The absurdity of accepting CO2 as the primary cause of global warming

Science and the scientific method should prevail over Political Ideology and closed minds.

Ah yes, "science" by those who have trouble with the basics.  Even assuming those numbers are correct or even meaningful, the "small" percentage that human activity now ADDS to the total can have major consequences.  Like the few degrees of fever difference between a visit to the drug store and a visit to the emergency ward. 

And I'd like to see the sources cited too -as part of this whole "scientific" excercise.  I think I've seen this line of argument before.  

Sense from deniers on CO2? - Don't hold your breath!

What, you mean its Not real progress that theyre at least admitting to global warming now???  (but its not our fault and only natural....  And we can nothing about it now....  Except bankrupt all the businesses who might be better employed developing warp drive to Vulcan....   And it might even be beneficial to vacationers in the high arctic and unemployed Inuit fruit pickers meanwhile.... And que sara sara anyhow, the rapture is at hand anyhow, can't fight That force of nature can we?  etc etc etc) 

Prepare for more of this. People like this are going to be everywhere in the next while. The gears are already churnning and the astroturing is ramping up. Soon as the healthcare debate in the US gets relatively settled 'blamo' it's onto climate change.  It didn't get much press here or anyway but Obama said a real evil thing at Copehagan regarding oil subsidies and the 'drill baby drill' crowd is having a simmering freak out right now.   I thought the healthcare 'debate' if that's what you call it was bad. I expect that climate change is going to make it look like small potatoes.

Anyways should probably thank this poster for giving a preview of one of the not so new but improved talking points.

As Paul Krugman puts it in his latest NYTimes column: "So, have you enjoyed the debate over health care reform? Have you been impressed by the civility of the discussion and the intellectual honesty of reform opponents?

If so, you'll love the next big debate: the fight over climate change."

Krugman says that "even corporations are losing patience with the deniers: earlier this week Pacific Gas and Electric canceled its membership in the U.S.Chamber of Commerce in protest over the chamber;s 'disingenuous attrempts to diminish or distort the reality' of climage change.

"So the main argument against climate action probably won't be the claim that global warming is a myth. It will, instead, be the argument that doing anything to limit global warming would distroy the economy. As the blog Climate Progress puts it, opponents of climate change legialatiion'keep raising their estimated cost of the clean energy and global warming pollution reduction programs like some out of control auctioneer."

Steve, and now Iggy, are both warm to the argument that serious control of Tar Patch development will be too costly.

Krugman's argument goes (perhaps a tad too optimistically)  "It's Easy Being Green".  Kermit never found it so.

Paul Krugman was on Bill Moyers show last night, succint as always.

PS: WHY ALL THE CAPS ON THE THREAD TITLE?

Dear Human Made Climate Change Deniers,

Real scientists have access to super computers in which they may model their data. They also have pertinent degrees and educations to the topic. When was the last time you had access to a super computer and modelled pertinent data? Where did you get your degree, what was it in?

Sincerely,

Reasonable Individuals

The true scientist should be a skeptic and open to new ideas. The discussion is not closed because a relatively small sample declares "DISCUSSION CLOSED". Over 7,000 world class scientists have signed a petition saying the very  same thing.

Perhaps you "true believers" should start by looking up Professor William Happer of Princeton and his Testimony before Congress.

It is most interesting to note that most of the skeptics are not in a position where their jobs, income or reputation are in Jeopardy. They are either SENIOR SCIENTISTS WHO CANNOT BE TOUCHED OR ARE OUTSIDE THE INFLUENCE OF ZEALOTS LIKE GORE OR HANSEN.

I was trained in physics, economics and environmental science-a damn tough Ph.D. if you are not competent enough or just plain lazy, then google "global warming hoax" or some such phrase and let the algorithms think for you. 

Congrats on finding out the formatting system on Babble.

Anyhow, I call BS on your degrees. You just don't seem intellectually capable of that feat. In fact, how did you manage to acquire those three qualifications at the Ph.D level? Did you do what my friend did and go through University of Phoenix online? Because not only am I qualified surgeon according to the internet, I'm also a minister, and once my 25$ check goes through, I think I will the Prime Minister of the EU.

I <3 Internet.

I ATTENDED THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR AND MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY , EAST LANSING. I RECEIVED MY PH.D FROM  MICHIGAN STATE WHERE INTERDISCIPLINARY Ph.D.'s WERE JUST BEGINNING IN 1977. THE U OF M HAS MANY NOW, BUT NOT THEN.

I PUT IN MY 9 YEARS ON CAMPUS PLUS A 2 YEAR POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP. IF YOU WANT ANY MORE INFORMATION YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

Can we keep this one? I've already taught him to beg, roll over, AND shake a paw!

We don't have enough trolls that are well trained these days

Ya, I agree Eliza, now that  they have manufactured discontent over universal health care in the USA, health care company stocks have shot up.

Too bad people do not realize how they were manipulated by the; media, stock portfolio crowd and health care companies.

Wrong thread remind?

Nope

How about these scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? They even won a Nobel Prize. Are they driven by political ideology? Don't bother to answer. 

Then there are all these scientists and scientific organizations [18]. Take your pick.

Then there's docjmd who knows better than tens of thousands of scientists. He claims (without citation) that thousands of scientists back his position and that they DON'T have a vested interest. Let's look at the one name he puts forward - "Professor" William Happer who is Chair of the board [20] of George C. Marshall Institute which receives funding from Exxon [21]. Happer also asserts that people who disagree with him (and Exxon) are just like - (are you sitting down) - Nazis [20]. 

So who should we believe?

The "Doc"?

Or the American Academy for the Advancement of Science [22]? 

Well, it's nice to see such a lively group this morning. Before I move on to something more productive, let me leave you with a papal thought.

When Galileo discovered [via the telescope] that the earth orbited the sun and not vice-versa as the Vatican decreed , he was place under house arrest for life. It's nice to have numbers an/or power on your side, but it does not guarantee that you are right.

Some of the greatest concepts,ideas or inventions were ridiculed in their time, only to be resurrected at a later time

This is not about me guys-it's about looking back at the history of science and the culture that existed at the time

Global climate change went through that ridicule period already. I think that the concensus has developed. The proof is there.

It seems that in all of your degrees you really could've used a history major ;)

THE ABSURDITY OF CONTINUING WITH THIS ARGUMENT BUT I'LL BITE ANYWAY.

There's nothing to be lost by reducing fossil fuel consumption - except perhaps oil & coal company profits - even if we're wrong. But if we continue on the path we're on - and you're wrong - there's a lot to be lost. Why chance it? And yes, it's nice to have numbers on our side. It's part of the scientific method. 

Whenever faced with these conundrums, I always ask, "What would Galileo say?" 

So...............you equate modern scientists, and organizations that endorse evidence-based science with the 17th century Catholic church????

Oh, I get it!  The 17th century Catholic church had power and influence, and these organizations have power and influence.  

I forget what sort of fallacy that is - I don't have a pHD.

IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY EXCESS EDUCATION-THAT'S ON YOU. IGNORANCE IS BLISS OR INSECURITY-UP TO YOU

BY THE WAY , AS AN UNDERGRAD, I WAS PRE-LAW-HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE-SUMMA CUM LAUDE.

IF THERE IS ONE THING THAT MY LOVE OF HISTORY HAS TAUGHT ME-BE IT THE EGYPTIANS, GREEKS, ROMANS OR WW II-AND THAT IS PEOPLE HAVE CHANGED VERY LITTLE IN 5,000 YEARS-BUT TECHNOLOGY IS CHANGING AT AN EXTRAORDINARY RATE.

A MAJOR CONCERN WILL SOON BE WHETHER WE CAN MONITOR AND CONTROL OUR OWN TECHNOLOGY.

THAT IS A SUBJECT FOR A DIFFERENT THREAD.

AT SOME POINT, IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY, PEOPLE HAVE TO LEARN TO AGREE TO DISAGREE-OTHERWISE CHAOS RESULTS.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT THIS THREAD TO BECOME-CHAOTIC SARCASM WITHOUT SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT-NOT MY GOAL

You conveniently choose to ignore the substantive comments like the guy you cited as an expert who is at least partially funded by the oil industry. We can certainly agree to disagree but that doesn't mean that those with junk science opinions and not facts should be in control of policy. 

SHHHHHHHHHH

I assume you refer to the infamous fraud known as the "Oregon Petition". Word has it that anybody with a bachelor's degree in science was considered a "scientist" for the purpose of signing this "petition".

I HAVE WORK THAT HAS TO BE SUBMITTED MONDAY, THEREFORE I WILL TRY MY BEST TO CALM DOWN THE TONE OF THIS THREAD.

FIRST, I MAKE A BIG DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN EDUCATED PERSON AND AN INTELLIGENT PERSON. I KNOW LOTS OF EDUCATED IDIOTS, WHO ARE NOT PARTICULARLY SMART. CONVERSELY, I KNOW MANY HIGHLY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WITH LITTLE OR NO FORMAL EDUCATION WHO GREATLY IMPRESS ME WITH THEIR ADAPTIVE THINKING.

I AM HUMAN AND WHEN SOMEONE ATTACKS MY EDUCATION-I GET DEFENSIVE-I BECOME AN ARROGANT ASS. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT MAKES ME FEEL GOOD AT ALL. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I.Q. TESTS CAN MEASURE THE FULL SPECTRUM OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.

I HAVE BEEN TESTED 4 TIMES AND THEY TELL ME MY I.Q. IS 150+/-. BIG DEAL. FOR MOST OF MY LIFE I HAVE HAD TO ENDURE SEVERE DEPRESSION,OCD AND PANIC DISORDERS. CYMBALTA CHANGED ALL THAT-BUT THE ILLNESS HAS CONSUMED MUCH OF MY LIFE.

SO LET'S GET BACK TO CONTENT AS TIME ALLOWS-I HAVE LOST SO MUCH TIME ALREADY.

SINCERELY,

JEFFREY

I've been around here for a few years and endured many attacks, but nobody has ever attacked my education.

Maybe that's because I don't make a point of flaunting it in front of everyone as some kind of credential that gives me a free pass to spout nonsense.

EDUCATION IS FAR FROM A FREE PASS AND JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME DOESN'T MAKE MY COMMENTS NONSENSE. 

MY COMMENTS ARE WELL RECEIVED AT MIT, PRINCETON AND STANFORD-NOBODY EVER CALLED THEM NONSENSE.

MAYBE YOU SHOULD ESTABLISH CONTACTS AT THESE INSTITUTIONS AND YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING. THIS FORUM IS JUST A DIVERSION. SPEND MORE TIME READING AND LESS TIME "SPEAKING"-THE LEARNING CURVE IS MUCH STEEPER

THANKS FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING.

SPEAKING OF WHICH I HAVE SOME COLLEAGUES WHO DON'T AGREE WITH ME THAT I WOULD RATHER EXCHANGE IDEAS WITH RATHER THAN INSULTS.  I GUESS I SHOULD APOLOGIZE THAT THEY ARE IVY LEAGUE AND CAN STRONGLY DEBATE WITHOUT BEING ABUSIVE

I have 'contacts' in a lot of places. People with amazing credentials. Believe me, those that support the 'climate change as a hoax' are generally those with the most vested interest in a given lobby - drawing money from certain disreputable organizations. Those that do not do genuine research to discredit the whole 'hoax' idea. Again, you have a physics Ph.D. Tell me about the time that you and your colleagues spent on a supercomputer modelling various sets of data regarding climate change?

ALSO YELLING RULES. I TOO ENJOY CAPS LOCK, ALTHOUGH I USUALLY JUST HOLD DOWN THE SHIFT KEY BECAUSE I MAKE LESS MISTAKES LIKE NOT CAPITALIZING A LETTER.

Do professors and instructors call undergrads colleagues now?  

Weren't some of the genuinely accredited signatorees also less than qualified in the field, like professors of economics or history trying to dismiss the findings of the vast majority of trained meteorologists, climatologists and biologists involved?  I vaguely remember something of the sort.

lol, I always respect the fine art of sarcasm used in a noble cause.  (tho my actual fondness for it is somewhat proportionate to the distance from my own neighbourhood)  Gratuitous abuse can be good practice too.  =8)

Several people have asked for a citation and it does not appear as though you have provided one (I refuse to read your all caps posts.  You supposedly have a thorough education so you should have at some point in time learned how to disengage the cap lock button - it is on the far left side of your keyboard).  I have no intentions of tracking down a citation either, but I will say that the numbers are accurate - or at least resemble accurate numbers - and we have discussed this very topic on babble at least twice before when similar denialists join the board.  However a citation is not needed as the numbers are known to most (probably all) climate scientists, but those scientists are not involved in a conspiracy.....because they (the numbers) have nothing to do with current climate change trends.

It is pretty simple (embarassing really).  Each year nature cycles an assload of carbon in the form of CO2 (that is why the CO2 trend in Gore's graph has a sawtooth pattern) - way more than humans emit.  But those emissions are not additions to the carbon cycle, but already part of it.  Each fall carbon is released into the atmosphere by decaying plant matter.  OMG!! and each spring plant life then goes through the process of removing that carbon from the atmosphere and temporarily storing it (of course that is only one many natural processes which occur all over the world and predominantly in the oceans.  All of the those processes are a 100% cyclical.  This should be obvious to anyone with a brain as there is no creation of carbon atoms - just a cycling of it.  The ONLY addition of CO2 to the carbon cycle is humans taking carbon that has been removed and locked away from the carbon cycle for often tens of millions of years and adding that carbon to the carbon cycle.  That carbon is an addition - it is not part of the natural cycle.  Fortunately it does not require education to understand such an obvious phenomenon - just a tiny amount of common sense.

I have described it before as a large pool with a fountain in the middle of it.  That fountain processes a huge amount of water every minute - but that water which is being taken from the pool and then falls back into the same pool is not adding to the water level.  A person (let's call him docjmd - because you really need two references to the fact that you are doctor within a six letter username) then hooks up a garden hose from a well and pours water into that pool which then starts to rise.  Others complain to docjmd that he is going to overflow the pool, but docjmd smartly (and in capital letters) points out that MY GARDEN HOSE IS ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR A TINY PERCENT OF WATER GOING INTO THE POOL AS COMPARED TO THAT FOUNTAIN YOU BUNCH OF STUPID UNEDUCATED MORONS - I KNOW PEOPLE AT LARGE UNIVERSITIES. 

"FOR MOST OF MY LIFE I HAVE HAD TO ENDURE SEVERE DEPRESSION,OCD AND PANIC DISORDERS. CYMBALTA CHANGED ALL THAT-BUT THE ILLNESS HAS CONSUMED MUCH OF MY LIFE."

Seriously though, on the off chance youre being honest about this part, it's probably not good for someone who suffers from depression and anxiety attacks to enter a progressive chat site and try to deny the environmental crisis we're all facing.   I used to suffer from depression myself and, although I've accepted I'll always have to live with it at times, I find it helps immensely to avoid entering rightwing forums and telling them the solution to world hunger is eating the rich.

If you are at all interested in letting logic and not the "lemming mentality" run your thinking read the thinking contained in the link below. I certainly would not call this a"progressive Site" It is always easier to  follow the crowd than stand your ground and THINK "MAYBE THERE IS OTHER INFORMATION OUT THERE-THE ISSUE IS NOT SETTLED"

So I ask are you open minded enough to take a look OR do you wish to remain comfortable in your consensual Zealotry. I have over 500 climate articles stored on my external drive-from all points of view. The one below is just a summary Piece.

If you have the courage and time take a look:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Global Warming or Global Freezing?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15356

What's comfortable about accepting global climate change and having to make changes to our lives? If anything you're just being sucked into the ultimate in herd mentalities - the one that offers the path of least resistance to the status quo and provides you with the ability to damn the future generations at the behest of your current hedonism.

deleted

Well, since this thread is going nowhere...

HEY MICHAEL. I JUST BEAT STEPHEN HAWKING IN AN IQ DEATHMATCH. YOU EVER SEE THE MOVIE SCANNERS? IT WAS LIKE THAT. IT CAUSED HIM TO GET AN UNDERGRAD IN EMBARASSMENT AND A PH.D IN PAIN. I HAVE AN IQ OF OVER 9000 AND DOCTORATES IN DOCTOROLOGY AND AM A CERTIFIED SCIENTICIAN.

Not gonna happen.  I only have so many spare hours each week to read the innane views of conspiracy nuts: climate change deniers, evolution deniers, holocaust deniers, truthers etc.  Because of that I have to have some sort of standard to removing the most ridiculous nonsense.  In the case of climate change deniers I use the simple test of searching for the term "cooling" and if the nutter states that the world has been cooling since 1998 then he/she is obviously either incredibly ignorant, purposefully deceitful or completely insane and not worth my time (although at least it was not a globalresearch.ca piece so it is a step above the bottom).  I did try to give the benefit of the doubt anyways so I briefly scanned the article and I wonder if this guy directed Ben Stein`s documentary Expelled.  I think that when one accuses the vast majority of scientists of lieing for politics then they probably shouldn`t spotlight scientists like Zichichi (with a history of putting his far-right political and religious views before science) to support their cause. 

I don't have the time, but other people did:

http://malaysia.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080324161730AAfJ20G [47]

and (easier to read):

This is exactly how I feel about it.  There is no harm whatsoever in minimizing our footprint.  Even if global warming turns out to be the biggest hoax ever conceived (and it would be hard to figure out who would benefit from such a hoax), it's still a good idea to stop crapping up our planet.

I have to work today, but I thank all the members who made some very constructive comments.

Even if one thinks that climate change is either a mistake or a fantasy, we still have a problem with ocean acidification due to carbon dioxide emissions.

So, to be certain, because the human contibution to  CO2 emissions (let's conveniently ignore humanity's rapid and ongoing destruction of carbon sinks, ok?), is so small, it can't possibly be meaningful. Alright, so splitting the tiny little atom should so nothing at all? What a moron.

MY view was at one point all about about this incredibley bad cataustrophic climate change. But the skeptic in me said what if they are wrong? So what, the things that are causing CO2 emission are destroying the earth in a lot of other ways. Getting cars off the road slows us from strip mining whole areas of the planets surface along with humans having to interact with humans in community again(mass transit, car pooling etc) There is nothing wrong with that. The "economy" is a bullshit boogeyman invented by capitalists that don't see the future as anything but mindless denizens that spend thier entire meager earning on useless plastic pink flamingos.

AT worst the planet will be less burdened than it would have been. AT best we might save ourselves and countless other species from a turning the earth into a new venus. Venus is what happens when greenhouse effect builds up from a trickle and gets out of control. You can't even land anything on the dam,n planet as the acids and high pressure(I think 270 times that of earth) destroy everything in a very short period.

Why not free our resources(as they are finite) on bettering ALL of humanity. Feed the people, cloth and house them then let us explore space as one people. Perhaps it would be better to explore space out of want instead of an absolute need.

We're not just discussing theory now either - it's documented, especially as concerns the Arctic and Antarctic where the change is greatest.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

The future doesn't look good either:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6236690/Met-Office-catastroph... [54]

Under that logic, I am skeptical that this "doc" even exists as anything other than an oil industry anime. That's my opinion and i'm stickin' with it. Therefore, he couldn't possibly be afflicted with the problems he outlined because in MY opinion, it doesn't add up. 

I exist as an independent researcher, having nothing to gain from the oil, solar ,wind turbine or nuclear industries.

With a few a few exceptions {Iceland-Geothermal], every country that has tried to rely entirely  on renewables has failed because they cannot even begin to meet BASELINE POWER GENERATION.

Take your pick guys COAL OR NUCLEAR. The U.K. AND GERMANY are going to be in BIG trouble soon. Either they buy power from NUCLEAR France or natural gas from politically unstable Russia or fire up the big coal plants.

You're right there, doc, but you just blew your "academic", ( now "independent researcher")  cover to reveal the more familiar, taunting face of a troll. 

There is nothing relating to the issues of this thread in your message-just a juvenile personal hostility.

GROW UP!

We'll probably see Russia play the resource card a few more times but I think Germany will sort it out with them since they've no choice. (Though it gives some insight into Germany's alternative energy development.)

Also mainly because of decades of footdragging by western 'leadership' there probably will be a dangerously drawn out transition period to low carbon living, during which nuclear and coal will be employed and the climate will continue to unravel.

I think 'Baseline Power Generation' is a floating concept of convenience that hides more than it reveals.

Do we really need to go into the science again? Like, it's been thirty years already and the science just keeps getting better and better. Read a book or sumpin.

No you're wrong there too "Doc", we just haven't put the necessary resources into alternative energy sources yet, or bothered looking at ways to consume less energy without invoking the impossible like turning our backs on technology.  Outdated industrial doctrine of growth economics is at the heart of it, along with our vast but unproductive managerial classes which can't see beyond the outmoded structures they inhabit or the bad habits they perpetuate.  It doesn't take a PHD to see it, in fact some PHDs may be part of the problem.  Some PHDs probably have no reason to exist.

I have a new topic you may want to check out. Look it up

Thats an excellent way of looking at it too --even if all the real life evidence shows that the planet is warming dangerously thanks to human activity (bad economic mostly) and the only real question for the last decade has been how much how fast, not whether its happening. 

Even if the problem is exaggerated (highly unlikley now) all we will have done by addressing it is create a slightly cleaner, less oil dependant, world.  Any money wasted can still be recouped.  If the problem isn't however (or was in fact understated by overlooking the release of existing carbon traps) then sitting back and waiting till even the oil industry is willing to admit there's a problem would be lethal -by then any possibility of correcting the problem is long gone.  It's a good bet that even profit levels will decline when our life support system is in full collapse along with the society that depends on it.  

It's a form of extremist denial really, masqerading as conservative caution. Their central message is that yes, our immediate gratification IS more important than our childrens future.  We'll just pretend that our collective future actually rests on exponential profit levels rather than mathematical nature, and assume that a magic bullet will be found by this approach.  Or maybe by colonizing infinite space through passive belief in science fiction.

I've seen most this bunk before, how about you answering some of the counter-arguments made first?

AKA "let's wait and see". I had the chance to see the movie "The Age of Stupid" about 

the world in 2055 which is over the tipping point. It's a look back at the results of "wait and see" in different parts of the world.  It's playing again in Toronto on Saturday @ 6:30 at the Royal as part of the MUCK film festival [65]. Two thumbs up from me. 

Check out the trailer here [66]. 

That looks excellent, I'll definitely keep an eye out for it when it comes to the Wet Coast. (or the next time...)