After Hours

General discussion


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.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

We mine about 22 million tons of coal per day, worldwide

by DelbertPGH In reply to I have read a lot of pape ...

Virtually all of it gets burnt, and turned into carbon dioxide. We're smoking up the planet at a pretty ferocious rate.

Some geological events put our efforts to shame... like the formation of the Deccan Traps. That's where a third of India cracked open and poured out lava for thousands of years. All kinds of species went extinct for that one.

Collapse -

That was Reagan talking..

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Most likely they, like me ...

and he was wrong.
So much for not listening to **** coming out of politicians, huh?

Collapse -

No, they're really not

by maxwell edison In reply to So, not only are CO2 emis ...

You and all of the other Climate Change dupes are ...... well, you're just that - dupes.

Carry on with your self-indulgent circle jerk, ridiculing the "deniers", repeating the lies about anthropogenic global warming.

Collapse -

How can you be so SURE?

by neilb@uk In reply to No, they're really not

This is a dupe who's just asking...

I read an article in the London newspaper, The Guardian, which suggested that the phrase "Climate Change" was coined by the US Republican party some ten years ago.

Interesting. Please feel free to draw your own misconclusion about the article.

Collapse -

I don't care who "phrased" it, but your suggestion is factopinguess

by maxwell edison In reply to How can you be so SURE?

Hey, there are anthropogenic global warming / climate change dupes on both sides of the aisle.

I don't care who coined the term "climate change", but it was advanced (some time after it was "coined") to further the deception and/or avoid admitting that the "global warming" claims were being proven wrong; the earth has been in a cooling cycle for a dozen years.

Your article is from 2003. Okay, I'll call your 2003 article, and raise you a 1992 book, Earth in the Balance (retrieved just now from my very own book shelf).

On page 61, Al Gore actually places part of the blame for the French Revolution on climate, when he says, "....... it seems clear that climate-induced suffering in France from 1783 through 1798 played a major role in worsening the political mood in which the French Revolution took place." (He cites some Benjamin Franklin letters about an unusually think fog in France at the time. Ooooookay......)

"However, Gore goes on to say, "it seems just as clear that climate changes ........ Nonetheless, the effects of climate change on the political and social stability of civilization are powerful as we consider...... "

And on page 73, "Of course, the history of climate change is also the history of human adaptation to climate change......." (Adapt, not cap and trade).

So there you go, Neil. I think my 1992 book trumps your 2003 UK Guardian article.

How can I be sure? Be sure of what? Climate change? Or anthropogenic climate change? If it's the former, I am sure that climate patterns change naturally all by themselves. If it's the latter, I don't need to be sure. Those making the claims need to be sure, which they are not.

And their previous claims of doom and gloom have not even come close to coming true. Shall I quote from more of my books, Neil, about coastal cities being underwater in 25 years......... and so on...... ? Or should I pull out my Special Edition of National Geographic from 1984 when they predicted both environmental disasters AND the depletion of all of earth's oil supplies?

Except, of course, on page 410 (as a grand conclusion) Al Gore, the father of the modern anthropogenic global warming / climate change scam, predicts that in the fall of 2012, an anthropogenic climate-change-induced storm will bear down on the coast of New Jersey wreaking havoc and destruction ...........

(Hey, nobody around here has read the book, How do they know there's only 408 pages?)

Collapse -

So what, exactly, are you denying?

by NickNielsen In reply to I don't care who "phrased ...

To deny that the Earth's climate is, and has been, warming for several centuries is to deny observed data.
To deny that, overall, the last 10 years have been the warmest years on record is also to deny observed data.
To deny that humans could possibly have had an effect on the rate of warming is to ignore the output from our industrial society.

The only things, Max that are still subject to scientific debate are a) what has humanity's effect been on the rate of warming, and; b) can we do anything to slow it or to mitigate the effects.

Collapse -

What is it about you, Nick?

by maxwell edison In reply to So what, exactly, are you ...

Have you not been paying attention, or are you just being obtuse?

"a) what has humanity's effect been on the rate of warming?"

Answer: Somewhere between very little and none, most likely leaning towards none.

"b) can we do anything to slow it or to mitigate the effects.

Because of the answer to the first, any answer to the second question is moot. As such, any answer would fall into the NO category.

But you continue to avoid the most disturbing question:

Has the progressive movement hijacked this and all environmental issues in order to advance their own political agenda?

Answer: A resounding yes. And anyone who doesn't recognize it is either a fool and/or a dupe, or hasn't been paying attention. And there are those, of course, who realize it (although they might not acknowledge it) and they ride it for their own personal political reasons. I'm not sure which you are.

Collapse -

Humanity has made NO contribution?

by NickNielsen In reply to What is it about you, Nic ...

None? You understand the environment and climate so well? Please, be so kind as to provide the scientific evidence on which you base your conclusion.

Your question is only disturbing to you, Max, because anybody who is paying attention already knows that any group with a political agenda will hijack an issue to advance that agenda whenever possible. Witness the tea party and the national debt that doubled in eight years under a Republican President, but only became an issue when a Democrat was elected President.

Collapse -

Learn to comprehend, dude - or tell the truth

by maxwell edison In reply to Humanity has made NO cont ...

I said, "......Somewhere between very little and none, most likely leaning towards none......"

You can take from that whatever you'd like. But apparently, just like you take "no" government from my call for "less" government, you lie about what I said here, too.

And you (you in the general sense) wonder why I spout off at people in my replies.

Nick, you deserve "the link" for that one.

But I still stick to what I believe: We contribute somewhere between very little and none, to any antroprogenic global warming and/or climate change, most likely leaning towards none - and I freely acknowledge that the majority of Americans have been duped so bad that they think I'm the looney tune. In reality, however, it is they who are the real looney tunes.

Collapse -

Also Nick - It's clear to me (and anyone else paying attention)

by maxwell edison In reply to Humanity has made NO cont ...

That you are constantly running from my challenges; you don't answer my questions; you lie about what I say; and you are intellectually dishonest (at worst) or disingenuous (at best). You love to spout, but you can't support squat. (I know, a double-negative; but it works.)

Related Discussions

Related Forums