General discussion

Locked

So, not only are CO2 emissions actually contributing to climate change

By AnsuGisalas ·
Tags: Off Topic
And yes they really are...
But again, not only are they doing that, they're also increasing the acidity of the seas ... CO2 in aqueous dilution is H2CO3 : carbonic acid, like in your soda. Remember that scare experiment they showed you back in the day, where they left a milk tooth in a glass of soda overnight, and it was just gone the next day?
Turns out, same thing happens to the shells of many food-chain-starters in the seas. Entire food chains of marine life can be devastated.
Historically, when the oceans tank, they tank hard. It is well documented that marine mass extinctions can kill off almost all marine life, and have done so several times in the past.

But you know, if it's happened in the past with no human contribution, obviously we can find lots of reasons not to do anything about it now...

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

84 total posts (Page 6 of 9)   Prev   04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Letting theologists modify science education...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to But this is not that "con ...

Will they then let scientists modify Sunday School? :^0
Theory : doesn't mean what creationists think it means.
- meanwhile, Creationism is hardly even a hypothesis :^0

Collapse -

Yes, Neil - It IS like a religious debate

by maxwell edison In reply to But this is not that "con ...

And I am debating with the believers who worship at the altar of environmentalism.

They place 100 percent faith in that which has not been proven, nor can be proven; they have their Bishops who they blindly believe and follow; they believe in the doomsday prophecies being thrown around; they are spreading the word - evangelizing, if you will; they ridicule and criticize the "deniers", even to the point of demonization so they have their devil to blame for the sins of mankind; they even profess their own sins and perform their own penance as a form of repentance.

And their messiah, Barack Hussein Obama (or the United Nations), will lead them to the Promised Land!

Yep, it's just like a religion, Neil. And I'm shaking my head in disbelief at how otherwise intelligent people can be so duped into drinking the global warming kool-aid.

Collapse -

Ansu

by JamesRL In reply to In some contexts, denier ...

Where did I say "all of us"? I was very clear in expressing a personal opinion.

I do think there is overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing and warming. I do think there is evidence that man has contributed to this change. I do think there is room to debate whether man's contribution is the primary cause or the straw that broke the camel's back as it were.

All I am suggesting is that there is room for debate here.

Collapse -

Ach... I misposted the reply somewhere...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Ansu

It was that last sentence I found to be out of step with the rest of your stance: "But as to man's impact and the extent of it, that is still something that all of us should approach openly."

Collapse -

I just thought it interesting

by neilb@uk In reply to I don't care who "phrased ...

as I had no idea why emphasis went from Global Warming to Climate Change. No need to go off on one.

And I know we haven't had a CC/GW/whatever discussion in a while, you and me, but I'm sure that you remember that you're not allowed even to quote Al Gore, let alone base your rant on his works. He is just one man and not widely recognised an an Authority over here and certainly not by me.

As an afterthought on Gore, how different would your country be if it were not for the Bush chicanery in Florida?

Collapse -

I know I'm not allowed to mention Al Gore

by maxwell edison In reply to I just thought it interes ...

Why do you think I did it?

On the Gore/Bush/Florida thing, I dare not think of such an outcome - had Ralph Nader not ruined everything for Al Gore, costing him Florida and ultimately the presidency.

People who "blame" Bush and/or the Supreme Court are blind to the real facts: Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election, not Bush, and certainly not the courts (while Ansu blames Fox News!).

Collapse -

No need to go off on one? No need to go off on one?

by maxwell edison In reply to I just thought it interes ...

Absolutely there IS a reason to "go off on one" - that is, a side-discussion as to why the emphasis went from Global Warming to Climate Change. Unless, of course, you're trying to avoid the answers.

Collapse -

'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'

by neilb@uk In reply to No need to go off on one? ...

What answers? What is the question?

'Climate change' is much less frightening. So that's good for those who want to play down the seriousness of climate issues. It's also good for those who want to explain away the last several crap summers and cold winters in the UK. Win for both sides. everybody likes it!

The correct term for what we are encountering and will see more of is "global climate change", anyway. Interesting times...

Collapse -

Do you believe that smoking tobacco causes cancer?

by neilb@uk In reply to No need to go off on one? ...

There are doctors who hold that the link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer is not proven. They number about the same percentage as those climatologists who hold that there is no anthropogenic forcing of climate change.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

Collapse -

Deja vu all over again

by maxwell edison In reply to Do you believe that smoki ...

I think you agree that the political class hijacking (see note) of the global warming / climate change discussion has, for the most part, convoluted just about any argument or any source, either in agreement or disagreement, and rendered any, so-called, conclusion moot. As such, it has no place in the political arena.

I'll point out some scientist who hasn't jumped on the global warming / climate change bandwagon, and you (and others) simply ignore his argument in favor of discrediting and dismissing him for some other reason. (Example: What kind of legitimate scientist believes in God, for Christ's sake?)

One such person, of course, is Professor William Gray of Colorado State University. We've spoken of him (and others) before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

It's quite telling that NASA's James Hanson, Mr. Global Warming Scientist, has repeatedly turned down Dr. Gray's invitation to a public discussion and debate on the question in front of the University's student body. If you put their respective arguments, support, evidence, etc. side by side, Dr. Gray wins that debate hands down. And that's precisely the reason Dr. Hansen has refused to accept the invitation.

It's all a bunch of crap, Neil; and I actually think you are beginning to realize it.

Note: Political class extends beyond self-serving politicians, and includes self-serving media, self-serving pundits, bloggers with a sense of self-importance, self-serving voters, self-serving authors, self-serving carbon credit peddlers, environmental wackos, etc.......

Back to After Hours Forum
84 total posts (Page 6 of 9)   Prev   04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums