ChatterBank3 mins ago
Cop 26 Without Lobyists
To think that 500 so-called lobbyists were allowed to participate in this conference and push their case. Their case for fossil fuels. It beggars belief.
Fossil fools, indeed.
Fossil fools, indeed.
Answers
Bobbinwales - “... I know what the vast majority of scientists say...” Do you? Do you really? Wow. I suspect you are referring to the mythical '97%' of scientists who believe in the climate change mantra don't you? Unfortunatel
02:55 Sat 20th Nov 2021
And.... fossil fuels are 'wrong' because.....
Oh, yes, apparently CO2 controls the climate. But not just normal CO2. No. It's the evil man-made CO2 that's really causing the damage.
Problem is, CO2 doesn't control the climate. If it did, well known scientifically established periods such as the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period, etc., where atmospheric CO2 concentrations were considerably lower than they are today, simply could not have happened. But they did...
To take an example, during the Roman Warm Period, global temperatures where around 3 to 5 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. And yet the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was under 300 parts per million [ppm]. Today it's about 420ppm. So if it was warmer in the past when atmospheric CO2 levels were less than today, how does CO2 control the Earth's temperature?
You may be unaware, but CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere. Of that 0.04%, the burning of fossil fuels accounts for around 3%. Therefore, 97% of all atmospheric CO2 is natural – it is the out-gassing of oceans, volcanic activity and the decomposition of plants, etc. The relatively tiny amounts of CO2 emitted by the totality of humans through the burning of fossil fuels has an almost insignificant effect on the planet.
Oh, yes, apparently CO2 controls the climate. But not just normal CO2. No. It's the evil man-made CO2 that's really causing the damage.
Problem is, CO2 doesn't control the climate. If it did, well known scientifically established periods such as the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period, etc., where atmospheric CO2 concentrations were considerably lower than they are today, simply could not have happened. But they did...
To take an example, during the Roman Warm Period, global temperatures where around 3 to 5 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. And yet the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was under 300 parts per million [ppm]. Today it's about 420ppm. So if it was warmer in the past when atmospheric CO2 levels were less than today, how does CO2 control the Earth's temperature?
You may be unaware, but CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere. Of that 0.04%, the burning of fossil fuels accounts for around 3%. Therefore, 97% of all atmospheric CO2 is natural – it is the out-gassing of oceans, volcanic activity and the decomposition of plants, etc. The relatively tiny amounts of CO2 emitted by the totality of humans through the burning of fossil fuels has an almost insignificant effect on the planet.
//Wrong on every count//
Not every count. This is certainly not wrong:
//You may be unaware, but CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere.//
Scroll down a little here:
https:/
I've given up asking why the 3% of CO2 for which many is responsible is far more important than the other 97% (which obviously varies by far greater absolute amount) and I simply can't be bothered any more
https:/
Not every count. This is certainly not wrong:
//You may be unaware, but CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere.//
Scroll down a little here:
https:/
I've given up asking why the 3% of CO2 for which many is responsible is far more important than the other 97% (which obviously varies by far greater absolute amount) and I simply can't be bothered any more
https:/
Hadn't finished:
...I simply can't be bothered any more. It's clear that scientists and many other people have decided that a small percentage increase in the 3% is far more harmful than a similar percentage increase in the 97%. I've heard all the explanations of "overflowing bathtubs" and all the rest but they don't really provide a proper explanation. But as I said, I'm no longer bothered. But it is clear that some people accept without question everything they are told.
...I simply can't be bothered any more. It's clear that scientists and many other people have decided that a small percentage increase in the 3% is far more harmful than a similar percentage increase in the 97%. I've heard all the explanations of "overflowing bathtubs" and all the rest but they don't really provide a proper explanation. But as I said, I'm no longer bothered. But it is clear that some people accept without question everything they are told.
"I've given up asking why the 3% of CO2 for which many is responsible is far more important than the other 97% (which obviously varies by far greater absolute amount) and I simply can't be bothered any more"
because the additional co2 generated by burning fossil fuels is enough to cause an imbalance... it isn't that hard if you look at it without deciding to dismiss it beforehand...
because the additional co2 generated by burning fossil fuels is enough to cause an imbalance... it isn't that hard if you look at it without deciding to dismiss it beforehand...
sven should be a lobbyist for - - - the crazy people
if you come across to many non-sequiturs in the first sentence you just give up - Co2 may be in small amount but very active ( think catalyst from Chem CSE )
warm periods in prior times do NOT refute CO2 as a mechanism ever but DO refute as a cause then ( may do)
and yes there was a mediaeval warm period whcih ended on Jan 1st 1500 - and the people on Green land froze
before which you could grow and barvest grapes in Yorkshire. And yes there was a Roman warm period but they imported Falernian wines which gives an idea what the local hooch tasted like
and there was a mini ice age where the Thames in London regualrly froze and yes the old Lundy bridge before it fell down used to dam he flow so it was easier to freeze....
and then I lost the will to live
if you come across to many non-sequiturs in the first sentence you just give up - Co2 may be in small amount but very active ( think catalyst from Chem CSE )
warm periods in prior times do NOT refute CO2 as a mechanism ever but DO refute as a cause then ( may do)
and yes there was a mediaeval warm period whcih ended on Jan 1st 1500 - and the people on Green land froze
before which you could grow and barvest grapes in Yorkshire. And yes there was a Roman warm period but they imported Falernian wines which gives an idea what the local hooch tasted like
and there was a mini ice age where the Thames in London regualrly froze and yes the old Lundy bridge before it fell down used to dam he flow so it was easier to freeze....
and then I lost the will to live
//..because the additional co2 generated by burning fossil fuels is enough to cause an imbalance... it isn't that hard if you look at it without deciding to dismiss it beforehand...//
It is that hard. If a 97% share of something increases by 10% it will add 9.7% to the total. If 3% of that same something increases by 10% it will add 0.3% to the total. There is no reason to believe that the 97% is stable any more than there is to believe that the 3% is. So there is a far greater chance of variations in the 97% causing the "imbalance" that you speak of than there is of the 3%. What you are effectively saying is that the atmosphere can cope with changes in the 97% (which are just as likely and will have a greater effect) but it cannot cope with changes in the 3%. Why should that be?
It is that hard. If a 97% share of something increases by 10% it will add 9.7% to the total. If 3% of that same something increases by 10% it will add 0.3% to the total. There is no reason to believe that the 97% is stable any more than there is to believe that the 3% is. So there is a far greater chance of variations in the 97% causing the "imbalance" that you speak of than there is of the 3%. What you are effectively saying is that the atmosphere can cope with changes in the 97% (which are just as likely and will have a greater effect) but it cannot cope with changes in the 3%. Why should that be?
the fossil fuel industry knew about the dangers of climate change early on and did their best to hide it because it was bad for business
https:/
https:/
https:/
I think it is quite fair to deny these people a seat at the table... they are not neutral experts they are a big part of the reason we are in this mess... they should not be allowed to damage things further.
https:/
https:/
https:/
I think it is quite fair to deny these people a seat at the table... they are not neutral experts they are a big part of the reason we are in this mess... they should not be allowed to damage things further.
here is another that addresses it more directly:
https:/
https:/
Thanks for the links, UT. They make interesting if, in some aspects, highly speculative reading. I'm not really in a position to argue with much of this speculation. I still find it very convenient that the atmosphere can only deal with variations in the non-human CO2 levels (which must be large) but not with the human variety (which must be comparatively very small). But I'll not bother to argue because as I am constantly told, "the science is settled."
That said, the aspect that causes me the most concern is not that climate change will have an influence on the planet's suitability for humans, but how the Great and the Good, currently on their way home from Glasgow, intend to deal with it. Whether we like it or not, human lifestyles involve burning things and the largest polluters have showed little or no inclination to substantially cease those activities. Some of the proposals uttered in Glasgow either involve transferring money from those who have it to those who have not (which will almost certainly see it lost in the noise) or they involve adopting changes that simply will not work or have not yet been invented. Most of it is pie in the sky and a fortnight (and a small fortune) has been spent chewing over plans that are totally impractical. For that reason I believe it would be far better to invest resources in learning to live with climate change rather than trying to prevent it because one thing is for sure - the wind and puff that spewed forth from Glasgow and the places like it that have gone before - will not make a jot of difference to the climate.
That said, the aspect that causes me the most concern is not that climate change will have an influence on the planet's suitability for humans, but how the Great and the Good, currently on their way home from Glasgow, intend to deal with it. Whether we like it or not, human lifestyles involve burning things and the largest polluters have showed little or no inclination to substantially cease those activities. Some of the proposals uttered in Glasgow either involve transferring money from those who have it to those who have not (which will almost certainly see it lost in the noise) or they involve adopting changes that simply will not work or have not yet been invented. Most of it is pie in the sky and a fortnight (and a small fortune) has been spent chewing over plans that are totally impractical. For that reason I believe it would be far better to invest resources in learning to live with climate change rather than trying to prevent it because one thing is for sure - the wind and puff that spewed forth from Glasgow and the places like it that have gone before - will not make a jot of difference to the climate.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.