Say, When It Comes To “Climate Change”, What Can Cultists Do?

The solutions are very simple

(aNewsCafe) Climate Change is bearing down on us, accelerating month by month. Simply put, it’s all about carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon up = global warming; Carbon down = global cooling.

If only it was that simple. Especially since we’re discussing carbon dioxide, not carbon. But, hey, don’t let scientific facts get in the way of a good bit of moonbattery.

Individually, we can do some things, and collectively, some things we have to do. For those of us who are concerned but sometimes feel overwhelmed and perplexed, here are some ideas based on experience:

Here they are

  • Grow lots of food. It saves money, provides exercise and, since we don’t use chemical fertilizers or pesticides, it’s friendly to the environment.
  • Process lots of fruits and vegetables. We can and dry mostly because freezing uses energy and besides we often lose track of what we have in the freezer.
  • Avoid packaged processed food. We mostly buy fresh or bulk, so we don’t have to worry about plastics leaching into our food or throw out tons of plastic packaging that often finds its way into the sea and fish.
  • Prepare and cook from scratch so we have no need to heat up packaged food.
  • Avoid factory-farmed meat because of the packaging and because of environmental damage at the feedlots.
  • Reduce our water by using garden drip tapes and low-flow showerheads and toilets. Urban gardeners need to advocate for special water rates for growing food.
  • Reduce electric usage with compact fluorescent bulbs and a low energy refrigerator.
    Shop at and donate to Thrift Stores.
  • Practice the 4-R: ReUse, RePurpose, RePair, ReCycle.
  • Reduce number of car trips. We bundle the need to travel, for shopping and meetings. No single purpose car trips.
  • Study CC and organize presentations so I can write articles. Instead of talking, I would sing but I can’t carry a tune. (Use your individual talents to make a difference.)
  • Vote Climate Change. We would like to identify politicians who will work to mitigate for climate change. As 350.org founder Bill McKibben says, “First change your politicians, then worry about your lightbulbs.” (pg 252 A. Leonard in Is Sustainability Still Possible?)

Can anyone guess what’s missing? That’s right, giving up use of fossil fuels in their own lives. Weird how they don’t actually want to stop the one thing they claim is the worst in their own lives.

As for the last, is it unsurprising that this ends with politics? That’s always the end point.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

31 Responses to “Say, When It Comes To “Climate Change”, What Can Cultists Do?”

  1. John says:

    Those “warmists” are like the people who want ISIS defeated but don’t want to totally do it themselves. It’s like they think that a really big problem should be solved by BUG GOVERNMENT instead of individuals just volunteering to do it
    Teach what are you personally going to do to destroy ISIS?

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Hey johnny boy….

    Weren’t you the one who constantly said ISIS in the US was not a threat and wasn’t even in the country?

    How is that working out for you in your land of unicorns and faery dust?

  3. jl says:

    John- If you didn’t know it, we have this volunteer organization called the US Military to defeat ISIS. The military- one of the few functions of “bug government” in the constitution. So in other words, individuals are volunteering “to do it.” We just need a Commander In Chief who hasn’t surrendered his testicles to do it.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Reduce number of car trips. We bundle the need to travel, for shopping and meetings. No single purpose car trips.

    This and the other items listed will reduce emissions from carbon-based fuels. Needless to say, these folks already drive small cars and live in small houses.

    Why do you mock those who make a difference while you encourage and support polluting the planet?

  5. Jeffery says:

    So in other words, individuals are volunteering “to do it.”

    Just not loudmouth conservatives. Since ISIS is the most dangerous threat to America, what are you doing to eliminate it? Typing on blogs?

    We just need a Commander In Chief who hasn’t surrendered his testicles to do it.

    Like George W Bush, who has balls for brains and invaded and occupied Iraq?

  6. Liam Thomas says:

    Why do you mock those who make a difference while you encourage and support polluting the planet?

    Pollution and Global warming are two entirely different things. I think 99 percent of all Righties/libertarians/climate change deniers are on board with curtailing and defeating Pollution.

    Two entirely seperate things.

    Just not loudmouth conservatives. Since ISIS is the most dangerous threat to America, what are you doing to eliminate it? Typing on blogs?

    Reducing your C02 imprint on this planet can be seriously accomplished by everyone. Ergo Envirowhackos can make a difference without blogging or wringing their fists and expecting the government to do it for us.

    Certainly My friend there are only about 33 percent of the USA which then amounts to about 2 percent of the worlds population that are climate deniers.

    How is it that the entire climate change agenda has come to a halt based upon 2 percent of the worlds population?

    I really would like you to answer this question. Why is it that 2 percent of the worlds population can halt anything that has to do with with climate change relief?

    After all Every nation on earth can end Coal, Natural Gas, Fossil fuels and the use of Automobiles because they seriously agree that fossil fuels are the reason we are all going to die horribly in the next couple years.

    So why is AGW agenda so totally halted by all the American conservatives who are basically global warming deniers?

    Why? do you even need to persuade us? We have almost no control over what the WORLD does to change AGW. Why are you on this blog bashing climate deniers who are such an egregiously small amount of the overall population on earth.

    According to you and Obama and Gore and the IPCC 98 percent of the world agrees with them.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Pollution and Global warming are two entirely different things.

    That’s just not true. Burning fossil fuels for energy adds a number of pollutants to the atmosphere, including CO2. The accumulation of CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. It’s agreed the damage from CO2 is less acute than from other pollutants such as sulfur/nitrogen oxides and particulates. On the other hand, the long term impacts of CO2 pollution are more threatening to human civilization as a whole.

    Certainly My friend there are only about 33 percent of the USA which then amounts to about 2 percent of the worlds population that are climate deniers.

    Certainly, I’m not your friend. How do American conservatives, fueled by the fossil fuel industry, slow the worldwide transition to renewable fuels? Seriously? You underestimate the influence of your Friends in DC.

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    Burning fossil fuels for energy adds a number of pollutants to the atmosphere, including CO2.

    So little jeffy’s claiming CO2 is a pollutant.

    The accumulation of CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.

    Only inside little jeffy’s head.
    Please tell us more about how the science is clear.

  9. JGlanton says:

    “First change your politicians…”

    Did that. We had a politician that had his own self-reliant ranch with a geothermal energy system and who was an avid cyclist, then we changed for a politician who takes separate jet airliners from his wife and children when they go on vacation and who has pizza flown in from Chicago when he gets hungry.

  10. Liam Thomas says:

    This is from America is Evil website…..aka all the pollution of the world is Conservatives fault.

    Fact 15: China is the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide. United States is number 2.

    Fact 35: It takes only 5 days for a jet stream in China to carry the air pollution to the United States.

    Fact 36: Pollution in China can change the weather in United States.

    So Jeffery what you and your group should be doing is standing in China and getting them to halt their massive POLLUTION.

    Im sure they will welcome you guys with open arms.

    This is sorta like your version of US Guys should go over to the Middle East and stop ISIS…….

    Well I suggest you guys should go to China and stop China from destroying the planet.

  11. Jeffery says:

    China just revealed that they emitted 8% less CO2 compared to a year ago.

    What makes you think this is only about the US? Do you understand how CO2 distributes in the atmosphere?

    suckingpuppies,

    You don’t acknowledge that CO2 is a pollutant? That’s one reason you’re a Denier.

    Is ozone a pollutant? Life on Earth depends on it. Without the ozone layer Earth would be sterile. Yet, in cities (e.g., Beijing) ozone is a deadly pollutant!

    But Deniers aren’t interested in science or truth; you’re content to play your semantic games.

    What is your hypothesis for why the Earth is warming rapidly?

  12. Liam Thomas says:

    A recent Study explains early warming of West Antarctica at end of last ice age

    CORVALLIS, Ore. – West Antarctica began emerging from the last ice age about 22,000 years ago – well before other regions of Antarctica and the rest of the world, according to a team of scientists who analyzed a two-mile-long ice core, one of the deepest ever drilled in Antarctica.

    Scientists say that changes in the amount of solar energy triggered the warming of West Antarctica and the subsequent release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the Southern Ocean amplified the effect and resulted in warming on a global scale, eventually ending the ice age.

    What you Jeffery need to understand and which the Envirowhackos fail to educate their padawans is that CO2 is stored IN ICE. Its stored in many, many places.

    But when the earth begins to warm co2 is released by the melting ice. A vast majority of the co2 that we are seeing released back into the atmosphere is the result of the planet warming.

    Think of it as a snowball rolling downhill. The more the ice melts, the more co2 is put back into the air. The more co2 put back into the air the warmer the planet and therefore the more the ice melts releasing more co2.

    As more ice melts and the planet temperature moderates plant life flourishes. This plant life converts co2 to oxygen scrubbing c02 from the planet…….but…..because more plants live…….more plants die…….plants store co2 and expell oxygen.

    These dying and decaying plants release more co2 back into the air as well. Its the cycle that has always occurred on this planet that led to our current coexistence with plants, animals and mankind.

    Theres something quite magical about it and extremely cyclical.

    Additionally from the same report.

    “What is new here is our observation that West Antarctica did not wait for a cue from the Northern Hemisphere before it began warming,” Brook said, “What hasn’t changed is that the initial warming and melting of the ice sheets triggered the release of CO2 from the oceans, which accelerated the demise of the ice age.”

    And now for the obligatory “I do not want to be ostracized, demonized and ousted from my job”……….

    We have the final sentence of the report.

    Brook said the recent increase in CO2 via human causes is also warming the planet, “but much more rapidly.”

    and this is absolutely true….mankind is responsible for releasing additional co2 into the atmosphere and even 1 molecule would indeed hasten the warming even if the amount was not even measearable.

  13. Liam Thomas says:

    AS for your Ozone concerns again you fail to understand simple biology and how ground level ozone is not even a significant problem.

    Ozone is a colorless gas formed through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving sunlight and heat. It is not emitted directly into the air in significant quantities, but instead is formed from these directly released “precursor” pollutants: reactive organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen.

    So what we need to produce ground level ozone is a source of heat and a complex chain of molecules. As we introduce these complex molecules to a heat source we are given ground level ozone.

    However:

    As the intensity of the sunlight decreases, the ozone levels also decrease. By late afternoon, most of the ozone formed during the day breaks down into other compounds, and by early evening the ground-level ozone is essentially destroyed.

    Once you remove the source of heat….which is the sunlight then the ground level ozone disappears. Again. This is pollution caused by human activity but it is not in any way contributing to global warming.

    It is pollution.

  14. Jeffery says:

    Liam,

    But when the earth begins to warm co2 is released by the melting ice. A vast majority of the co2 that we are seeing released back into the atmosphere is the result of the planet warming.

    Good. A testable hypothesis. The arithmetic should be fairly simple, too. We know how much gaseous CO2 ice holds and the volume of ice that has melted. Is that enough to raise the atmospheric concentration over 30% (also understanding that significant amounts are taken up by the seas – hence dropping pH)? Calculating the potential amount of CO2 released from ice is the place to start. There are other significant problems with your hypothesis, but if the arithmetic doesn’t add up, there’s no reason to continue. I think the atmosphere occupies about 4 billion cubic kilometers. Check my math, but 120 ppm (400-280) would be about 0.5 million cubic kilometers of carbon dioxide that you’d have to get from the melted ice, if it all went into the atmosphere. But as previously noted, half gets absorbed by the oceans, which means the melted ice over the past century should deliver 1 million cubic kilometers of CO2. Has enough ice melted in the past 100 years to supply that much CO2? Have humans burned enough oil, gas and coal to add that much CO2? Good luck.

    I didn’t mean to imply that ozone contributes significantly to global warming, only that like CO2, it has both good and bad properties in relation to human civilization.

  15. Liam Thomas says:

    There are other significant problems with your hypothesis, but if the arithmetic doesn’t add up, there’s no reason to continue.

    Thats right. There would be no reason to continue IF CO2 release from ice was the only measurable co2 being released into the air during this or any time frame.

    However Once again Jeffrey….you and your padawans continue to take isloated snap shots of any geological evidence and then conclude that the math does not add up.

    And you would be correct.

    But you fail to take into account that co2 release of the ice leads to many other planet wide changes which also release co2 into the air in vast quantities.

    Again………AS the Planet WARMS…more plants are created and when this 10×9 power increase in plant life lives, dies and decays they project even more co2 into the air.

    It is this symbiotic relationship between warmth and co2 and nitrogen that creates the necessary mathematics to get to the co2 rise your calling for minus about 10 percent.

    The further 10 percent can be attributed mathematically to mankind, forest fires, Volcanology, the buring of fossil fuels, droughts which cause plant life to die and a myraid of other not so measureable yet every bit as guilty of putting co2 into the air. Such as various microbes that eat oil and expel co2.

    Methane escaping from under the world’s melting glaciers and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica comes from microbes aptly called methanogens, which live deep below the ice with no oxygen. There, the microbes feast on carbon and belch out methane.

    However and here is the awesomeness of Mother nature in all her splendor.

    Now scientists have discovered that another mix of microbes, lurking in the outer layers of ice, dine on the greenhouse gas as it gurgles out from under the glacier. Trickles of oxygen-bearing water snaking through cracks in the ice rouse these bacteria, which use methane for food, says microbiologist Brent Christner of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. “They could be a really important sink for methane,” he says. These bacteria use oxygen to break down methane; the result is water and carbon dioxide, a gas with about one-twentieth of the heat-trapping power of methane.

    Hence the methane in the ice is also turned back into CO2 releasing even more co2 into the air as the ice melts.

    Jeffery….I think you believe you have the answers but your mentors are pulling your leg. While man is indeed responsible for a small portion of global warming the geological and biological evidence actually tells us where 90 percent of the current co2 is coming from and why there has not been significant warming in 20 years now.

    Its not an anomaly….Its mother nature further putting her vast resources to work to keep the planet in balance.

  16. Liam Thomas says:

    Study: 20,000 ppm CO2 sustained life on Earth 3 billion years ago

    “Solving the “faint young sun paradox” — explaining how early Earth was warm and habitable for life beginning more than 3 billion years ago even though the sun was 20 percent dimmer than today — may not be as difficult as believed, says a new University of Colorado Boulder study.”

    The media release is below.

    ###

    CU study shows how early Earth kept warm enough to support life

    ****Scientists tackle faint young sun paradox with 3-D climate models*****

    Scientists have been trying to solve the faint young sun paradox since 1972, when Cornell University scientist Carl Sagan — Toon’s doctoral adviser at the time — and colleague George Mullen broached the subject. Since then there have been many studies using 1-D climate models to try to solve the faint young sun paradox — with results ranging from a hot, tropical Earth to a “snowball Earth” with runaway glaciation — none of which have conclusively resolved the problem.

    “In our opinion, the one-dimensional models of early Earth created by scientists to solve this paradox are too simple — they are essentially taking the early Earth and reducing it to a single column atmospheric profile,” said Toon. “One-dimensional models are simply too crude to give an accurate picture.”

    I posted this because some of my buddies over at CU boulder…..one of the most liberal colleges on the planet have begun looking at the earth in more then 1 dimension…..actually encouraged to do so by Carl Sagan. Their findings are quite extrordinary.

    20,000 ppm sustained life and actually nurtured it while our young sun was struggling to get up to speed or in this case become hot enough to make earth the habitable place she has become.

    This is what is missing from todays Climate scientists. They are still modeling in 1 and 2 dimensions failing to take into account all data but rather are cherry picking their own subsets so that they can be sure to model what they want to model.

    This is not complete science. It does not look at all the data and that troubles me greatly. Because in my job if I were to only look at part of the data that fit a predisposed need to “MAKE SOMETHING TRUE” in order to reach a conclusion I would have been fired a long time ago.

  17. Jeffery says:

    You claimed that the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm comes from melting ice releasing entrapped CO2. You claimed the melting ice was triggered by the warming sun.

    Now you claim that the increased CO2 of the past century also comes from the increased plant life (but especially their death and decomposition) stimulated by the increased CO2 from the melting ice caused by a warming sun. Does it make sense to you that decaying plants release more CO2 than they have taken up over their lifetime? Can you use arithmetic to support your hypothesis? Where does that extra carbon come from? In plants, 6CO2 + 6H2O + sunlight –> C6H12O6 + 6O2. The six carbon simple sugars are converted into complex carbohydrates such as starches and cellulose. When these complex carbohydrates decay, microbes “digest” them releasing CO2 and H2O. Ashes to ashes, CO2 to CO2. Where does the extra carbon come from that’s causing this massive increase in atmospheric CO2?

    Why is CO2 at 400ppm now, higher than at any time in the past 1 million years? Certainly we’ve had periods with less ice during that time, therefore we’d expect more CO2 released, more plant growth and CO2 higher than 400ppm. According to Teach, even periods in the Holocene (past 12,000 years) have been “much warmer” than today, for much longer than 100 years, yet CO2 not above 300ppm. During the “much warmer” Medieval Warm Period, why wasn’t CO2 higher than now?

    Here’s a slight modification in your hypothesis that aligns it with the data. Yes, the increase in atmospheric DOES come from carbon stores from plants. But those plants were not growing in the 20th century but in the Devonian and Carboniferous periods! So the plants converted the 2000ppm CO2 (and 6C warmer than now, and 600 ft higher seas) into complex carbohydrates! And they haven’t released their carbon gradually due to decay but rapidly by humans burning them over the past century.

    Are you ready to abandon your hypothesis or do you wish to pursue those other problems with it? Hint: Isotope ratios.

  18. Liam Thomas says:

    From the University of Michigan.

    The decomposition of leaf and root debris, or plant “litter,” is a lengthy process that converts the products of photosynthesis to inorganic components and stable soil organic matter. In terrestrial ecosystems, it represents the primary source of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, needed for plant growth, and provides both nutrients and energy for microbes that live in the soil. In addition to nitrogen, however, decomposition also releases more carbon annually than fossil-fuel combustion, which over time may have a serious impact on the environment.

    If you understand biology you understand where it comes from. Your simply now trying to chip away at a basic tenet of what actually happens when more and more arid lands are open to plant growth because of a more moderate temperature.

    While Matter can be neither created nor destroyed the new plants are actually pulling co2 out of the soil which has been stored there for eons and uses this to fuel an additional cycle of decay and release of co2.

    In fact its estimated that decaying plant life give off more co2 and man and the burning of fossil fuels. Combine that with the co2 from melting ice and volcanic activity, forest fires and droughts and its easy to come up with 90 percent of the co2 being accounted for.

    However this begs the question….you continually address co2 as a planet killer. I believe that co2 is an essential building block of our earths eco system and as such it is not a planet killer but a planet builder.

    The Evirowhackos MUST>>>MUST>>>>MUST>>>>>convince us that CO2 is bad…….bad co2….bad. Its not. Nothing in biology points to co2 being bad for the planet….other then it has an ability to warm the planet.

    S O W H A T? The planet is warming…..build some dikes like holland if your afraid of 9 inches of sea level rise in the next 85 years…..seriously.

  19. Jeffery says:

    While Matter can be neither created nor destroyed the new plants are actually pulling co2 out of the soil which has been stored there for eons and uses this to fuel an additional cycle of decay and release of co2.

    So… the new plants are pulling CO2 out of the soil that’s been there for eons, and when they rot they release this excess CO2 into the atmosphere. And the plants pulling eons-old CO2 out of dirt, melting ice, forest fires and volcanoes adds up to 90% of the increased CO2. You sound desperate.

    Here’s a scientifically sound alternative: man burning eons-old fossil fuels converts them to CO2 which is dumped into the air. See how simple and elegant that is? Not to mention true. Your hypothesis suffers from having no supporting data.

    Also, it’s typical Denier behavior to make a false statement and then defend it with a Gish Gallop of tangential information. No one said CO2 was bad or evil or called it a “planet killer”. It’s just a molecule that we’re adding to the atmosphere causing the Earth to warm.

    Your final argument is, “So what?”. This after years of arguing with Deniers about CO2, warming, the oceans, sea level, satellites, thermometers, emails, clouds, cosmic rays and lying scientists. Now, you say, “So what?”. As predicted.

  20. Liam Thomas says:

    Actually you sound desperate.

    Again you must prove that CO2 is evil or else your entire argument collapses like a wet noodle.

    Soils around the world contain approximately 2000 billion tonnes of carbon in various forms at any one time. About 300 billion tonnes can be found as detritus in the top soil, with this carbon rich material decomposing at varying rates depending on factors such as temperature and soil conditions.

    During this decomposition some of the carbon in soil detritus is respired by the decomposing organisms (often fungi and bacteria), with the carbon being returned to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

    And to throw you a bone and to show you that I do believe that mankind does contribute to co2 build up in the atmosphere………

    Man’s conversion of soils from natural to agricultural use has led to substantial losses in the soil carbon sink. Greater soil disturbance, such as that caused by ploughing, can cause rapid respiration and loss of large amounts of soil carbon which would otherwise decompose more slowly.

    Ergo as mankind farms the land this incredible amounts of carbon that has been SINKED in the soil is returned to the atmosphere as CO2.

    While burning of fossil fuels no doubt contributes to CO2 in the air….there are so many various forms of co2 being returned to the air that they are almost uncountable……

    BUT…..Rule one DEMONOIZE CO2 or our argument falls apart. Rule two blame it on fossil fuels or our argument falls apart.

    Well My friend the AGW crowds argument has fallen apart a long time ago they just dont realize it yet.

  21. Jeffery says:

    What is this silliness about a molecule being evil or having to demonize it? Increased CO2 is causing the Earth to warm rapidly and the CO2 comes from us burning fossil fuels.

    You have presented no evidence that the increased CO2 comes from farming or melting ice or rotting trees.

  22. Liam Thomas says:

    I have provided you with ample evidence that c02 comes from multiple sources other then the burning of fossil fuels. Perhaps you should reread my posts, or even more importantly I would encourage you to open your mind to the possibility that co2 comes from sources other then burning of fossil fuels.

    Im not going to do the work for you.

    This is basic science 101. Every college freshmen has the opportunity to learn these things in Biology 101 and Chemistry 101 and Physics 101. The problem seems to be that college professors are so terrified for their jobs that they simply gloss over any mention of this in their text books because they value their paychecks over the truth.

    The reason their are deniers is because.

    1. The AGW crowd has demonized CO2…an essential building block of planet earth.
    2. The AGW crowd ascribes ALL co2 to fossil fuels.
    3. The AGW crowd are Envirowhackos who would destroy careers and lives of anyone who denies or fails to ascribe to their cultist mentality.
    4. The AGW crowd is highly skilled in the Saul Alinsky tactics of debate.

    I have asked you repeatedly what you would do to replace fossil fuels and you simply turn to rule * RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

    Envirowhackos HAVE NO SOLUTION to fossil fuels other then wind and solar which does not farm land, create medicines, help manufacture products and fuel the economy. Their solution only creates electricity which is a small part of the total equation that our civilization depends on via the use of fossil fuels.

    End fossil fuels tomorrow and you will not halt the rise of co2 on this planet. Even the IPCC states that reducing co2 emissions by 80 percent immediately would not prevent the globe from warming it would only slightly slow it down. Realizing of course as do most intelligent scientists that fossil fuel use is only a fraction of the co2 being expelled into the air.

    It would be incumbent upon them to defend their failed hypothesis if the world actually took them seriously and civilization collapsed because of the complete abandonment of the one item that fuels our economies world wide……fossil fuels…..or any energy that produces as a by product CO2.

    So Jeffery your entire debate was an exercise in Saul Alinsky tactics using at the core one scientific fact….CO2 is responsible for heating the planet rapidly and the burning of fossil fuels is the culprit……

    SO

    I

    ASK

    AGAIN.

    What is your solution?

  23. Jeffery says:

    You have offered claims, not evidence.

    You claimed that most of the increased CO2 came from melting ice, and were asked for simple arithmetic to support your claim. You changed the subject.

    Then you claimed that growing plants sucked CO2 out of the ground, then died and decayed, releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere than they had absorbed through photosynthesis. Again, no evidence.

    Next you claimed that humans farming and tilling the soil had released gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, causing the increase to 400ppm. No evidence.

    It seems the one thing you are certain of is that the increased CO2 is NOT from humans burning fossil fuels!

    All “reasonable” Deniers reach that crossroads where they have to admit it’s warming, that CO2 is increasing rapidly, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yet the increased CO2 just CAN’T be from burning fossil fuels, although that’s the only reasonable conclusion. The next logical step is “SO WHAT?”.

    Good luck.

  24. Liam Thomas says:

    Again you offer no alternative. No solution. It is you who claims that the planet is warming and that we must STOP THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS and again YOU OFFER NO EVIDENCE but rather ridicule my position.

    It is as we all fear. The AGW crowd has no solutions only one stock answer.

    No matter what the reponse its always the same…..we are liars, deniers and morons and we are all going to die because of the buring of Fossil fuels.

    Fine I accept your hypothesis. In toto. Its all because of Fossil fuels. Nothing else. We are all going to die because of fossil fuels.

    Please help us Jeffery What should we do? How will we eat, how will we make medicines, how will we manufacture anything without the use of petroleum based products?….please master give up some answers.

    The world…….Every man, woman and child is depending upon YOU for their very existence. Please Sir….you must help us. It is quite evident that I am in the presence of genius and it is your genius that will spare us our total demise.

    SO

    THE

    WORLD

    BEGS

    OF

    YOU

    What is your solution to NO fossil fuels.

  25. Liam Thomas says:

    From the Scientific American Magazine… February 12, 2013

    Melting Tundra Releases Carbon Dioxide Quickly
    Previous estimates of how fast greenhouse gases get to the atmosphere from melting permafrost underestimated the work of soil bacteria

    University of Michigan Study: Sunlight stimulates release of climate-warming gas from melting Arctic permafrost

    Ice cores, CO2 concentration, and climate

    B. Geerts and E. Linacre 3/’02

    Starting on the right-hand side of the graph at about 140,000 years ago, the climate was about 6�C colder than it is today. This was an ice age. Then at about 130,000 years ago, there was a quite rapid warming period until about 125,000 years ago, when the climate was, perhaps, 1�C or 2�C warmer than today. These short warmer periods are called interglacials.

    Ice Age Melting Caused by CO2 Release

    August 27th, 2010 by Joshua S Hill

    The study suggests that CO 2 release may speed up the melting following an ice age.

    This is a funny one…….

    19:00 21 February 2013 by Michael Marshall
    For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

    The Very first sentence of the article:

    We are on the cusp of a tipping point in the climate.

    OMG were all going to die!!

    Then go all the way to the bottom of the article and here is the last Two sentences of the article:

    He says the dangers of the permafrost greenhouse gases have been overhyped, particularly as much of the methane will be converted to carbon dioxide by microbes in the soil, leading to a slower warming effect.

    Schuur agrees with Lenton that the methane emissions are “not a runaway effect but an additional source that is not accounted in current climate models”.

    From the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
    Ahn, J., M. Wahlen, and B. Deck. 2003. Atmospheric CO2 Trapped in the Ice Core from Siple Dome, Antarctica. Boulder, CO: National Snow and Ice Data Center.

    These data are CO2 concentration of the air contained in Siple Dome ice core, Antarctica. The study was conducted between January 2001 and March 2003 on a deep ice core from Siple Dome Core A, located at 81.66 S, 148.82 W. The data covers up to the Termination II (around 140,000 years ago). The parameters are depth in meters and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in part per million (ppm).

    1) Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
    Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, and Bruce Deck
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography
    Published: by the American Association for the Advancement of Science
    Science, 283, 1712-1714

    Holocene Carbon-cycle Dynamics
    Based on CO2 Trapped in Ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica
    A. Indermühle*, T. F. Stocker*, F. Joos*, H. Fischer², H. J. Smith², M. Wahlen², B. Deck², D. Mastroianni², J. Tschumi*, T. Blunier*, R. Meyer* & B. Stauffer
    Published: 1999, Macmillan Magazines Ltd
    Nature, Vol. 398, 11 March 1999

    Barnola, et. al.
    Nature, 329, 408-414 (1987)

    C. Lorius, J. Jouzel, C. Ritz, L. Merlivat, N. I. Barkov, Y. S. Korotkevitch
    and V. M. Kotlyakov, A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice, Nature,
    316, 1985, 591-596.

    J. Jouzel, C. Lorius, J. R. Petit, C. Genthon, N. I. Barkov, V. M. Kotlyakov
    and V. M. Petrov, Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over
    the last climatic cycle (160,000 years), Nature, 329, 1987, 402-408.

    J. R. Petit, L. Mounier, J. Jouzel, Y. Korotkevitch, V. Kotlyakov and C.
    Lorius, Paleoclimatological implications of the Vostok core dust record,
    Nature, 343, 1990, 56-58.

    C. Ritz. Un modele thermo-mecanique d’evolution pour le bassin glaciaire
    Antarctique Vostok-Glacier Byrd: sensibilite aux valeurs des parametres mal
    connus (Univ. de Grenoble, 1992).

    T. Sowers, M. Bender, L. D. Labeyrie, J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, D. Martinson and
    Y. S. Korotkevich, 135 000 year Vostok – SPECMAP common temporal framework.,
    Paleoceanogr., 8, 1993, p. 737-766.

    J. Jouzel, N. I. Barkov, J. M. Barnola, M. Bender, J. Chappelaz, C. Genthon, V.
    M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, J. R. Petit, D. Raynaud, G. Raisbeck, C.
    Ritz, T. Sowers, M. Stievenard, F. Yiou and P. Yiou, Extending the Vostok
    ice-core record of paleoclimate to the penultimate glacial period, Nature, 364,
    1993, 407-412.

    C. Waelbroeck, J. Jouzel, L. Labeyrie, C. Lorius, M. Labracherie, M. Stievenard
    and N. I. Barkov, Comparing the Vostok ice deuterium record and series from
    Southern Ocean core MD 88-770 over the last two glacial-interglacial cycles,
    Clim. Dyn., 12, 1995, 113 – 123.

    J. Jouzel, C. Waelbroeck, B. Malaiz, M. Bender, J. R. Petit, N. I. Barkov, J.
    M. Barnola, T. King, V. M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, D. Raynaud, C.
    Ritz and T. Sowers, Climatic interpretation of the recently extended Vostok ice
    records, Clim.Dyn.

    Take your pick of which research paper you would like to read.

  26. Liam Thomas says:

    Again Im not saying Co2 is NOT increasing in the atmosphere. That is measurable and hardly worth arguing.

    Our debate has centered around HOW the CO2 is getting there and why.

    So please spare me the 1000’s of research papers that show there is more co2 in the air then there used to be.

    I concede that point. Always have.

    You asked for proof on co2 from ice and other means. I have not even addressed the co2 stored in the soil that is being prematurely released because of FARMING.

    THE MORE PEOPLE>>>>>>THE MORE FARMING>>>>>THE MORE FARMING THE MORE CO2 being released.

  27. Liam Thomas says:

    All “reasonable” Deniers reach that crossroads where they have to admit it’s warming, that CO2 is increasing rapidly, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yet the increased CO2 just CAN’T be from burning fossil fuels, although that’s the only reasonable conclusion. The next logical step is “SO WHAT?”.

    Good luck.

    Actually I concede that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that scientifically its been proven that co2 and methane will retain heat in the atmosphere.

    I concede that co2 is increasing at a quicker then normal rate based upon a baseline used pre-industrial age readings.

    I concede that PART of the increase in co2 is the buring of fossil fuels.

    However what I do not concede is that ALL of the co2 is a simple result of the buring of fossil fuels.

    What I do not concede is that 500 ppm of CO2 is necessarily bad for the planet.

    What I do not concede is that a rise in temperature of 1-3C is catastrophic.

    What I do not concede is that co2 is the main driver of temperature inversion.

    What I do not concede is that were all going to die because the planet gets warmer. The geologic evidence only points to a healthier planet when more co2 is available in the atmosphere. The greatest changes to our planet have come during inter glacial periods not during times when 2/3rds of the planet was buried in 3000 feet of ice.

    I only ask of you one thing.

    How are we going to mine rare earth metals to make solar panels if we have no fossil fuels to dig?

    How are we going to manufacture anything without petroleum based products to fuel our machinery? Moving parts require lubrication.

    How are we going to farm trillions of acres of land to feed the people without tractors….OKAY WE MAKE THEM BATTERY OPERATED>>>>>>>>>>>SUPER>>>>>>>>>HOW ARE WE GOING TO MINE THE MEGA TONS OF RARE EARTHS TO MAKE THOSE BATTERIES?

    Electric cars, windmills, solar panels, NUKE plants, tidal harness, geothermal….SWELL….HOW EXACTLY are we going to build those without petroleum?

    The world waits anxiously for the AGW Alarmists to inform us.

    CHIRP>>>>CHIRP>>>>>CHIRP>>>>>>>>>YOUR ALL GOING TO DIE BECAUSE OF FOSSIL FUELS!!!!

    SAVE US JEFFERY…..SAVE US. Whats your plan?

  28. All “reasonable” Deniers reach that crossroads where they have to admit it’s warming, that CO2 is increasing rapidly, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yet the increased CO2 just CAN’T be from burning fossil fuels, although that’s the only reasonable conclusion. The next logical step is “SO WHAT?”.

    Good luck.

    All “reasonable” Warmists reach that crossroads where they have to admit that they are practicing politics, not science, that CO2 is not the primarly/sole driver of the current warm period, that they are complete hypocrites for refusing to make significant changes in their own lives, and that….oh, who am I kidding? They won’t ever acknowledge that they are wrong, because it is politics, not science, and liberals tend to just follow what their political masters say, even if they know it is a lie.

  29. Jeffery says:

    You use a debate tactic, a logical flaw, a derivative of reductio ad absurdum.

    I don’t claim, nor do many others that we are all going to die.

    I don’t claim, nor do many others that we must eliminate all fossil fuel use.

    I don’t claim, nor do many others that CO2 is evil. It’s not like the ebola virus which should be eliminated.

    I don’t claim, nor do many others that a further 1-3C increase would be catastrophic, although it would be very disruptive to human civilization. Humans will survive.

    I don’t claim, nor do many others that we must eliminate agriculture and tractors (even though you claim that most of the increase in CO2 comes from plowing the ground – unless you’ve changed your mind again).

    I don’t think our only alternatives are 3000 feet of snow and ice or a Devonian climate. How did humans do during the Devonian period? And it’s meaningless to discuss a “healthier” Earth. By what criteria? The entirety of human civilization evolved in a very narrow range of temperature, the Holocene.

    The greatest source of CO2 in the US is from burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. Do you agree that we should start replacing that system with renewables and that that should be minimally disruptive to society?

    How? A carbon cap and trade system (a conservative, market-based idea, before US conservatives went batshit crazy in 2008) and more subsidies for renewables would be a good start, don’t you think?

  30. Liam Thomas says:

    All “reasonable” Warmists reach that crossroads where they have to admit that they are practicing politics, not science, that CO2 is not the primarly/sole driver of the current warm period, that they are complete hypocrites for refusing to make significant changes in their own lives, and that….oh, who am I kidding? They won’t ever acknowledge that they are wrong, because it is politics, not science, and liberals tend to just follow what their political masters say, even if they know it is a lie.

    You are correct. Many of them who spend time disrupting blogs with their one line nonsense are paid operatives by the AGW crowd. Barak Obama started it with his run for president in 2007 and it was so effective that the AGW crowd took on the same concept.

  31. Liam Thomas says:

    Once again your entire position is reduced to alternatives and Cap and Trade.

    We begin this entire tiresome debate with your hypothesis…..the greatest source of co2 is buring fossil fuels for electricity. I would disagree totally and just spent several posts showing you that co2 comes from other sources beside fossil fuels not to mention breaking out dozens of reports showing the calculations if you want.

    In fact The AGW crowd themselves have shown that automobiles account for 1/3rd of co2 emissions. Co2 releases from the ocean, Plants, melting snow, volcanoes, forest fires and various other activities account for nearly 50 percent of the co2 and methane emissions. As a result only about 20 percent of your co2 comes from electricity production.

    So we have a non starter in this debate…however as for alternatives……sure build as many as you want. I am not opposed to them at all.

    But Im sorry Jeffery it was as I suspected. You do not have a solution if you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Electricity generation is the main culprit to co2 releases.

    This is why I premptively spent a great deal of time showing that CO2 came from many other sources besides Fossil fuel use. Because the AGW crowd has only one answer for earths demise…..Build more windmills and solar panels.

    If man were to stop burning fossil fuel use totally the earth would still continue to rise in temperature. The geological record supports this. When mankind was not even in existence the massive release of co2 hasten the warming of the planet.

    The only thing that the AGW scientists have proven is that co2 is rising. Just think a 1000 phds and a billion dollars in grants to prove what I could have told you for free……the earth is warming.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9675 access attempts in the last 7 days.