Comments on: Sucking the Oxygen Out of the Environmental Movement http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:51:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: McIntyre http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html/comment-page-1#comment-3139 McIntyre Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:35:26 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html#comment-3139 <p>Do not presume to demand that I prove something I haven't even claimed. The original statement was that there was little pressure for China to reduce its environmental impact. I showed that was false. Whether the pressure is having an effect is irrelevant.</p> <p>The 'debate' about whether CO2 can be considered a pollutant is misguided and infantile. I invite those who extol its wonderful virtues and deny any possible negative effects to spend two minutes breathing pure CO2, and then comment further.</p> <p><i>the cold dip we are about to experience</i> - and from where, pray tell, did you draw this vision of the future?</p> Do not presume to demand that I prove something I haven’t even claimed. The original statement was that there was little pressure for China to reduce its environmental impact. I showed that was false. Whether the pressure is having an effect is irrelevant.

The ‘debate’ about whether CO2 can be considered a pollutant is misguided and infantile. I invite those who extol its wonderful virtues and deny any possible negative effects to spend two minutes breathing pure CO2, and then comment further.

the cold dip we are about to experience – and from where, pray tell, did you draw this vision of the future?

]]> By: Bobby Lane http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html/comment-page-1#comment-3138 Bobby Lane Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:21:17 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html#comment-3138 <p>McIntyre, my full statement was: First, I'd like some proof of what you assert, that China is indeed being pressured to clean up its act and that said pressure is making a substantive difference." The key emphasis was on those last two words. I am sure there is plenty of pressure. Externally it is likely lip service. China is the largest or a very key trading partner with many countries including the USA. Upping their energy costs by making them go "greener" will only increase prices on their exports and cost you and I more. So I see it as lip service to the 'cause' by any who have any real power or say in the matter. Internally the matter is probably more serious, but again the Chinese government has far too much control for the criticism to take effect. They don't care about the popular will as long as it does not lead to riots. Chinese water and air quality is already well below international standards in many of their largest cities. It's not that I doubt the sincerity of those who protest their pollution controls, and here is maybe where you and I diverge on our perspective. I just doubt they have great effect on the Chinese government that the people in other countries suppose. Besides, they have their own problems including the deadly and disastrous winter of 2007, numerous earthquakes, a diminishing coal supply (in terms of exports at least) and a burgeoning urban population used to the comforts they have earned over the past couple of decades. If the economy slows too much, or effectively collapses, the governments (both regional and national) stand to lose a lot of power and control. That to them is unthinkable.</p> <p>As to the others who are speaking to my "definition" of a pollutant, I did not post one here. Nor did I speak of CO2 or other gases as pollutants on my previous comment. So I am confused. I do agree that there are, perhaps, many pollutants - some natural, many man-made, that can do damage to the atmosphere and to ourselves too. I will not dispute that. If I ever said or implied CO2 itself was a pollutant, I only meant it in the sense that the "Green" movement asserts it is. As it is produced by every organism except plants that populates this planet, I hardly think it qualifies. But then I am sure his eminence, Al Gore, would disagree with me. </p> <p>Cfdman, if it one of amount, I believe Yeti answers that question admirably. We are nowhere near any kind of danger zone. Plus, the more CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the LESS effective it is as a greenhouse gas. But, given the cold dip we are about to experience, I bet we will all be wishing for a little global warming here in a while, yours truly included.</p> <p>Tony Edwards, thanks for the link. I will check it out when I can find time. I am in the midst of taking a new position at work, moving, dating someone, and absorbing as much as I can of the current debate.</p> <p>www.wattsupwiththat.com and www.eureferendum are to great websites to get a scientific and political perspective, respectively, on the issue. Even if I believed AGW were 100% correct, I can still see it is going to cost us trillions of dollars to 'fight' it, and that probably not to much effect. Even the IPCC is not confident that even the most extreme reductions in CO2 would do much to cool the Earth beyond a tenth or two of a point. </p> <p>Saildog, all that means to me is that you have imbibed the latest university-bred teachings on global warming which I do not suspect are well vetted by skeptics. Normally one finds lots of government money and lots of liberals on campuses, neither being conducive to a skeptical and well-rounded mind. That said, you are welcome any time to submit evidence of your claims. Or come to wattsupwiththat.com, or the real Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit page, and produce your evidence. I am sure we'd all love to have a crack at it. And if it stands, then great! We're not against real science. Only against science and scientists that disdain questioning of their methods and work. And that is what, unfortunately, makes up so much of the AGW crowd, especially the more politics one adds in.</p> McIntyre, my full statement was: First, I’d like some proof of what you assert, that China is indeed being pressured to clean up its act and that said pressure is making a substantive difference.” The key emphasis was on those last two words. I am sure there is plenty of pressure. Externally it is likely lip service. China is the largest or a very key trading partner with many countries including the USA. Upping their energy costs by making them go “greener” will only increase prices on their exports and cost you and I more. So I see it as lip service to the ’cause’ by any who have any real power or say in the matter. Internally the matter is probably more serious, but again the Chinese government has far too much control for the criticism to take effect. They don’t care about the popular will as long as it does not lead to riots. Chinese water and air quality is already well below international standards in many of their largest cities. It’s not that I doubt the sincerity of those who protest their pollution controls, and here is maybe where you and I diverge on our perspective. I just doubt they have great effect on the Chinese government that the people in other countries suppose. Besides, they have their own problems including the deadly and disastrous winter of 2007, numerous earthquakes, a diminishing coal supply (in terms of exports at least) and a burgeoning urban population used to the comforts they have earned over the past couple of decades. If the economy slows too much, or effectively collapses, the governments (both regional and national) stand to lose a lot of power and control. That to them is unthinkable.

As to the others who are speaking to my “definition” of a pollutant, I did not post one here. Nor did I speak of CO2 or other gases as pollutants on my previous comment. So I am confused. I do agree that there are, perhaps, many pollutants – some natural, many man-made, that can do damage to the atmosphere and to ourselves too. I will not dispute that. If I ever said or implied CO2 itself was a pollutant, I only meant it in the sense that the “Green” movement asserts it is. As it is produced by every organism except plants that populates this planet, I hardly think it qualifies. But then I am sure his eminence, Al Gore, would disagree with me.

Cfdman, if it one of amount, I believe Yeti answers that question admirably. We are nowhere near any kind of danger zone. Plus, the more CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the LESS effective it is as a greenhouse gas. But, given the cold dip we are about to experience, I bet we will all be wishing for a little global warming here in a while, yours truly included.

Tony Edwards, thanks for the link. I will check it out when I can find time. I am in the midst of taking a new position at work, moving, dating someone, and absorbing as much as I can of the current debate.

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com and http://www.eureferendum are to great websites to get a scientific and political perspective, respectively, on the issue. Even if I believed AGW were 100% correct, I can still see it is going to cost us trillions of dollars to ‘fight’ it, and that probably not to much effect. Even the IPCC is not confident that even the most extreme reductions in CO2 would do much to cool the Earth beyond a tenth or two of a point.

Saildog, all that means to me is that you have imbibed the latest university-bred teachings on global warming which I do not suspect are well vetted by skeptics. Normally one finds lots of government money and lots of liberals on campuses, neither being conducive to a skeptical and well-rounded mind. That said, you are welcome any time to submit evidence of your claims. Or come to wattsupwiththat.com, or the real Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit page, and produce your evidence. I am sure we’d all love to have a crack at it. And if it stands, then great! We’re not against real science. Only against science and scientists that disdain questioning of their methods and work. And that is what, unfortunately, makes up so much of the AGW crowd, especially the more politics one adds in.

]]> By: Saildog http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html/comment-page-1#comment-3137 Saildog Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:32:18 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html#comment-3137 <p>First off I just finished a Masters in Sustainability Sciences degree. Climate science was one of my majors. On balance I believe that there is sufficient risk to justify taking action. Do I think action will actually be taken? No, we will never reach any sort of meaningful agreement on what to do, even though that is clear.</p> <p>On top of the basic science first established by Svante Arrhenius and the well understood physics of spectral radiation of CO2 and other greenhouses gases including Dihrydrogen monoxide (water), many of the earths climate systems are showing changes that are highly correlated with increasing levels of CO2. To simply dismiss these changes and the way they are occurring and the correlation with Greenhouse gases is intellectually feeble. It is a risk management exercise, pure and simple.</p> First off I just finished a Masters in Sustainability Sciences degree. Climate science was one of my majors. On balance I believe that there is sufficient risk to justify taking action. Do I think action will actually be taken? No, we will never reach any sort of meaningful agreement on what to do, even though that is clear.

On top of the basic science first established by Svante Arrhenius and the well understood physics of spectral radiation of CO2 and other greenhouses gases including Dihrydrogen monoxide (water), many of the earths climate systems are showing changes that are highly correlated with increasing levels of CO2. To simply dismiss these changes and the way they are occurring and the correlation with Greenhouse gases is intellectually feeble. It is a risk management exercise, pure and simple.

]]> By: Tony Edwards http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html/comment-page-1#comment-3136 Tony Edwards Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:31:38 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html#comment-3136 <p>Bobby Lane, if you want to read about a real pollutant which is completely uncontrolled, despite the damage to health and property, please go to<br /> http://www.dhmo.org/<br /> This extremely dangerous substance fills all of your definition.</p> Bobby Lane, if you want to read about a real pollutant which is completely uncontrolled, despite the damage to health and property, please go to
http://www.dhmo.org/
This extremely dangerous substance fills all of your definition.

]]> By: EarthScientist http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html/comment-page-1#comment-3135 EarthScientist Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:39:16 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html#comment-3135 <p>"Jane,You Ignorant Slut" Some of you boys remember Akroyds familiar phrase.<br /> Unfortunately ,it holds true still,and were adding names daily.<br /> As I sit in my 'Suburbia farmette" The air is great,just great unless some ass is cleaning up his animal pen,or some other ass is spraying weed killer on "HIs" land and not mindful of his sensitive neighbors.<br /> So,since China and Us are not near neighbors and "They" are the ones who primarily have to ingest their output,wheres "Your" Beef??<br /> Has there "Pollution effected your GD golf game Moron?"<br /> Pool party being rushed indoors?<br /> My Humah is for you,you know who you are,the moron who has so much time on his hands with his fako degree in some idio-science field that doesnt understand that heavy particles and gases too ,seem to drop to the ground and effect the local area,but of course,you morons would have the Bush idiots completely destroy the planet with Bombs and DU and thats perfectly okay,because its okay to steal Saddams Trillions in Gold,by attacking the nation themselves and making it all the little bastard Husseins fault that he owned their gold in the first place.<br /> They used their little tank with the plasma weapon to "Shrink' the heads and bodies of anyone near the facilities that held "Their Gold' and you morons have yet to complain of the burned flesh pollution from Iraq,and shouldnt we charge them something else?<br /> So,when you science morons wake up and finally determine that you have been hustled,and are destroying everything in the world so you can supposedly "Stop" pollution and 'Global Warming" by insisting that we and of course those little twtis,"The Chinese" stop living because they are destroying "Your Air" which is our air,because Earth Service designed the planet with a non -exhaustable air supply coming into the planet every hour and minute through the cymatic nodes that you "Morons" still have not went outside and seen displayed,that even my granddaughter (5) can see when Papa here shows her the gist of the system.<br /> There is a "Lemon Law" in most states for defective products and those of you who may be lawyers,surely can hear the ambulance,now cant you,? Surely you could protocol a class action suit to suit the Morons who are Climate Idiots or Weather Idiots or least ,but not lest,Astro physics Idiots who shall eventually claim their place in the suit against their Guru-ic Phd. that blew all of the garbage into them,with malicious intent to make the Earths Science men not just look,but be the Slowest,dumbest people in the Universe(The planetary travelers laugh constantly) and (They laugh also constantly at you Mars seeking Idiots) You have not even figured out 'Grid Science" here yet and you "Need" to tell everyone how the whole place works and the big bang on the head you experienced to "Explain" the whole place whilst we laugh at you morons. <br /> And so now ,its Chinas fault,isnt it??They did it,the little 'OrangeField' idiots.</p> “Jane,You Ignorant Slut” Some of you boys remember Akroyds familiar phrase.
Unfortunately ,it holds true still,and were adding names daily.
As I sit in my ‘Suburbia farmette” The air is great,just great unless some ass is cleaning up his animal pen,or some other ass is spraying weed killer on “HIs” land and not mindful of his sensitive neighbors.
So,since China and Us are not near neighbors and “They” are the ones who primarily have to ingest their output,wheres “Your” Beef??
Has there “Pollution effected your GD golf game Moron?”
Pool party being rushed indoors?
My Humah is for you,you know who you are,the moron who has so much time on his hands with his fako degree in some idio-science field that doesnt understand that heavy particles and gases too ,seem to drop to the ground and effect the local area,but of course,you morons would have the Bush idiots completely destroy the planet with Bombs and DU and thats perfectly okay,because its okay to steal Saddams Trillions in Gold,by attacking the nation themselves and making it all the little bastard Husseins fault that he owned their gold in the first place.
They used their little tank with the plasma weapon to “Shrink’ the heads and bodies of anyone near the facilities that held “Their Gold’ and you morons have yet to complain of the burned flesh pollution from Iraq,and shouldnt we charge them something else?
So,when you science morons wake up and finally determine that you have been hustled,and are destroying everything in the world so you can supposedly “Stop” pollution and ‘Global Warming” by insisting that we and of course those little twtis,”The Chinese” stop living because they are destroying “Your Air” which is our air,because Earth Service designed the planet with a non -exhaustable air supply coming into the planet every hour and minute through the cymatic nodes that you “Morons” still have not went outside and seen displayed,that even my granddaughter (5) can see when Papa here shows her the gist of the system.
There is a “Lemon Law” in most states for defective products and those of you who may be lawyers,surely can hear the ambulance,now cant you,? Surely you could protocol a class action suit to suit the Morons who are Climate Idiots or Weather Idiots or least ,but not lest,Astro physics Idiots who shall eventually claim their place in the suit against their Guru-ic Phd. that blew all of the garbage into them,with malicious intent to make the Earths Science men not just look,but be the Slowest,dumbest people in the Universe(The planetary travelers laugh constantly) and (They laugh also constantly at you Mars seeking Idiots) You have not even figured out ‘Grid Science” here yet and you “Need” to tell everyone how the whole place works and the big bang on the head you experienced to “Explain” the whole place whilst we laugh at you morons.
And so now ,its Chinas fault,isnt it??They did it,the little ‘OrangeField’ idiots.

]]> By: Yeti http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html/comment-page-1#comment-3134 Yeti Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:52:16 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html#comment-3134 <p>I googled pollution too and found this definition "the environment to such a point that its effects become harmful to human health, other living organisms, or the environment."<br /> It takes 1% or 10,000 PPM for humans to notice a effect of discomfort or drowsiness.<br /> At levels of 5% or 50,000 PPM CO2 becomes directly toxic.<br /> At 390 PPM we are not even close to those level.</p> I googled pollution too and found this definition “the environment to such a point that its effects become harmful to human health, other living organisms, or the environment.”
It takes 1% or 10,000 PPM for humans to notice a effect of discomfort or drowsiness.
At levels of 5% or 50,000 PPM CO2 becomes directly toxic.
At 390 PPM we are not even close to those level.

]]> By: cfdman http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html/comment-page-1#comment-3133 cfdman Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:06:40 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html#comment-3133 <p>McIntyre, Thanks for making obvious that you are avoiding the point.</p> <p>The simple fact that you think you knew what I meant (you're instead of your), proves that my communication was flawless - and yet you choose to ignore it. As I said, your an idiot.</p> McIntyre, Thanks for making obvious that you are avoiding the point.

The simple fact that you think you knew what I meant (you’re instead of your), proves that my communication was flawless – and yet you choose to ignore it. As I said, your an idiot.

]]> By: cfdman http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html/comment-page-1#comment-3132 cfdman Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:02:41 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html#comment-3132 <p>Babby La, this is a very poor definition that would also include oxygen and nitrogen. The poorness is in the use of "undesirable".</p> <p>Get a new definition - CO2 is not a pollutant. The issue is one of amount, not the "undesirableness" of CO2.</p> Babby La, this is a very poor definition that would also include oxygen and nitrogen. The poorness is in the use of “undesirable”.

Get a new definition – CO2 is not a pollutant. The issue is one of amount, not the “undesirableness” of CO2.

]]> By: McIntyre http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html/comment-page-1#comment-3131 McIntyre Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:38:20 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html#comment-3131 <p>Anon - there is no logical reason to think that in the absence of 'local effects', only first-year ice would melt. The sun shines on the whole icecap, not just the bit that formed during the previous summer. But first year ice melts more easily, so more of it melts than of the multi-year ice. The higher the fraction of the icecap that is made of first-year ice, the more of it is liable to melt during the summer, and so the higher the fraction of first-year ice the next winter's ice-cap will be composed of, and so on. This is a good example of a positive feedback process. The rate of decline of ice area in the Arctic is observed to be accelerating.</p> <p>Mike - I did a google search for 'pollution', and the most useful definition given started by saying "<i>A substance which causes an undesirable change in the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of the natural environment</i>". CO2 is causing undesirable changes in the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the natural environment, so technically, yes it is a pollutant.</p> <p>Bobby Lane - google is rather useful. I did a search for "China pollution international pressure" and I came up with plentiful evidence that yes, China experiences pressure from both outside and from within to reduce its pollution. I can't quote the links because my post gets accused of being spam - but you can do the search.</p> <p><i>The Earth's air-conditioning mechanisms warm one pole while cooling the other in order to provide balance</i> - that is just pure nonsense. Sorry, but that is not how the climate works - not anything remotely like that. There is no mechanism at all which forces one pole to cool if the other is warming. Please take such spectacular ignorance elsewhere - I'm sure no-one wants to see that kind of thing here.</p> <p>cfdman - calling someone an idiot while using "your" instead of "you're" is what is known as "shooting yourself in the foot".</p> Anon – there is no logical reason to think that in the absence of ‘local effects’, only first-year ice would melt. The sun shines on the whole icecap, not just the bit that formed during the previous summer. But first year ice melts more easily, so more of it melts than of the multi-year ice. The higher the fraction of the icecap that is made of first-year ice, the more of it is liable to melt during the summer, and so the higher the fraction of first-year ice the next winter’s ice-cap will be composed of, and so on. This is a good example of a positive feedback process. The rate of decline of ice area in the Arctic is observed to be accelerating.

Mike – I did a google search for ‘pollution’, and the most useful definition given started by saying “A substance which causes an undesirable change in the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of the natural environment“. CO2 is causing undesirable changes in the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the natural environment, so technically, yes it is a pollutant.

Bobby Lane – google is rather useful. I did a search for “China pollution international pressure” and I came up with plentiful evidence that yes, China experiences pressure from both outside and from within to reduce its pollution. I can’t quote the links because my post gets accused of being spam – but you can do the search.

The Earth’s air-conditioning mechanisms warm one pole while cooling the other in order to provide balance – that is just pure nonsense. Sorry, but that is not how the climate works – not anything remotely like that. There is no mechanism at all which forces one pole to cool if the other is warming. Please take such spectacular ignorance elsewhere – I’m sure no-one wants to see that kind of thing here.

cfdman – calling someone an idiot while using “your” instead of “you’re” is what is known as “shooting yourself in the foot”.

]]> By: morganovich http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html/comment-page-1#comment-3130 morganovich Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:37:15 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/sucking-the-oxy.html#comment-3130 <p>mcintyre is "scientist" a troll who has recently taken to posting under other names to confuse the issue.</p> <p>i wouldn't waste too much time arguing with him.</p> mcintyre is “scientist” a troll who has recently taken to posting under other names to confuse the issue.

i wouldn’t waste too much time arguing with him.

]]>