It’s close enough to “God will save us/God would never let warming happen!” (second column, fourth row down) that I’d let you count it.
The USA has lowered its CO2 output much more than the EU or China. In fact only the USA has lowered its CO2 output – and quite dramatic, while the EU and China are growing theirs. Mainly because the EU is dragging its feet on fracking.
Do you have a cite for that? I thought the US AND the EU had pretty much flattened out their CO2 output, but neither had dropped it very much. I would have expected the EU to have flattened their output more than the US, not the other way around, and certainly I wouldn’t think either had done anything ‘quite dramatic’ in nature.
The U.S. is down to something like 1995 levels. This is primarily as a result of increased natural gas usage and the recession. Europe has been pretty flat and China is growing like crazy. The Middle East and India are also growing pretty fast.
Here’s a decent story to read.
Rise in U.S. Gas Production Fuels Unexpected Plunge in Emissions
Yes, we should only hope that the rest of the world will follow in China’s footsteps on environmentalism.
I call dibs on the ones I predicted!
Well to be honest that’s a really dumb list. I seriously question any scientific theory or scientist that needs to label divergent or opposing views no matter how stupid as “denialism” and people holding them as “deniers.” Supposedly they see themselves as truthers then, following the one true truth. Much too much religion in all this. Scepticism is the heart of all science; a scientist that isn’t a sceptic doesn’t deserve to call himself scientist.
So what do you think of vaccines…?
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant
From the perspective of environmentalism the worst thing we can do is things that advance the human species.
I’m not sure what your question is, but in general, anything that advances the success of humans as a species is a net harm to the environment.
We create substantial harm to the natural ecology of the earth just because we are so invasive. For example, just to feed us has driven many species in the ocean to the brink of extinction, along with ploughing up a good bit of prairie and forest. Housing us is a whole other story. On and on…
But it’s ridiculous to make it sound as if the US is somehow doing better than China.
Our CO2 production per capita is currently over triple theirs, and much of their output is secondary producing stuff we like to consume.
Cute post, but I’m trying to figure out your point.
Personally, I’m an AGW agnostic from a “what should we do” perspective.
I don’t care if it’s real; I don’t care about the predictions of the dire consequences. Mocking and name-calling on either side does not concern me.
We have a long history of hand-wringing and anxious predictions that don’t pan out. We also have a long history of screwing up the environment and killing the earth. I don’t think I have some magic insight into which of those is the case here.
I just want the pro-“do-something” crowd to focus on what they think we should do, because that does affect where I want to invest.
In the other hand, no one will listen then to the ones that are not do not offer anything at all.
It is not magic, it is science, the magic is in assuming that laws of physics will not work in the near future when the levels of GWG continue to increase.
And that just shows that in previous discussions it was false environmentalists the ones that you depended for information, claiming ignorance at this late date does discredit the skill of those sources.
Is there another way to state these points? I am trying to understand them.
Just saying, if your only points are just to say nothing or neutral (agnostic), well, no one will pay attention to point like yours when most of the people will (and are) finally realizing how misleading those FUD points are.
To clarify the wording errors due to a cold, I have to clarify that:
The say so that “We have a long history of hand-wringing and anxious predictions that don’t pan out.” ignores that climate science has looked at the most likely outcomes that we can expect with a rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, and has done that for more than one hundred years already, hence the point that it is clear that you continue to rely on denialist sources for information on what to think about this issue, if one was aware of the real history of this issue one could not come with such a howler.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
So, it is not magic, it is science that tell us that this prediction was made a long time ago and we are seeing it unfold already, the magic is in reality with the denialist sources when they assume that the laws of physics will not **continue **to work in the near future when the levels of GWG continue to increase.
GIGObuster:
I am wondering if you yourself have had any personal response to this looming problem. If so, would you be willing to share it? Are you biking to work? Flying coach when you could have been in First? Turning down a private jet for the bus?
I am also wondering if you might advance your own preferred large-scale solution…Nuclear? Carbon credits?
Thanks.
I defer to what the experts recommend in the cites already provided, yeah I know, many contrarians do not like that answer, but what I have found out is that in reality the idea is to get posters on a message board to give opinions that can be wrong, IMHO the idea is to get easier to nitpick points, rather that looking at what the experts are saying.
IMHO there are many things in life that one is not an expert of, that is why policy makers look at them, they are even less likely to look at posters that continue to claim “agnosticism” on this issue. It is really tiresome to continue to encounter people that do not look at cites with experts with confirmed skill in the matter, this tells others what they need to know about the ones just asking questions. The idea they have is to think that there is no need to look at the cites and learn or to deal properly with the issue.
So just look at the information in the links from Skeptical Science already provided in my reply to you on “what to invest” three posts back.
…The OP states that: atmospheric CO2 is higher than its ever been in **The entirety of human existence ** - longer even,
but then shares as proof an account of the: daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa,Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time since measurements began in 1958.
So - we on the Straight Dope -a messageboard that is supposedly in existence to counter small minded incoherent scientifically, religiously, politically vacuous BULLSHIT are accepting as SCIENTIFIC TRUTH a measurement that has only occurred for the past 55 years that is claimed to make a case for the previous (as per accepted science) 2 Billion years?
BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!
Anyone who accepts the OP on its face does not accept science, but accepts the Modern Religion of Science.
1958 to now - there is nothing significant about this time frame. Anyone who believes there is anything significant is only acknowledging their modern cultural (worship science as a religion) vacuousness.
I like them just fine. The other day I saw a very bad movie on Augustus, which only saving grace was that the Queen of Egypt Cleopatra had a very visible chickenpox vaccination mark. In Pakistan and some parts of Africa they like to murder child vaccination doctors. Some vaccinations have had some unfortunate side effects. Sometimes disastrous. I’m rather sceptical about the influenza vaccine they’re trying to sell me every year. I doubt how effective it is, I suspect it has more to do with some medical companies wanting to make a buck. I never tried it, but perhaps it is good if you’re really old. I’m also something of a puritan when it comes to medication. A little bit of pain and a bit of flue is probably a good thing once in a while. To remind of that we’re mortal. Hope it answers your question.
:dubious: Um, you do know that the Mauna Loa observations are not the only records of historical atmospheric concentrations of CO2, right?
Claims about previous CO2 concentrations during “the entirety of human existence” (which btw is nowhere near 2 billion years old, and nobody here has claimed it is) are based on ice core samples that have been preserved since prehistoric and even pre-human times.
The reason the Mauna Loa observations are cited is because they’re our chief indicator of what’s happening to CO2 in the atmosphere now, not because anyone thinks they in themselves are a reliable guide to what happened to it thousands or millions of years ago.
Or was this a whoosh? Because it’s hard to believe that anyone could really have mistaken the point about Mauna Loa observations only going back to 1958 for a valid argument.
Stupidity is a typical symptom of denialism, as are dishonesty and resistance to rational argument. Divergent or opposing views that are intelligent, honest and rational generally do not get labeled as denialism.