[N_Fiddledog]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Again, while I'm not an alarmist I find it hypocritical that the anti-AGW crowd simultaneously argues that warming isn't happening and ice isn't melting in greater amounts at the same time as arguing that the warming that "isn't happening" actually began before humans started emitting CO2s in effect causing quantities and is therefore normal.

Well Derby, I think you'd have less of a problem with what you believe the anti-AGW crowd is telling you if you actually listened to what they were saying.

None of the guys I read are saying warming hasn't been happening for the last at least 300 years or so, with cooling before that, and warming and cooling before that on many smaller and larger time scales. Nobody believes the climate doesn't change. Nobody thinks ice doesn't melt, or refreeze.

When you state human-caused, and I imagine you imply CO2 forced, warming is a fact, on a scale significant enough to cause crises, they respectfully disagree, and suggest the proof of such a proposal is not present in such a way real world (not modeled) science can find it.

Actually most skeptic scientists appear to think there should be at least some CO2 forced warming, but the word they use most often to describe it is miniscule.

[DerbyX]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Again, while I'm not an alarmist I find it hypocritical that the anti-AGW crowd simultaneously argues that warming isn't happening and ice isn't melting in greater amounts at the same time as arguing that the warming that "isn't happening" actually began before humans started emitting CO2s in effect causing quantities and is therefore normal.

Well Derby, I think you'd have less of a problem with what you believe the anti-AGW crowd is telling you if you actually listened to what they were saying.

None of the guys I read are saying warming hasn't been happening for the last at least 300 years or so, with cooling before that, and warming and cooling before that on many smaller and larger time scales. Nobody believes the climate doesn't change. Nobody thinks ice doesn't melt, or refreeze.

When you state human-caused, and I imagine you imply CO2 forced, warming is a fact, on a scale significant enough to cause crises, they respectfully disagree, and suggest the proof of such a proposal is not present in such a way real world (not modeled) science can find it.

Actually most skeptic scientists appear to think there should be at least some CO2 forced warming, but the word they use most often to describe it is miniscule.

I'm listening and so far it seems to be out and out deniers leading the way on your side just as you only seem to respond to the enviornment holocaust proponents.

The problem with "miniscule" as I see it is they have no evidence to support that as the science behind GHGs is well established as are the increased levels and reasons behind them.

While we aren't going to see day after tommorow movie scenarios the prevalence of humanity on the globe means that even a miniscule envornment disruption can be all out of whack because humanity has disrupted the cycles.

Organisms that migrate and follow narrower habitat ranges that shift with envornment changes may find their range sitting under a city and unaccesible.

The prevalence of humanity means that the envornment is much more sensitive to changes and the impact of changes on organsisms that could normally adapt won't be able to.

Humans have the ability to minimize, eliminate, or counter-balance our considerable impact on the only planet we currently have. Its our duty to do so and if cutting CO2 emmisions (even if far less having an impact as we suspect) is the cost then reasonable people shouldn't object.

What about the question concerning the SO2-CO2 connection? SO2s are an immediate health concern linked to alot of deaths? Given that we have to minimize them and their counter CO2 effect will be eliminated it stands to reason that the CO2 effect will be increased even more (not factored into miniscule) and that lowering CO2 levels is an obvious solution.

[stokes]

Derby I do agree with some of your posts, the fact of the matter is, is that with the exception of the EU no other continent on this planet is doing anything about global warming, espcially the 3 worst (china, india, and the us) so while I agree that we should do a lot more, unless everyone participates these discussions will go on forever and the situation will not get any better.

So if I do everything I can but no one else does ......is a difference actually made?

[DerbyX]

stokes stokes:

Derby I do agree with some of your posts, the fact of the matter is, is that with the exception of the EU no other continent on this planet is doing anything about global warming, espcially the 3 worst (china, india, and the us) so while I agree that we should do a lot more, unless everyone participates these discussions will go on forever and the situation will not get any better.

So if I do everything I can but no one else does ......is a difference actually made?

OK. Think about what you said then apply it to everyday life like throwing your trash in a bin rather then on the road. Sure, some people don't and you can't live anywhere in a city or town without seeing trash on the ground but imagine if everybody did it?

I agree with your sentiment that other countries are getting the pass which is why I don't support kyoto. Canada needs to find its own path and I think that path revolves more on spending a few billion per year paying students to plant trees and shrubs on a large scale (not just pine replacement) as sinks as a first step and investing in CO2 scrubber technology.

Leading by example is the first step. Showing that conservation and gross CO2 production can be reduced cheaply and efficiently is paramount to convincing others it can work.

There is also the idea that if Canada leads the way rather then follows the pack (as we used do) then our so called international esteem will be greatly improved far more then getting bogged down in conflict.

Why not be the country that sets the example rather the country that says "nobody else is so why should we?"

[N_Fiddledog]

I know it's a bug when one has to do this, but sometimes when a poster gets his points all scattered about, one pretty much has too pretty much respond in the manner below.

DerbyX DerbyX:

I'm listening and so far it seems to be out and out deniers leading the way on your side just as you only seem to respond to the enviornment holocaust proponents.

And seeing as I'm responding to you is that the agenda your pushing then? Environmental holocaust from CO2 forced warming? I need to know, because I need to discover what the focus of your argument is.

$1:

The problem with "miniscule" as I see it is they have no evidence to support that as the science behind GHGs is well established as are the increased levels and reasons behind them.

While we aren't going to see day after tommorow movie scenarios the prevalence of humanity on the globe means that even a miniscule envornment disruption can be all out of whack because humanity has disrupted the cycles.

Organisms that migrate and follow narrower habitat ranges that shift with envornment changes may find their range sitting under a city and unaccesible.

The prevalence of humanity means that the envornment is much more sensitive to changes and the impact of changes on organsisms that could normally adapt won't be able to.

OK so, the world has been rising by about .5 of a degree for at least the last 300 years. The 20th century perhaps rose by .7. Exactly what sort of environmental disasters are you expecting from a continued rise of .2 of a degree per century? Keeping in mind most species, including man, tend to do better in warmer climates.

$1:

Humans have the ability to minimize, eliminate, or counter-balance our considerable impact on the only planet we currently have. Its our duty to do so and if cutting CO2 emmisions (even if far less having an impact as we suspect) is the cost then reasonable people shouldn't object.

Let's assume we follow the precautionary principle then, and do something about it. Do you oppose Nuclear? It's clean. No CO2. It works. What about CO2 scrubbing - simply taking the CO2 out of the air. It's starting to look like it can be done, but environmentalists oppose it, because it allows man to continue using carbon fuels.

I assume from the below you don't want to do what Tim Flannery, and other alarmist nutcakes want to do. Spray SO2 into the air, to cool the planet. It creates acid rain.

$1:

What about the question concerning the SO2-CO2 connection? SO2s are an immediate health concern linked to alot of deaths? Given that we have to minimize them and their counter CO2 effect will be eliminated it stands to reason that the CO2 effect will be increased even more (not factored into miniscule) and that lowering CO2 levels is an obvious solution.

So2 is an actual pollutant, unlike Co2. Let's get rid of that So2 crap. I'm all for cleaner air. Myself, I'm not sure we know exactly how much the cooling effect is of existing, human-caused, So2 in the atmospere. As I understand it any warming effect from Co2 is too insignificant to worry about, so if So2's suggested reflective abilities cancels it out, I don't expect to notice. Here's one you may find interesting. It doesn't prove anything. It's just interesting.

Nature conducts a sulfur dioxide experiment in the Pacific

[DerbyX]

$1:

I know it's a bug when one has to do this, but sometimes when a poster gets his points all scattered about, one pretty much has too pretty much respond in the manner below.

You mean resorting to the tried and true forum method employed by about 99% of us is usually too difficult?

$1:

And seeing as I'm responding to you is that the agenda your pushing then? Environmental holocaust from CO2 forced warming? I need to know, because I need to discover what the focus of your argument is.

The focus of my argument is fairly simple.

1) Humans are having an impact on global temperatures via gas emmisions (not counting our pollution quotient)

2) While climate change won't devestate the earth to an apocolyptic extreme it will certainly have dire effects on regions of the earth and on species of flora and fauna some of which we may depend on.

3) Its complete ignorance to think we humans aren't having an impact and to blindly flail about without a clue in the world.

4) We have the capacity to minimize our impact so why shouldn't we strive to do that? Take the adage of many a natural reserve park ... "Take only memories and leave only footprints".

$1:

OK so, the world has been rising by about .05 of a degree for at least the last 300 years. The 20th century perhaps rose by .07. Exactly what sort of environmental disasters are you expecting from a continued rise of .02 of a degree per century? Keeping in mind most species, including man, tend to do better in warmer climates.

Can you prove that without simply ignoring all the science that contradicts it?

As for your analogy that most species do better in warm temps is simply a red flag that you don't understand that main concern is for the species that don't.

$1:

Let's assume we follow the precautionary principle then, and do something about it. Do you oppose Nuclear? It's clean. No CO2. It works. What about CO2 scrubbing - simply taking the CO2 out of the air. It's starting to look like it can be done, but environmentalists oppose it, because it allows man to continue using carbon fuels.

I support nuclear power 110% and have stated so often. I already posted about CO2 scrubbers or did you just skim my posts?

PS. The enviornmentalist don't oppose it just because a few people do.

$1:

I assume from the below you don't want to do what Tim Flannery, and other alarmist nutcakes want to do. Spray SO2 into the air, to cool the planet. It creates acid rain.

I have already posted about SO2. Did you even read my post or did you just craft your response based on sterotypes?

I'm not responding further because you have already misrepresented my position in several key issues.

When you re-craft your response taking into account my true position and re ask your questions let me know.

[Pseudonym]

DerbyX, you came off as a bit rude there. Not everyone is going to search through all your posts to find your position on every issue, nor should they have to do so. Leading off with an insult in response to an innocent lament isn't really becoming.

[DerbyX]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

DerbyX, you came off as a bit rude there. Not everyone is going to search through all your posts to find your position on every issue, nor should they have to do so. Leading off with an insult in response to an innocent lament isn't really becoming.

Yet he ascribed or assumed insulting positions against me and (if you read the thread) completely misrepresented my position in the very posts he was responding to.

Witness his belief that I think decreasing CO2 is so important i would accept spewing SO2s into the environment and my belief that CO2 sinks are a good idea in contradiction to

DerbyX DerbyX:

A truly troubling dilemma is that sun-blocking particles such as sulphur dioxides mask the effect of heat retaining CO2 but those dioxides are true pollutants and cause a great deal of death through respiratory problems. We cannot count on them as an effective guard against the effects of increased CO2 and the CO2 crowd does itself no favours by not explaining that reduction of all gases is their focus as the recent evidence showing them ignoring excellent CO2 sink ideas that don't involve reduction of emission shows.

Clearly the opposite of what he suggested and apparently you only read enough to craft this response and are just as guilty.

He may not have known I am a proponent of nuclear energy but he certainly mangled my other positions concerning SO2s and CO2 sinks as did you.

If thats insulting then the obvious solution is to fully read the thread before posting to accurately ascribe the correct position to the poster.

I didn't misrepresent his position did I?

[Pseudonym]

How did I mangle your positions? I tried to politely indicate that I felt you were being rude. Fiddledog may have misunderstood your position, and your criticism of that is fine and dandy, but you have no reason for being rude/tossing in an insult.

EDIT: And no, I believe you have correctly represented his positions as you have perceived them. I have no issue with that.

[DerbyX]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

How did I mangle your positions? I tried to politely indicate that I felt you were being rude. Fiddledog may have misunderstood your position, and your criticism of that is fine and dandy, but you have no reason for being rude/tossing in an insult.

EDIT: And no, I believe you have correctly represented his positions as you have perceived them. I have no issue with that.

First off nothing I said was anywhere near an insult and certainly it was all in the same vein as this:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I know it's a bug when one has to do this, but sometimes when a poster gets his points all scattered about, one pretty much has too pretty much respond in the manner below.

That can and was taken as rude also.

I'd like you to quote the actual sentences you have a problem with so I can better understand your problem as I believe I only responded in kind.

[Pseudonym]

Alright, I didn't see how one could percieve

$1:

I know it's a bug when one has to do this, but sometimes when a poster gets his points all scattered about, one pretty much has too pretty much respond in the manner below.

as rude. I read it an instantly recognized what I find slightly irritating about forum debates myself, which is the enormous quote-by-quote things. They are necessary, but I, and apparently N_Fiddledog, find them annoying. Your response to that I certainly found rude and insulting.

$1:

You mean resorting to the tried and true forum method employed by about 99% of us is usually too difficult?

The only other thing I primarily took issue with was this declaration

$1:

I'm not responding further because you have already misrepresented my position in several key issues.

When you re-craft your response taking into account my true position and re ask your questions let me know.

This not only implies that he intentionally misrepresented your position, but seems pompous as well, as it sets yourself above the other individual.

Other than those two things, I'm really quite satisfied. I appreciate your time.

[DerbyX]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

as rude. I read it an instantly recognized what I find slightly irritating about forum debates myself, which is the enormous quote-by-quote things. They are necessary, but I, and apparently N_Fiddledog, find them annoying. Your response to that I certainly found rude and insulting.

The quote by quote debating is quite frankly a forum bread and butter post. Its an efficient and well organized way to debate in a written format and this is the first time I have ever read about somebody being insulted by it.

Personally I think its an excellent form of debate in this arena.

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

The only other thing I primarily took issue with was this declaration

DerbyX DerbyX:

I'm not responding further because you have already misrepresented my position in several key issues.

When you re-craft your response taking into account my true position and re ask your questions let me know.

This not only implies that he intentionally misrepresented your position, but seems pompous as well, as it sets yourself above the other individual.

Other than those two things, I'm really quite satisfied. I appreciate your time.

No offence but that a pretty noob observation. Thats a compliment by my standards. Was I wrong? Did he not misrepresent my position and attemp a strawman attack on me? He did. Why should I continue when he was obviously incorrect as to my position? His next paragraph was pseudoscience nonsense about injecting SO2 into the atmosphere as evidence for his incorrect assumption about my position.

Hell, I think I was being polite given the circumstances.

[N_Fiddledog]

It's OK guys, I'll take a little blame (credit) for pushing Derby's buttons a little. I was feeling him out. Looking for a hidden agenda. Sometimes when people speak in generalities such as the general idea man can screw things up, there's a specific agenda at the bottom of it. You know like you speak in general terms of some maxim people can be generally sympathetic towards, but really there's something uglier below the surface driving it. I was looking for that. You know what I'm talking about, like the kind of thing Suzuki does.

You know what though? I think me and Derby can get along. Even though we disagree on which side of the argument the most support lies, as far as how much, if any, actual CO2 forced warming there is in the real world, the strategy for reaction the both of us appear to desire isn't that different.

Basically it boils down to precautionary principle. If you're living in say New Orleans it makes sense to build better dykes. There's enough reason to suspect a possible problem to look for insurance against the possible calamity. On the other hand if you're say George Bush it might be a mistake to go roaring into Irag with missiles blazing, because you think you might have some kind of shaky evidence suggesting Sadaam might have some sort of WMDs.

What a person wants as far as far as precautionary principle is concerned is a reasonable reaction, based on a reasonable expectation of problems. Then he wants to invest a reasonable amount in insurance against the perceived possible difficulties in a way which will weaken him the least, and not cause worse problems than those he hopes to insure against.

The general expectation man might somehow screw up isn't enough to go on, even though history suggests there's good reason to be wary of that possibility. The problem with asking man to fix the man problem is the solution might be worse than the perceived consequences. For example filling the world's gas tanks with its food supply as remedy for a possible problem might turn out to be a problem itself. Cutting down the rain forest to do it might be a problem too. Maybe it's best not to do that sort of stuff.

The first thing a skeptic would like to do is determine scientifically if there is a problem, and if so how much. But he'd like to see it done smart. Billions of dollars on virtual reality models based on preconceived notions of warming, when we can't even measure the world's temperatures accurately is not smart. The skeptic would like to see the agenda taken out of the science.

Skeptics aren't against stuff like alternative energy. There against dumb stuff that doesn't work being pushed forward based on political expediency.

Skeptics aren't against pollution control of actual pollution, or finding new technologies to deal with it. They're against diverting funds away from such fundamental problems to deal with imagined ones. Find the proof CO2 is causing a genuine problem, and they'll help you celebrate. Present proof that isn't however, and they'll tell you that's what it is.

Skeptics are against weakening the economy to deal with a possible problem which has yet to present any concrete evidence of being a real threat, because a strong economy is necessary to deal with it if it does turn out to be problematic. Also there are existing problems which really are problems.

Also this whole idea of passing power to dodgy power centers like the UN, so-called developing countries, or unscrupulous carbon-traders out of unfounded fear of a benign gas, in the desperate notion they're the solution, and not a bigger risk than anything poor little CO2 can do to us is just plain dumb.