Bit difficult to tell when people are being sarcastic on a forum like this - especially when some of the people arguing against scientifically established facts have trotted out this 'co2 is part of our breath' nonsense.
Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
s23bog wrote:
CO2 is part of the ecosystem. It is not something that one should be surprised to find.
Your thinking is childish. No-one is "surprised to find" CO2. The problem is that massive increases in its concentration disrupt the climate.
Humans have increased CO2 by 50% since the industrial revolution, and this increase could double in a few decades.
s23 is a troll - has nothing useful to say - ought to be ignored - his last comment for example is mindless blather and it surely knows it.
0
#7606
s23bog wrote:
What is your objection to my last comment? If I were up in space, I'd surely want to take some CO2 with me. Wouldn't you?
Even if something is useful, having too much of it can be a problem. Medicine is useful but taking too much of it can kill you. And more to the point - no one is suggesting that co2 levels be reduced to zero. Just that we reduce emissions to levels that will not endanger future generations or cost future societies huge amounts of money in solving the problems associated with a hotter climate.
s23, if you can't comprehend that the quantity of something matters, you are not really in a position to participate in this discussion. Several of your comments suggest this is so. Your dismissal of climate science is extremely arrogant, and based on ignorance and emotional guessing.
[An example from a different science: glucose is an important energy source. A certain range of levels in the blood is normal, and maintained by a system involving the hormones insulin and glucagon.
If it is enormously higher, you may be harmed or even die. This is something of which diabetics have to be wary. If it is much lower, you will be forced into ketosis and will have some symptoms because of having to use a less ideal energy source. So it is neither all good nor all bad: the quantity matters. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetic-coma/symptoms-causes/syc-20371475.]
0
#7608
Well you should care s23. If you don't that just shows your ignorance and complacency. We have a small window of opportunity (maybe 30 to 50 years) to change and make living on this planet easier for our children. The thing I'm sore about is that your attitude is holding back progress. The more people show that they care about what is happening and what will happen in future, the more pressure it puts upon the fossil fuel companies to change. If everyone adopts a 'meh - so what' attitude they will carry on making those huge profits and screw the consequences. They are not going to give those up unless pushed - why would they? Just like the tobacco corporations - they didn't stop making cigarettes after it was proved they cause cancer did they.
s23bog wrote:
I'd say if anyone is emotionally invested in this discussion, it is you @elroch. I assure you that I don't really care about all this talk about the sky falling.
Can you even get your head round the notion that you are wrong?
Your views are a vague guess against many decades of solid scientific analysis by thousands of people much more knowledgeable than you.
It doesn't really matter if you are concerned. It matters a lot whether responsible people in policy influencing positions are not only concerned but have the strength of character to do something about it.
You have a glib anti-scientific view that anthropogenic climate change is not a threat to people (and have shown no concern about the grave threat to the wider ecosystem). There is solid agreement based on the science that there are many harmful consequences. You feel you can just guess and be more reliable. Climate science ain't blitz chess (and if it was there would be other people who would be far more reliable than you).
That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
Our general, objective knowledge of the real world is scientific, and it ain't ever going to go away unless humans go extinct or become stupid.
s23bog wrote:
I prefer a more hopeful outlook as to why we might advance beyond the limits of science.
Science is about objective general knowledge. There is a great deal that is beyond it, but it is not objective general knowledge.
In information theory thermodynamics, conservation of information refers to the hypothesis or argument that "information" is physically equivalent to "energy", or in some versions of the argument "entropy", and that there exists a conservation law forinformation, analogous to the other conserved quantities, e.g. mass, ...
The information will still exist,even when nobody is there to think about it.
0
#7619
I am not religious myself but if you are (s23) there are many passages in the Bible about protecting God's creation and respecting the environment. Any form of pollution whether it be co2, methane, plastic or laying waste to vast areas such as the tar sands is an abomination. Let's face it - Jesus would be an environmentalist today and would have been particularly scathing about corporations making huge sums of money from devastating our lands, forests or seas.
0
#7620
A 'bit of weather' is probably not something to worry about. Altering the climate so that the environment is damaged most definitely is. Because when you damage the environment you damage human lives - coastal erosion, droughts, floods, wildfires, damage to agriculture, depletion of fish stocks, extreme weather events - all of these things will be made worse by an increase in global temperatures. And all of these things can be avoided by making changes to the way we organise society. Not easy changes but far easier than maintaining the status quo and having to cope with the consequences. Still, don't let me disrupt you from your lazy, cowardly, head-in-the-sand complacency that seems to be your attitude to life.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
And co2 exhaled does NOT contribute to the increases in atmospheric co2. When we eat plants they have drawn the co2 out of the atmosphere and we breathe it back in - so its not a net (long term) gain.