patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,193,586 comments by 13,877 users - ForcedTQ, RWSGFY online now
Climate change denier myth 01: CO2 is present at trace levels so it is not important
invite response
2017 Mar 29, 6:11am 1,673 views 6 comments
Comments 1 - 6 of 6 Search these comments
NuttBoxer
2017 Mar 29, 10:45am
If we remove all the CO2 as climate alarmists would like us to, what do plants live on? Or are they not important to the "environment".
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2017 Mar 29, 11:02am
If we remove all the CO2 as climate alarmists would like us to, what do plants live on?
Climate alarmists don't want to remove all of the CO2. Where the heck do you get that? Did the plants live just fine before the industrial revolution? Yes. We don't need to burn fossil fuels for the carbon cycle to work as it always has.
But this was being saved for Climate denier myth 3: Just because CO2 is necessary at some level doesn't mean that more is better. Seriously, we shouldn't be so stupid as a society that everything has to be presented as binary 'good' or 'bad'. I'm waiting to discuss the first two before moving on.
Now, do you have any reason to think that CO2 being present at trace levels means that it cannot be a major cause of global warming?
NuttBoxer
2017 Mar 29, 11:10am
We don't need to burn fossil fuels for the carbon cycle to work as it always has.
We should instead have solar farms that fry birds, or wind farms that cut them to shreds? Or maybe fracking that causes 100's of earthquakes? I don't think burning coal was never discovered until a mega factory started doing it. And that's not even an issue when you consider the billion and one ways oil is used in EVERYTHING, (yes, even in producing your "clean" electricity). You want to really clean things up, start with shutting down DuPont, not killing more bald eagles.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2017 Mar 29, 11:32am
All energy forms have down sides. If you believe that climate change is a more existential threat than bird deaths, you will favor wind turbines and solar farms to coal plants. Or, you would insist on carbon capture and storage, and let coal compete without dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Of course oil is used in clean energy. It's not zero impact energy. It's just much lower impact energy over the life cycle of the device.
As for plastics, from a climate change perspective, converting oil to plastic is itself a form of sequestering a resource that would otherwise be burned. I have no problem with that. The bigger issue for me with plastics, is that they don't end up in the landfill or recycling bins. Too much of it ends up in the ocean. It also utilizes chemicals that are biologically active and not well tested, e.g. phthalates.
Do you agree with the premise of this thread?
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Mar 29, 12:35pm
All energy forms have down sides.
Which is why technical solutions are less optimal than population control, as most tech solutions require inputs that produce waste, are subject to rapid depletion, or have other downsides. Population control has no Earth-threatening downsides.
What is Botswana and Detroit and Trailer Park Mississippi gonna do if we put birth control in the water? Is Billy Bob gonna nuke "Dem Secularrr 'Umanists in DC with his jerryrigged redneck Nuke.
"Ding dangit, it's better than my bubba'd SKS."
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2017 Mar 29, 12:41pm
Which is why technical solutions are less optimal than population control, a
How do you suggest we implement population control?
Care to weigh in on the OP? Do you believe that CO2 is harmless, because it is present in trace levels?
This myth is terribly stupid. If you propagate this notion, you are making yourself look like an idiot or a liar.
The impact of a chemical is equal to the amount of it present times an impact factor (Impact per kg of chemical). This is true in ecology or toxicology. In reality, the relationship may not be linear, but this approximation explains why trace elements can have a big impact.
There are plenty of examples of things that when present at trace levels can present a problem. Here are a few:
1) Stratospheric ozone depletion chemicals
2) Pollutants such as methyl mercury in the ocean or lakes or lead in drinking water
3) Small amounts of bacteria anywhere (e.g. on the floor, your hands, in your food container).
4) Small pieces of dirt in a carburetor
If we cannot agree on this basic fact, we really cannot have an intelligent debate
#climatedeniermyths
Note for the logically impaired: The examples above show that something present in trace quantities does not mean it is not important. These examples do not imply any direct comparison between lead, bacteria, ozone depleting chemicals, or dirt with CO2. If you claim that A means that B is true, then I just have to show an example of A not leading to B. That doesn't mean that all A are the same. For example, if you assert that all shoes are red, and I show you a green shoe, this example disproves your assertion. This doesn't mean that I think that green and red shoes are the same.