What We Don't Know About CO2

Came across this tidbit on Judith Curry's website. It's an excellent fact-filled debate between three top-notch actual scientists, Robert Carter, Richard Corfield and Michael McIntyre. Curry describes McIntyre as "likely to be the smartest guy in any room with climate scientists in it".

http://iai.tv/video/what-we-dont-know-about-co2

Curry's take-away notes:

Quote:

---

We shouldn’t worry, we should just accept that this will happen and we should adapt to it and regard it as a business opportunity.


Its arrogant to assume that climate will remain static.


The whole language of climate change is designed to confuse the public and policy makers


Bob Carter says the IPCC has accomplished the inversion of the null hypothesis, where the onus is now on disproving dangerous anthropogenic climate change


We should focus on protecting people from natural hazards, and not worrying about what is causing them


It makes sense to encourage alternative energy and see what happens.


Bob Carter closed with this: no scientist can tell you whether it will be warmer or cooler in 2020, so we should prepare for both

---

This is why the global warming science is a bit flawed. I wish I could remember the guy that did the math on the volume of the earths atmosphere and the fact that people C02 was akin to dumping a few gallons in the ocean.

Its nothing but a giant scam to get the american people to pay carbon taxes to corporations and banks. Its ALWAYS about the money.

Also interesting that the CO2 levels are actually greening up the earth. I think its a good thing for the earth and historically the CO2 levels are very low currently.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...obal-greening/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bryjcom

Also interesting that the CO2 levels are actually greening up the earth. I think its a good thing for the earth and historically the CO2 levels are very low currently.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...obal-greening/

---

Yes, it's rare that you hear all of the BENEFITS that some warming would do (if increased CO2 levels actually increased temps). Longer growing seasons, increased agricultural territory, less fossil fuel consumption for heating, etc. Maybe that's because outlining the benefits would imply that you agree that it's actually happening. Oh yeah....gloom and doom tends to make the news too. Good news is boring. [Roll1]

I live surrounded by climate scientists, three different ones in the surrounding four houses alone. One thing that I find interesting is the amount of jet fuel that is burnt on their behalf on a regular basis. Attending various conferences in Europe & Asia adversely affects their 'carbon footprint' and is in direct opposition to their "I ride my bike to work every day" for the environment. I don't particularly care one way or the other but there is a certain appearance of conflict occurring between sermon and behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GilpinGuy

Yes, it's rare that you hear all of the BENEFITS that some warming would do (if increased CO2 levels actually increased temps). Longer growing seasons, increased agricultural territory, less fossil fuel consumption for heating, etc. Maybe that's because outlining the benefits would imply that you agree that it's actually happening. Oh yeah....gloom and doom tends to make the news too. Good news is boring. [Roll1]

---

Well, the global warming sure hit us hard this winter, didn't it? [Dunno]

Those of use who are 50ish probably remember being told in grade school that a new ice age was coming.

What's funny is when Mt Pinatubo belched in the Philippines in the 90's it spewed more "greenhouse gases" than man has produced since the onset of the Industrial Revolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

Well, the global warming sure hit us hard this winter, didn't it? [Dunno]

---

That's a laughable extrapolation of what climate change, or global warming, or whatever you want to call it, is. Even if it is sarcastic.

That being said, there are benefits as mentioned. And there are dangers, without doubt. What liberals and climate change advocates conveniently leave out for the public is the fact that even absent of humans, the Earth will ebb and flow. Hence the arid, uninhabitable state the earth first saw with a CO2 and vapor atmosphere. Move forward a few billion years, and we've got a planet-wide ice age.
Human chemical consumption is contributing to CO2 in the atmosphere and has other ozone implications, yes. But this idea that if we all walk everywhere and just eat nuts and fruits everything will be hunky-dory is beyond stupid. And even better is the carbon footprint left by coal-powered electrical plants that are-for the time being-powering up Nissan Volts. Or the radiation danger from nuclear plants that will take over in the next decade. How about the chemicals used to manufacture batteries for Toyota Priuses?

I liken it to the following: someone leaves a bag of ice sitting in the parking lot at the grocery store. You park next to it and your exhaust is spitting out onto it. The ice is melting anyway, but then some bleeding heart comes up and shouts at you, accusing you of causing the ice to melt. What you did might've contributed, but it wasn't the cause for that effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPTactical

Those of use who are 50ish probably remember being told in grade school that a new ice age was coming.

---

Look at those old lesson plans that told us of an upcoming ice age and scientists looked at the temp swing cycles that are natural. These temp swing cycles always had a period where the temperature world wide would rise, then plunge into an ice age. Maybe that warming period has come and gone and we are actually going into an ice age now?
People in the mid-west and east would agree after the winter they just experienced.

When were told about the upcoming ice age, there was no mention of human involvement, it was a natural occurrence.


Anybody remember the CFC bans to prevent the hole in the ozone layer? The whole push for CFC bans were put forward by manufacturing, so they could produce more expensive product. Then they proved that the ozone whole was naturally occurring and has always been there too!

What about the push to remove R12 as a refrigerant in automobile AC units? Again a push by DuPont (manufacturer) to produce a more expensive product. (R134a)
This needed to happen to help the environment.... LOL

What we know about CO2:

-It's .035% of our total atmosphere.
-It's Required for life on this planet.
-It's food for plant life.
-The cost of mitigating CO2 by fractional percentages is orders of magnitude more expensive than adaptation to any actual change.
-Cooling is more damaging than warming

All of this Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change is pseudo-science disguising a political agenda.

Yeah, I remember my grade-schooling in the 70's when we were facing a coming ice age, fossil fuels would be gone in 15 years...and we were all going to use the metric system for everything.

This is a portrait of the hubris of man. We must be the cause...because then it makes us significant in the universe. Yeah, sure it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

... fossil fuels would be gone in 15 years....

---

Yeah, drive 55mph to save gas. Then the push for safety, Drive 55 Save Lives!
The greenies got on board like gang busters and got the feds to withhold tax dollars for highways unless states lowered the speed limit to 55. Oh, and then did the same threat for not raising the drinking age.
AHHHH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPTactical

What's funny is when Mt Pinatubo belched in the Philippines in the 90's it spewed more "greenhouse gases" than man has produced since the onset of the Industrial Revolution.

---

That wasn't funny, it was profitable for some of us: it made for fantastic sunsets around the globe for several years!

They'll keep banging the drum until everyone believes it. Ran across this one a few minutes ago;
The oil supermarkets are banning

Quote:

---

And they're not alone. Food and personal care product giants like Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Mars, General Mills, and Colgate-Palmolive have all taken similar stands within the past 2 years. But will it be enough to make a difference? It should help, says New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who urged the move on behalf of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, which holds shares in Safeway.

"Palm oil harvesting can cause rainforest destruction and lead to climate change," DiNapoli says. "When a major corporation like Safeway tells its suppliers that it wants 100% sustainable palm oil, that sends a loud message that helps safeguard the environment." (Green up your life with these simple, painless ways to help out the environment.)

---

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. It also helps when you indoctrinate them early when they're still young skulls full of mush.