

Right from the very beginning I was suspicious that in Australia we were just going to swap one form of pollution for another. I wasn't actually thinking in terms of other greenhouse gases. I was thinking more about such things as erosion and damage to the water table form gas exploration.

To be honest I don't really see why our small country has to be the white mice in a green experiment. I though the carbon tax was a good idea in the beginning. Now I have cold feet on the issue.


Tut

Tut you are starting to get the point. We don't need to be the leader and we don't want to be the laughing stock as one of the few who swallowed the rubbish. Who else has a target to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050? It is quite ridiculous both as a target and the resources necessary to achieve it. I was part of the NSW power industry when it went it alone under Bob Carr to reduce emissions by 20%. If you are living in NSW you are reaping the rewards of that. Massive increases in electricity pricing along with massive increases in infrastructure for what? We are told we must reduce consumption so why are we making huge investments in infrastructure? I'm not talking about power stations.The existing infrastructure meets our needs and the future must pay their own bills. We live in a world gone mad

[speechlesstx]

Not only will the EPA need to hire 230,000 employees to enforce their "absurd" and “impossible to administer” rules, they violated their own policy and peer review process in determining that greenhouse gases are bad for us.

In response to a report that could lead to questions about the credibility of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling for hearings to investigate. The report — from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the EPA — reveals that the scientific basis, on which the administration’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases hinged, violated the EPA’s own peer review procedure.

In a report released Wednesday (at Sen. Inhofe’s request, dating back to April) the inspector general found that the EPA failed to follow the Data Quality Act and its own peer review process when it issued the determination that greenhouse gases cause harm to “public health and welfare.”

But we're supposed to trust them, right?