Thread: Europe poised to meet Kyoto target

congratulations on... nothing at all. CO2 is harmless. they have wasted a tremendous amount of effort which would have been better applied in reigning in actual toxic pollutants.

Originally Posted by Webby

CO2 is harmless? Sure... try not breathing it out.

I guess you better keep it away from plant life then.

What happens when you put organic matter back into the earth and let it decompose? It enriches the soil and helps plants grow.

What happens when you put organic matter (CO2) in the atmosphere? It provides plant life with nutrients to help them grow. Carbon emissions that come from burning organic materials simply recycle themselves back into carbon based life. Other pollutants associated with burning organic matter can be a problem, but the CO2 itself is not.

CO2 is beneficial to the environment, as is oxygen. They're both important to plant and animal life.

Originally Posted by Webby

The failure of the principle of having free speech is that idiots and the ignorant are given a voice.

If we were to silence the idiots and the ignorant we'd be left without a government.

Originally Posted by Webby

For example, California introduced legislation a few years ago which mean't that State fell into the terms outlined in the KP.

California, though it has many great attributes, is not known for having a sensible government of any kind. It's gov't and it's laws are the joke of the nation and generally quite an embarrassment, actually.

Originally Posted by Webby

Perhaps it's time to shoot a memo out advising the 180 signatories to the Koyoto Protocol that they wasted their time since CO2 is harmless?

Yes, politicians wasting time and money catering to special interest groups over issues which they don't have any understanding of would be completely unprecedented, now wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Webby

At the same time, I agree with you on addressing the issue of other toxic pollutants, tho it is always a good idea to start somewhere - it started over a decade ago with the ratifiers of the Protocol

No, for the USA it "started" at least over 4 decades ago when environmental laws began to be taken seriously and massive strides have been made since then. As with any large undertaking, several missteps are likely probably, and chasing after the bogeyman of CO2 is probably going to rank as the highest of them, lol. This country and many others have made huge efforts long before the Kyoto farce was a twinkle in anyone's eye.

Originally Posted by NobleSavage

Maybe this is hard to grasp, but it's all in the amount. You can die from drinking too much water.

Maybe this is hard to grasp, but no one is suggesting that CO2 levels are too high to breathe, or even to sustain life.

Adherents to the global warming religion believe in a Rube Goldberg like set of unproven consequences as a result of controversial speculation.

An important part of science is understanding the difference between theory and fact. Things which cannot be proven or disproven are by definition not proven fact, even if one has faith in their beliefs.

Global warming: the bogus religion of our age | Mail Online
American Thinker Blog: Global Warming Ruled a Religion by British Judge
MichaelCrichton.com | Environmentalism as Religion
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Global Warming Fever
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/m...agan-religion/
Global Warming as Religion and not Science

This CO2 witch hunt is not science, it fits every last aspect of man forming a contrived belief system to explain that which he does not understand, same as any other religion from the beginning of time.

It's like the difference between an atheist and and agnostic. One has faith in his belief system, while the other accepts the limits of his knowledge

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

This CO2 witch hunt is not science, it fits every last aspect of man forming a contrived belief system to explain that which he does not understand, same as any other religion from the beginning of time.

It's like the difference between an atheist and and agnostic. One has faith in his belief system, while the other accepts the limits of his knowledge

I remember seeing a documentary about a primitive tribe living in some remote Island pretty much like they lived since anybody could remember. When they were discovered the researchers found that they had deified an airplane and worshipped it. Apparently the remote island was along the route of some scheduled flight and they would sit there and wait for the airplane god to show up, then they would run around with airplanes made out of branches and whatever else they could find.

Some humans tend to create belief systems from associations. Sometimes those associations are based on pure coincidence and lack of knowledge or lack of cognitive ability. (A caveman touches his nuts at the same time that a bolt of lightning strikes next to him and starts a fire - he then may associate scratching his nuts with lighting that starts a fire and will try to replicate the event until he gives up or waits forever for the phenomenom to manifest itself again, henceforth a miracle.)

Originally Posted by NobleSavage

You got any links to reputable scientific journals?

Since you are willing place such an inordinate faith in so called experts about unproven topics, how about we poll some theologians as to whether the global warming belief fits into the category of a "substitute religion"?

They would be the ones to be experts on the subject, since they study religion for a living. Surely you'd be willing to defer to their judgment rather than trust your own reasoning on the matter, right? I mean, they're experts, aren't they? Who is anyone to question self proclaimed experts? Why should their peers in related fields have any say on their methodology?

Yes, and microwave ovens, cell phones, computers and any other technological marvel comes from aliens that visited the planet or crashlanded in Area 54. Let's not leave those out that were abducted and probed by aliens.

Originally Posted by NobleSavage

Theology doesn't have a methodology.

The methodology used to study the theory that global warming is caused by humans has led to conflicting conclusions. Seems like they don't understand the methodology quite well enough to generate consistent results, which brings us back to matters of faith if you're going to choose to believe in one of those conclusions.

It's one thing to accept the possibility that one theory is more likely than another... it's quite something different to place faith in one theory to the exclusion of all others.

Originally Posted by NobleSavage

I'm just sick of people calling it a hoax and acting like they are intellectually superior when in fact they have never once read a real science journal, don't know jack shit about the scientific method, and could not name the top science journals if their life depend on it.

You yourself have stated that there exist experts who deny the theory you hold.

I don't care so much about the science of it beyond the accepted fact that it is a matter of controversy which politicians around the world are acting out of ignorance on.

Maybe it's real. Maybe it's not. The so called experts don't know and can't agree on it. So why cite any of them before they can reach a consensus? Doing so does not lend any credibility to your argument because other experts in the same field will either contradict the speculations or state plausible alternatives.

Claiming that it is scientifically accepted when it is in fact scientifically controversial is the hoax being pulled on the public.

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

I don't care so much about the science of it beyond the accepted fact that it is a matter of controversy which politicians around the world are acting out of ignorance on.

That is one great assumption and is generally inaccurate. Don't assume governments act out of ignorance, presumably based on some bullshit political partisan controversy in the US.

Generally governments go to great lengths to have sustainability models developed and this is based on a combo of established science tho more often, is a matter of common sense application of proven scenarios - it does not include political claptrap with idiot claims that black is white.

The problem here is that it is more than blatant that this topic revolves around dumb political nonsense in the US and has very little of any substance to do with the subject. Most other nations already have plans in place to deal with sustainability (that includes the CO2 topic) and are progressing with this. It's time for the second largest polluter of the planet to quit gabbling and start cleaning the back yard up or they will be living in a refuse dump at a future time.

It appears efforts have started on an environmental cleanup. Just accept that this will cost considerable sums of money and involve a lot of work - that was the cost of cleaning up the mess called a "higher lifestyle" which was never sustainable in the first instance.

The net result of a cleanup is an improved (hopefully) environment and also hopefully, along a path to being economically viable - neither of which exist now, - so any action is positive.

Webby, carbon dioxide is not pollution. It never has been pollution, and it never will be pollution no matter how often that term is misused while this latest environmental fad is making the news.

The vast majority of bills which are voted on by representatives in the USA are not read by those representatives, and they generally have very little understanding of what they are voting on. Believe it or not, politicians around the world are not experts on or even remotely knowledgeable about the majority of what they vote on. With few exceptions, they typically vote based upon what they personally stand to gain from it in their re-election efforts. This is part of the democratic process. Not all governments run like this, but democratically elected ones do.

Don't assume that governments act out of knowledge, there is more ignorance in their decision making than most people are comfortable in accepting.

Originally Posted by NobleSavage

Right, and there never, ever be 100% agreement on something like this. It would be really stupid to require 100%.

and I believe that I made it clear - somewhere among many postings today - that I agree with that.

however you claim there are 5% of climatologists who disagree, and from what I have read elsewhere it seems that a higher % of scientists from other fields question their methodology.

I would never expect 100% agreement. However when one in every 20 experts agrees that a conclusion regarding something which is known to be affected by multiple variables is incorrect, I would not reasonably call that a consensus. A consensus is reached when there is a negligible amount of dissent among those who can't be dismissed as kooks or crackpots.

They do not have that consensus.

That said, I think it's pointless to continue this discussion. It seems to boil down to having differing standards as to what constitutes a consensus opinion, and I am not going to budge on the notion that a significant % of the experts shouldn't be ignored entirely in dealing with an event which never has been tested experimentally.