Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

Redfish -

No one who understands the science here is "demonizing" anything. This is purely and simply a question of understanding, and judging from your suggestion that places with a lot of CO2 should be great for agriculture - thi may not be your strongest subject.

This paper explains the science in a fairly general way, but I hope you will read it and find it useful.

While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.

We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure. A vivid example is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect keeps our climate from freezing over. How can CO2 be considered a pollutant?

A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures.

Is CO2 a pollutant?
 
Last edited:
Destruction of forests is the much more likely cause of any rise in CO2 because there are fewer trees and plants to absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere.

But whether its .039% or .042%, CO2 remains a tiny fraction of our atmosphere, it is a natural occuring gas and without it there would be no plant life and consequently no human life.

funny how libtards want to demonize that which makes their lives possible.

What's funny is that you'd try to convince us that, because of warnings about the rise in CO2, it means someone would want to eliminate all CO2. Everyone knows it's important for life as we know it, but that's not the question. The fact that it's tiny fraction of the atmosphere is irrelevant. What's important are the known properties, the effect it has on temperature disregarding its recent rise and what the result might be, if it continues to rise.
 
And at some point you may realise that there are now only 7 people on earth who believe this.

The world has moved on BriPat. You don't need to move on with it, but you do need to realise that you are stuck arguing the benefits of the steam engine.


The fact is no one cares about the global warming con any more. In survey after survey, concern about global warming is at the bottom of the list. The game is over. You're pissing in the wind.

Yea, nobody cares anymore because they know that we will never do anything about it. We're just going to have to live with the consequences.

Or more likely die with them. The predictions are dire. Extinction level dire.
 
Redfish -

No one who understands the science here is "demonizing" anything. This is purely and simply a question of understanding, and judging from your suggestion that places with a lot of CO2 should be great for agriculture - thi may not be your strongest subject.

This paper explains the science in a fairly general way, but I hope you will read it and find it useful.

While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.

Is CO2 a pollutant?

Ok, I know you are trying to be serious, but this topic is just foolish. Water vapor does all of the things that you are claiming are done by CO2. Both are natural components of the atmosphere.

CO2 is not a pollutant unless you concentrate it into much greater per centages than found anywhere on earth. If you breath what comes out of your car's exhaust pipe it would not be good for you.

If you think man is destroying the earth, please fly across the atlantic or pacific oceans, fly across south america, north america, europe of even china, man's footprint on the earth is tiny.

we may be polluting small areas of the earth, but we are not destroying it or changing its climate. To think otherwise is the result of minimal education and experience.
 
Redfish -

I've linked to some fairly solid science, and it is entirely up to you whether you read them or make an attempt to understand them. It is strange to me that you talk about lack of education right after suggesting areas with high levels of CO2 should be great for agriculture.

btw, I have travelled far more than you have - and although there are certainly some empty spaces in the middle of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, to feels mans impact its also worth spending time in Delhi, Cairo, Johannesburg and Mexico City.
 
Last edited:
I didn't imply, you inferred.

The point is, we are throwing the most CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the world- 24% of them for only 5% of the world's population.

Since CO2 is a Greenhouse gas, and since greenhouse gases cause global warming, we are the biggest offender.

Actually, China is at present the biggest offender. However, we own the largest share of the anthropogenic CO2 that is presently in the atmosphere.

total horseshit! CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere today. In 500,000 BC it made up .039% of the atmosphere.

Man is not changing the climate of the planet. Man may be polluting the planet, but not changing its climate

Do not know who is feeding you wrong data but here are the facts:
Just from 2009 to the present the rise has been from .0386% of the atmosphere to .0397.
Within another year it will be .040% and rising.
1960 it was .032%

Go to NOAA site and see for yourself.

Growth has been 1 % a year on average since 1959.
 
The fact is no one cares about the global warming con any more. In survey after survey, concern about global warming is at the bottom of the list. The game is over. You're pissing in the wind.

Yea, nobody cares anymore because they know that we will never do anything about it. We're just going to have to live with the consequences.

Or more likely die with them. The predictions are dire. Extinction level dire.

ROFL! No one is ever going to die from global warming. In fact, the world will be more hospitable to human life if the climate warms.
 
Yea, nobody cares anymore because they know that we will never do anything about it. We're just going to have to live with the consequences.

Or more likely die with them. The predictions are dire. Extinction level dire.

ROFL! No one is ever going to die from global warming. In fact, the world will be more hospitable to human life if the climate warms.

Your ignorance is astounding. Life (including plant life) evolved and thrived under a specific climate. As the climate changes, all life (again, including plant life) will attempt to migrate to areas with similar climates where they are already adapted to survive and thrive, in part, because their food source is also adapted to such areas. Some life forms won't survive for a variety of reasons. In fact, some varieties of certain life forms have already disappeared. At least, no live ones can be found. And any life forms dependent, for whatever reason, on other life forms which can't transition to a warmer world, will also find itself stressed toward extinction.

Keep something in mind. The entire ecosystem of the ocean is likely dependent on one of the smallest life forms there. If the continuing existence of plankton alone were to become threatened merely because of a change of the acidity and temperature of the ocean, all aquatic life could be threatened.

As for human life, if OUR food sources becomes threatened, WE are threatened.
 
Last edited:
Or more likely die with them. The predictions are dire. Extinction level dire.

ROFL! No one is ever going to die from global warming. In fact, the world will be more hospitable to human life if the climate warms.

Your ignorance is astounding. Life (including plant life) evolved and thrived under a specific climate. As the climate changes, all life (again, including plant life) will attempt to migrate to areas with similar climates where they are already adapted to survive and thrive, in part, because their food source is also adapted to such areas. Some life forms won't survive for a variety of reasons. In fact, some varieties of certain life forms have already disappeared. At least, no live ones can be found. And any life forms dependent, for whatever reason, on other life forms which can't transition to a warmer world, will also find itself stressed toward extinction.

Keep something in mind. The entire ecosystem of the ocean is likely dependent on one of the smallest life forms there. If the continuing existence of plankton alone were to become threatened merely because of a change of the acidity and temperature of the ocean, all aquatic life could be threatened.

As for human life, if OUR food sources become threatened, WE are threatened.

LOL, what would be wrong with peach orchards in greenland and orange orchards in northern canada? the idea that a few degrees of warming will be the end of the earth as we know it is just idiotic.

our food supply is threatened by too many humans needing to be fed. If you libs want a real cause, why not take on over population? Thats a real problem that must be addressed if humanity is to survive.

But I know, its not as attractive as AGW where you can blame evil corporations and greedy individuals. the only blame for overpopulation is human sex drive. Maybe if you try to convince all young people to be gay--------------------
 
ROFL! No one is ever going to die from global warming. In fact, the world will be more hospitable to human life if the climate warms.

Your ignorance is astounding. Life (including plant life) evolved and thrived under a specific climate. As the climate changes, all life (again, including plant life) will attempt to migrate to areas with similar climates where they are already adapted to survive and thrive, in part, because their food source is also adapted to such areas. Some life forms won't survive for a variety of reasons. In fact, some varieties of certain life forms have already disappeared. At least, no live ones can be found. And any life forms dependent, for whatever reason, on other life forms which can't transition to a warmer world, will also find itself stressed toward extinction.

Keep something in mind. The entire ecosystem of the ocean is likely dependent on one of the smallest life forms there. If the continuing existence of plankton alone were to become threatened merely because of a change of the acidity and temperature of the ocean, all aquatic life could be threatened.

As for human life, if OUR food sources become threatened, WE are threatened.

LOL, what would be wrong with peach orchards in greenland and orange orchards in northern canada? the idea that a few degrees of warming will be the end of the earth as we know it is just idiotic.

our food supply is threatened by too many humans needing to be fed. If you libs want a real cause, why not take on over population? Thats a real problem that must be addressed if humanity is to survive.

But I know, its not as attractive as AGW where you can blame evil corporations and greedy individuals. the only blame for overpopulation is human sex drive. Maybe if you try to convince all young people to be gay--------------------

Again, your ignorance is glaring. Greenland is not frozen farmland. It's essentially a big rock, 80% of which is covered by an ice sheet 1,500 miles long and about 700 miles wide. If that ice WERE to melt (which would probably take at LEAST a few hundred years), it would raise the ocean level by almost 25 feet causing widespread death and destruction as people rushed into the interiors of their land masses.

As for northern Canada, that's not frozen farmland either. Much of it is frozen marshland which has a lot of trapped methane within it which is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Even if and when the land thawed, it doesn't mean that our crops would grow there because the land isn't fertile enough AND because the summers aren't long enough with enough sunlight (despite the temperature) in order to provide the photosynthesis necessary for the crops to grow to maturity. Put simply, the days AND the summers are TOO SHORT to grow plants that have evolved to grow under wholly different conditions.
 
Yea, nobody cares anymore because they know that we will never do anything about it. We're just going to have to live with the consequences.

Or more likely die with them. The predictions are dire. Extinction level dire.

ROFL! No one is ever going to die from global warming. In fact, the world will be more hospitable to human life if the climate warms.

Says who, Rush Limbaugh? Maybe you should listen to a Professor Emeritus on the subject.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ina16XSJQvM]The Twin Sides of the Fossil Fuel Coin - Guy MacPherson - YouTube[/ame]
 

Forum List

Back
Top