The co2 lies

[Bartdude]

Looks like those well-known lefties, socialists, and hippies - also known as the insurance industry - are throwing their voices into the debate.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/c...ible+without+maps+insurers/8915013/story.html

Here's the first few paragraphs....

Flood insurance not possible without new maps, insurers say
By Matt McClure, Calgary Herald September 15, 2013 7:26 PM

Top executives with the country’s insurance sector — which suffered losses of more than $2 billion in southern Alberta’s recent floods — unanimously agree Canada will see more such disasters due to intense rains caused by climate change, making comprehensive flood insurance unavailable to homeowners.

While the industry is divided on whether it can provide homeowners with policies to protect them against future overland flooding, a soon-to-be-released study found most companies believe there is still an urgent need for updated mapping that accurately identifies the increasing risk.

Co-author Blair Feltmate, a climate-change specialist at the University of Waterloo, said the executives surveyed said the maps are essential for industry to price its products and for governments to plan how they will protect vulnerable communities.

“They see what climate change is causing and they’re paying for it now already through sewer backup coverage,” Feltmate said in an interview.

 

[Blonde Brynn]

climate change has nothing to do with anthropogenic (or 'originated by mankind') climate change

for the record, i'm an informed believer in the former, and an informed denier of the latter

This is a political stance, not scientific. It allows one to dodge claims that they are ignoring the reams of data indicating that the globe is getting warmer, while still fighting against legislation which attempts to address climate change. A minor semantic alteration to distance oneself from an increasingly unpopular point of view (much the same way creationists suddenly began advocating for "intelligent design" once the former became illegal to teach).

because the C in CO has an unsatisfied bond, it has an affinity for oxygen that is 2,500 times stronger than hemoglobin, the agent that normally captures and carries oxygen in the blood stream for use in body cells. if CO is present in the blood, then it bonds with most or all the oxygen, robbing the tissues of needed oxygen, leading, as you say, to 'brain damage, coma, or death'

however, CO2 leads to no such poisoning - we breathe it all the time... every breath we take from birth to death. if the amount of CO2 gets too great, then of course we start to suffer and eventually die. just as we would if the amount of nitrogen we breathed increased too rapidly. 40,000 parts per million CO2 in the air is immediately harmful to us - not because of poisoning, but because at those levels oxygen is displaced from the air and we succomb to oxygen starvation. note i said 40,000 parts per million, not 400 parts per million - that's 100 times more. science!

and you're right about analyzing tree ring thickness to guage photosynthesis levels. but photosynthesis levels depend on a number of things: amount of sunlight, amount of water, the temperature, and yes the CO2 content in the air. these limiting factors can easily be independent of each other. science!

Scientists are well aware of the variety of factors that can affect a tree's growth, and can control somewhat for these (for instance, CO2 will affect thickness, but not density, giving clues about why a particular ring is a particular thickness. And that's just one method that can be used to corroborate with others (air dissolved in polar ice, carbon isotope ratios in air and tree rings, dissolved carbonates in plankton shells).

Finally, I wasn't saying that CO2 could cause any kind of comparable poisoning, just using an example to show that, within a complex system, a very tiny-sounding amount of a substance can actually have a great effect. I doubt that you really misunderstood this point, and instead believe that you jumped at the opportunity to condescend.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

- The arrogance of man, leaders and government to think that they can change the world's climate!!!!!!
my addendum :Laughable, isn't it? There is enough food in the world to feed everyone and people starve everyday. Why don't we focus on this instead? Hell of a lot easier to do and we have the resources to do it.

_ " The Global Warming movement is a collectivist, anti-individualistic movement that has something other than human rights and freedoms at the top of the pyramid" VK

- This is not a debate about science. It is a political ideology. Which side is right or wrong is irrelevant but the actions we are taking are hasty, costly and pointless in their contribution to society.
This is one of his most astute philosophical observations. Eliminate the scientific debate, give the alarmists credit for what they believe is happening and then go back to the discussion table to work on real long term solutions.

This Collectivist Alarmist Movement is also discussed in his book " I don't like catastrophic scenarios." Another book that deals with this knee jerk mentality is Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism"
This is one of the oldest cons going.
Don't think!!!! Something is happening!!!! React _ React_ React !!!!

Notice in this video that non of it is scripted. He thinks to answer. Luv to see Obama in a situation like this. Haa

You do know Naomi Klein's work is all about climate change now, don't you?


<iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/53656908?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>



And I fail to see how the points of this dude are relevant in any way to the science? Arrogant to think we can change the climate? Ha. Well, that's a nice spin. But if we can change the chemistry of the ocean, why wouldn't we be able to change the climate? Ha!

Nice try.



-----------------------------




The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

Climate contrarians appear to be running damage control in the media before the next IPCC report is published


The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is due out on September 27th, and is expected to reaffirm with growing confidence that humans are driving global warming and climate change. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this auspicious report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories.

..

Interestingly, these pieces spanned nearly the full spectrum of the 5 stages of global warming denial.


Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause
Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem
Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
Stage 5: It's too Late


The full text: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial

 

[Poseidon]

There is more to be concerned with besides C02 levels,

1) Overpopulation
2) Shortage of Agricultural lands that we need to grow food / livestock
3) shortage in Energy, such as oil, gas, coal, with increase demand due to population
4) Global competition for jobs - the higher educated countries will have better opportunities
5) Rising cost of food due to shortages and demands
6) Shortage of land and shortage of affordable housing
7) Increase in ocean sea levels (due to melting polar ice caps) resulting in loss of coastal habitats
8) Pollution due to global industrialization
9) All above items unpreventable due to consumer's demand and lack of political leaderships

So it looks like the trip to Mars doesn't look too bad after a few more decades of destroying mother Earth:

http://www.mars-one.com/en/

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Hey Poseidon

When my paradigms were shattered I went out and took a critical look at everything I had previously believed. What I learned when my examination of issues was over is......
"things ain't as bad as they seem!!!" Seriously they aren't.

What is happening is that government through media is using fear mongering to gain greater and greater control over us.
There are only 2 motivators - fear and greed.

Greed was used to create the current economic crises. Laws were i changed to give mortgages, intentionally to people that couldn't afford them and chaos followed.

Fear is used as the motivator in your list as well as in issues like climate change. These are presented to us as problems that are insurmountable and beyond control of the individual and therefore government must step in and regulate. People must sacrifice freedom and wealth to achieve the collectivist goal. The list you present does have some redundancy. If you eliminate Overpopulation as issue, you can also eliminate the issues that scale based on overpopulation. I wont address all of the list to maintain some brevity. I wont address climate change ie raising sea levels either since it is the general topic of this thread.

overpopulation. Have you looked at demographics and human geography? Most of us haven't. What if the world is close to the maximum population it will ever have.

shortage of lands for to grow food and livestock andRising cost of food due to shortages and demands
The world grows enough food every year to feed the entire population. How is growing more or allocating more resources going to fix the problem? If we eliminate overpopulation as an issue don't we have enough resources satisfy food demand?

Shortage of land and shortage of affordable housing
I dont think there is a shortage of land? Is there? Affordable housing? Too big to address here.

9) All above items unpreventable due to consumer's demand and lack of political leaderships
Unpreventable?? No. Many of them aren't even happening or are happening in a different way than we believe.
Consumer demand - wont address

lack of political leadership -the systems are corrupt and hijacked not those that enter politics. There is a will - shit i want to do it - there isn't a way from within the system. It doesn't matter who is elected the same policies and agendas are passed. Didn't Obama and his change campaign say they would pull out of Iraq?

This is where it gets a little weird. Are you suggesting through the video that One Global Government is the answer to these issues that may not even exist in the way they are presented?
That is the ultimate goal of the fear mongering. The people cry for a solution which is already prepared and waiting to be implemented. Global Government is already on the way - have no fear that is where we will finish. This isn't a theory -you just have to look for the signs - they are all there.
It the path that will take us there that is disturbing.

^^ :clap2:

a graphic for you...

 

[vancity_cowboy]

there's plenty of land, there's plenty of water, there's plenty of food, and there's plenty of oil

the problem arises in the distribution of the assets available - and the problem is due to stable regimes being de-stabilized by ruthless foreign intervention and war-profiteering... in short, arms sales

 

[CptKirk]

CptKirk has been busy boldly going where no man has gone before, has not kept up with recent events on planet earth.

The pic posted was from 1 month ago. Not recent enough?

 

[Miss*Bijou]

.
and then you present it with arrogance.
Deadly combo.



No Naomi Klein's works are about many things of which Climate Change is one and more importantly not the one I referred to.

What I did reference was her book The Shock Doctrine, Rise of Disaster Capitalism and the way we are being forced into knee jerk reactions to repeated media hyped catastrophic scenarios. The solution options we are given are futile and expensive designed only to deepen the pockets of those involved.

Though I align myself with Klaus ( dude ) in terms of science, Klein and Klaus both agree that the strategies we are implementing are pointless and a serious rethinking of the issue is needed. In your your counter argument, the incorrectly added video link, Klein discusses Global Warming and how it has been hijacked by the Green Industry for profit and power. This profiteering is also the kernal of her book Shock Doctrine.

So to spell it out for you,
Naomi Klein, Vaclav Klaus (dude ) and luckydick all agree that the actions we are taking are futile and what is needed is to come back to the discussion table and rethink the entire issue.



Hmmm... you fail to get what dude ( Klaus ) is saying? I can translate. He says that even if he concedes the scientific debate thereby making it, the SCIENCE, irrelevant, our actions are what matter and our actions are RETARDED!



I will let your last comment stand loud and proud.

I don't see how my comments were arrogant but OK, everyone's out to get you.. I really have no intention to spend my time on the nonsense you are posting. You can believe whatever you want. I don't particularly care if you want to believe this nutty stuff. Knock yourself out, wear the tin foil hat proudly. .

 

[vancity_cowboy]

yeah didn't want to get into the oil argument - it boggles!
Its just like diamonds!

tell me? what are your thoughts on water ie there's plenty ?

throughout human history, peoples have moved if they find critical assets are missing from their place of origin. this changing of territories is what wars are all about

there are local shortages of water. humans have solved these local shortages in a number of ways:
1) the aforementioned moving: south asia is one example - we have many sihks living in canada, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is diminishing water supplies in their original homelands. imagine their pure joy at discovering that potable water is delivered underground right to their sinks... at no cost beyond the property tax they pay on their homes!

2) innovation1: let's choose india as an example because of their enormous population and now scarce water resources. at one time, water was drawn directly from rivers and shallow wells by the consumer. now the rivers are excessively polluted and the shallow wells are mostly dried up. and so are the deeper drilled wells mostly dried up. but good ole human needs-based innovation has led to the design of ever more efficient deep well pumping systems, and india has adapted these systems to supply not only their domestic needs but their agricultural needs as well

innovation2: the list of countries doing this is quite long (approx. 120) and includes Algeria, Aruba, Australia, Bahrain, Chile, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Gibraltar, Grand Cayman, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Israel, Malta, Oman, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States and Trinidad and Tobago. once upon a time people used to say that 3/4 of the earth's surface was covered with water and if we could only learn to de-salinate sea water there would be an abundance of fresh water. now the cost of potable water has risen to the point where a profit can be made by de-salinating sea water and selling the potable product

in 2009, 14,451 desalination plants operated worldwide, producing 59.9 million cubic meters per day (International Desalination Association)

the foregoing is that upon which i am basing my statement that there is plenty of water

as for plenty of oil, oil is the second-most abundant liquid on earth after water. again, it's a matter of economics... as the supply of 'easy' oil is depleted, needs-based innovation solves the problems associated with more 'difficult' sources of oil

the ultimate question is what happens in the case of a world-wide economic disruption, when people can no longer afford ultra-deep wells, de-salination plants and other technological innovations?

and the answer is... the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse will show up and the world population will be reduced to much lower numbers as in former times

 

[Blonde Brynn]

the ultimate question is what happens in the case of a world-wide economic disruption, when people can no longer afford ultra-deep wells, de-salination plants and other technological innovations?

and the answer is... the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse will show up and the world population will be reduced to much lower numbers as in former times

Right, and the point is that's a Bad Thing, and we should find some sort of balance before that happens.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Right, and the point is that's a Bad Thing, and we should find some sort of balance before that happens.

obviously, i agree... but this ole buckaroo is startin' to get a bit tired

how's about i leave the balancing act up to somebody young and fresh and full of vigour - such as yourself, for example

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Correct.

As for the balance of the jabbering on this thread, in practical terms, it is totally irrelevant whether the changing climate has a large anthropogenic factor or not. That discussion is for academics involved in detailed research and idiots involved in ideological pissing matches.

The climate is changing. Human civilization has developed to function in the climate paradigm that is going away. Human civilization is unlikely to function as well in a climate paradigm with higher annual average temperatures.

The laws of physics dictate how changing atmospheric composition affects changes to how heat is retained and reflected by the atmosphere. This suggests that there are ways in which human activity can be directed to mitigate the current changes regardless of their original cause(s).

The climate will eventually find a new equilibrium, with or without human efforts to tweak it. The question is with that new climate paradigm support 8 billion humans or 8 million humans or perhaps 8 thousand humans? The potential worst case economic impact of not acting is basically the end of economic activity as a measurable activity.

The pointless arguments about "anthropogenic" climate change is like living in a pine forest in New Mexico with a fire burning up the mountain and arguing whether the fire was caused by lightning or a firebug & using that as the basis as to whether to call in firefighters or just let the natural process run its course. Idiocy.

the only point i can offer is to say that when the likes of al gore can dupe normally intelligent and vigourous young people into wasting their talents chasing the anthropogenic rainbow, instead of rolling up their sleeves and DOING something to prepare for warming (and i don't mean paying more taxes or buying 'carbon credits'), then it's up to some of us to try to combat the bs

 

[CanineCowboy]

Ah Vancity, although I appreciate your optimism in human ingenuity, you are ignoring the environmental consequences of your so called solutions to shortages (i.e. tar sands oil = water contamination). Your population map, although using pretty colours, is pointless when talking about the pressures of population and consumption on the environment. And just so you know, I have used a faucet in India.

I would rather follow Brynn's ass than your logic.

 

[wilde]

Ah Vancity, although I appreciate your optimism in human ingenuity, you are ignoring the environmental consequences of your so called solutions to shortages (i.e. tar sands oil = water contamination). Your population map, although using pretty colours, is pointless when talking about the pressures of population and consumption on the environment. And just so you know, I have used a faucet in India.

I've recently watched Gasland I and II on HBO and I am starting to worry for the next generation... I like your dig at vancity_cowboy about having a faucet in India. He's usually better than this but I found his "potable water" paragraph a little condescending as well.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

...I found his "potable water" paragraph a little condescending as well.

you would, wilde, you would...

but i'm a bit disappointed, you didn't call me racist

 

[wilde]

you would, wilde, you would...

but i'm a bit disappointed, you didn't call me racist

Perhaps coming across as slightly ignorant (on that paragraph only) but a racist, you're not Sir.

 

[sbill]

Correct.

(General comments not in response to any particular post follow)

The pointless arguments about "anthropogenic" climate change is like living in a pine forest in New Mexico with a fire burning up the mountain and arguing whether the fire was caused by lightning or a firebug & using that as the basis as to whether to call in firefighters or just let the natural process run its course. Idiocy.

Actually this is an extremely good point. When fire is raging on the mountain, do we:
- Accept the blame for having used fire too much in the past
- develop treaties with our neighbors to reduce our use of fire in the future
- buy 'nonburning' credits from faraway countries that are not on fire

OR

- plough fireguards (if time permits)
- strategically start backfires
- trim back encroaching bush
- be open to new and innovative firefighting techniques?

 

[wilde]

Slowing down and taking a deep breath is ultimately the first step.

I guess the second step is denial, eh?

 

[Poseidon]

To start change,

You as a consumer can start making the right choices that directly effect the environment and the resources of the planet in a positive way.

 

[ThisEndUp]

To start change,

You as a consumer can start making the right choices that directly effect the environment and the resources of the planet in a positive way.

Interesting photo selection on the cover

VERY similar to the one used to illustrate the domino theory and the us involvement in Vietnam/Cambodia/Loas etc...