Pollution, climate change, or control?

[Richard-H]

Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?

Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?

I don't believe that. I accept that certain types of pollution are climate change catalysts, not a form climate change itself.

Seriously?

People living in an unnatural environment where the change in the air causes lung diseases, skin problems and disease, eye problems and other health problems, where the air stinks...on an ongoing basis...is not a form of climate change?

Perhaps you should visit a few Chinese cities....

Seriously?

Did I stutter? I thought I was quite clear about what I think pollution is and how it relates to climate change. So, yes, seriously.

I don't believe that. I accept that certain types of pollution are climate change catalysts, not a form climate change itself.

People living in an unnatural environment where the change in the air causes lung diseases, skin problems and disease, eye problems and other health problems, where the air stinks...on an ongoing basis...is not a form of climate change?

Yes, I think "the change in the air" is climate change, but the stuff that changed the air, the stuff in the air, is not climate change; it's pollution. The "change" and the "stuff" that effects the change are not the same things and I'm not going to conflate them.

Perhaps you should visit a few Chinese cities....

Will Shenzhen, Dalian, Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Chongqing, and Lanzhou do? Going to any of them, and what one'll find in the air there, isn't going to alter the difference between pollution and climate change.

You are missing up the terms 'pollutant' and 'pollution'.

The 'stuff that changed the air' are the pollutants. The change in the air is 'pollution'.

You are missing up the terms 'pollutant' and 'pollution'.

No, I'm not "missing up" [sic] those two terms:

• Air Pollution and Climate Change - Windows to the Universe
  
• Environment Pollution and Climate Change
  
• Air Pollution and Climate Change | IASS Potsdam
  
• Environmental Pollution and its Relation to Climate Change
  
• The Habitable Planet Unit 11 - Atmospheric Pollution // Online Textbook

Amazing! You post a bunch of links thinking that I won't check them out...guess what!

Your links strongly support my arguments:

"Air pollution changes our planet’s climate, but not all types of air pollution have the same effect."

"Air pollution and climate change are closely related."

"Air pollutants are major contributors to climate change."

Those are the first three lines of the first, second and last of the articles you posted.

As far as the definitions:

pol·lu·tion
pəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

pol·lu·tant
pəˈlo͞otnt/
noun

1. a substance that pollutes something, especially water or the atmosphere.

Thank you for proving my argument! You saved me a lot of time!

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't believe that. I accept that certain types of pollution are climate change catalysts, not a form climate change itself.

Seriously?

People living in an unnatural environment where the change in the air causes lung diseases, skin problems and disease, eye problems and other health problems, where the air stinks...on an ongoing basis...is not a form of climate change?

Perhaps you should visit a few Chinese cities....

Seriously?

Did I stutter? I thought I was quite clear about what I think pollution is and how it relates to climate change. So, yes, seriously.

I don't believe that. I accept that certain types of pollution are climate change catalysts, not a form climate change itself.

People living in an unnatural environment where the change in the air causes lung diseases, skin problems and disease, eye problems and other health problems, where the air stinks...on an ongoing basis...is not a form of climate change?

Yes, I think "the change in the air" is climate change, but the stuff that changed the air, the stuff in the air, is not climate change; it's pollution. The "change" and the "stuff" that effects the change are not the same things and I'm not going to conflate them.

Perhaps you should visit a few Chinese cities....

Will Shenzhen, Dalian, Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Chongqing, and Lanzhou do? Going to any of them, and what one'll find in the air there, isn't going to alter the difference between pollution and climate change.

You are missing up the terms 'pollutant' and 'pollution'.

The 'stuff that changed the air' are the pollutants. The change in the air is 'pollution'.

You are missing up the terms 'pollutant' and 'pollution'.

No, I'm not "missing up" [sic] those two terms:

• Air Pollution and Climate Change - Windows to the Universe
  
• Environment Pollution and Climate Change
  
• Air Pollution and Climate Change | IASS Potsdam
  
• Environmental Pollution and its Relation to Climate Change
  
• The Habitable Planet Unit 11 - Atmospheric Pollution // Online Textbook

Amazing! You post a bunch of links thinking that I won't check them out...guess what!

Your links strongly support my arguments:

"Air pollution changes our planet’s climate, but not all types of air pollution have the same effect."

"Air pollution and climate change are closely related."

"Air pollutants are major contributors to climate change."

Those are the first three lines of the first, second and last of the articles you posted.

As far as the definitions:

pol·lu·tion
pəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

pol·lu·tant
pəˈlo͞otnt/
noun

1. a substance that pollutes something, especially water or the atmosphere.

Thank you for proving my argument! You saved me a lot of time!

Fine, you just keep thinking the content you read says what you think it does. I'm not going to endeavor any further to show you that "pollution" and "climate change" are not synonyms, synonymous or analogues for one another.

 

[LaDexter]

"Air pollutants are major contributors to climate change."

Funny, in the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, proving the atmosphere didn't have any effect on either event...

 

[LaDexter]

It baffles me how people like you can't understand and how you can adamantly deny the effects that mans increasing and decreasing elements that effect the homeostasis of our planet, has on our climate

We do not "deny" anything. We just notice your full of shit FRAUD has the following RAW DATA refuting it...

1. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica INCREASING every year, as it has for tens of millions of years
2. highly correlated satellite and balloon RAW DATA shows NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
3. the "warmers" cite the Marshall Islands "sinking" as "proof" the oceans are rising. What they fail to point out is that the Marshall Islands are right on the lip of the tectonic formation known as the Pacific Ring of Fire, and will be under the Earth's crust in 3 million years.
4. the "warmers" have been busted too many times for fudging to take them seriously. What does "hide the decline" have to do with science? A: that is not science, it is FUDGE and FRAUD

 

[odanny]

trying to understand what is really behind the left's obsession with "man made climate change".

If its reducing man made pollution, I am all in with them. So are 99% of the people of planet earth.

If its an unproven link between pollution and climate, its bunk and not necessary----- if the goal is reducing pollution

If its controlling human activity, which I believe it is, then they can stick it where the sun never shines.
Liberals seem to think that they know how the rest of us should live and want to force us to live as they dictate, where to set our thermostats, what kind of light bulbs, what kind of cars, what kind of food, how our power is generated, where we can travel, and what we must believe---------------because they have all the answers and they are always right.

Listen libs, pollution is bad, everyone wants to stop pollution. You don't need a fake link between pollution and climate to make the case for stopping pollution. Soooooooooo, your real issue has to be control of the actions of others.

Comments?

The problem is you reject science, and science is conclusive in that mankinds burning of fossil fuels and the release of carbon and methane into the earths atmosphere is creating a greenhouse effect much greater than what occurs normally. Your ignorance about science should not be allowed to jeopardize the future of our planet but unfortunately those Republican politicians who take in millions from gas and oil are able to convince low information people like yourself that science is fake. To quote your President: SAD!

 

[odanny]

It baffles me how people like you can't understand and how you can adamantly deny the effects that mans increasing and decreasing elements that effect the homeostasis of our planet, has on our climate

We do not "deny" anything. We just notice your full of shit FRAUD has the following RAW DATA refuting it...

1. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica INCREASING every year, as it has for tens of millions of years
2. highly correlated satellite and balloon RAW DATA shows NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
3. the "warmers" cite the Marshall Islands "sinking" as "proof" the oceans are rising. What they fail to point out is that the Marshall Islands are right on the lip of the tectonic formation known as the Pacific Ring of Fire, and will be under the Earth's crust in 3 million years.
4. the "warmers" have been busted too many times for fudging to take them seriously. What does "hide the decline" have to do with science? A: that is not science, it is FUDGE and FRAUD

Holy Jesus, you're stupid.

 

[Slade3200]

It baffles me how people like you can't understand and how you can adamantly deny the effects that mans increasing and decreasing elements that effect the homeostasis of our planet, has on our climate

We do not "deny" anything. We just notice your full of shit FRAUD has the following RAW DATA refuting it...

1. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica INCREASING every year, as it has for tens of millions of years
2. highly correlated satellite and balloon RAW DATA shows NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
3. the "warmers" cite the Marshall Islands "sinking" as "proof" the oceans are rising. What they fail to point out is that the Marshall Islands are right on the lip of the tectonic formation known as the Pacific Ring of Fire, and will be under the Earth's crust in 3 million years.
4. the "warmers" have been busted too many times for fudging to take them seriously. What does "hide the decline" have to do with science? A: that is not science, it is FUDGE and FRAUD

Its pretty easy to cherry pick the miscalculations, corruption, fudged reports, missed predictions, etc etc etc. Its actually fine to do, good science depends on critique and the challenging of ideas. However, you point out such a small fraction of the "big picture" and dismiss the overwhelming consensus of experts from multiple countries all over the world.

You can keep pounding the pavement on these cherry picked talking points that you like to focus on but they do not make a convincing argument to dismiss what scientists do agree on. The earth is warming, that is a fact. The warming is causing changes in or environment. We need to be prepared for these changes, better understand the causes, see if we can find ways to help the situation.

You seem to keep coming back to this issue of sea ice in the Antarctic. Here is a piece about that written by the agency who put a man on the moon.
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

 

[LaDexter]

you point out such a small fraction

Antarctica is not a "small fraction" of Earth ice. It is 90% of it... and growing.

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses


which then explains why the "warmers" have to lie about why the Marshall Islands are "sinking."

There is NO OCEAN RISE because there is NO NET ICE MELT ongoing, not with the 90% chunk adding at least 80 billion tons of ice every year...

dismiss the overwhelming consensus of experts

Repeat after me

PARROTING is NOT SCIENCE....

there.

SCIENCE IS SCIENCE, and it requires TRUTH, not FUDGE, FRAUD, and CHERRY PICKING.

Right Polly???

 

[LaDexter]

You seem to keep coming back to this issue of sea ice in the Antarctic

Sea ice is nothing, and three years ago the Earth was setting daily all time highs for sea ice, as the Antarctic Sea Ice has done nothing but grow since Algore started lying.

The ice that matters is ON LAND MASS ANTARCTICA, not in the sea...


Arctic - The Importance of Sea Ice


" it accounts for 90 percent of the world's ice"


97% of Earth's ice is on its two growing continent specific ice ages - Antarctica 90% and Greenland 7%

and THAT is why the "warmers" obsess over Arctic Sea Ice, which is right above Gakkel Ridge, a tectonically active formation that releases heat periodically that dramatically reduces sea ice... which then grows back.


Arctic seafloor afire with lava-spewing volcanoes - Ice Age Now

 

[Slade3200]

you point out such a small fraction

Antarctica is not a "small fraction" of Earth ice. It is 90% of it... and growing.

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses


which then explains why the "warmers" have to lie about why the Marshall Islands are "sinking."

There is NO OCEAN RISE because there is NO NET ICE MELT ongoing, not with the 90% chunk adding at least 80 billion tons of ice every year...

dismiss the overwhelming consensus of experts

Repeat after me

PARROTING is NOT SCIENCE....

there.

SCIENCE IS SCIENCE, and it requires TRUTH, not FUDGE, FRAUD, and CHERRY PICKING.

Right Polly???

You apparently didn't understand what I meant when I said small fraction. Try reading my post again but more slowly.

As for your parroting line. The exact same thing can be said about you except you represent a very minority opinion. So keep squacking

 

[LaDexter]

You seem to suggest that Goebbels was correct, that if 1000 liars lie, that is more convincing than if 100 liars lie.

 

[Slade3200]

You seem to keep coming back to this issue of sea ice in the Antarctic

Sea ice is nothing, and three years ago the Earth was setting daily all time highs for sea ice, as the Antarctic Sea Ice has done nothing but grow since Algore started lying.

The ice that matters is ON LAND MASS ANTARCTICA, not in the sea...


Arctic - The Importance of Sea Ice


" it accounts for 90 percent of the world's ice"


97% of Earth's ice is on its two growing continent specific ice ages - Antarctica 90% and Greenland 7%

and THAT is why the "warmers" obsess over Arctic Sea Ice, which is right above Gakkel Ridge, a tectonically active formation that releases heat periodically that dramatically reduces sea ice... which then grows back.


Arctic seafloor afire with lava-spewing volcanoes - Ice Age Now

I don't think sea ice is the obsession of environmentalist. Keep clinging to it though if you want to represent somebody who is out of touch

 

[LaDexter]

The exact same thing can be said about you

Go find one other source making my arguments....

LOL!!!

There is one, but it is not open for public, right Mr. SESSIONS.....

 

[LaDexter]

I don't think sea ice is the obsession of environmentalist

For the "warmers,"

1. evidence of "melting ice" = Arctic Sea Ice
2. evidence of "rising oceans" = islands right on the lip of the PROF
3. evidence of "atmospheric warming" = taking two correlated temp series showing no warming and fudging both with uncorrelated "corrections"

 

[BlindBoo]

Repeat after me

PARROTING is NOT SCIENCE....

there.

You've been saying that over and over and over and...ov

Ya know, I think, I'm beginning to believe.

</sarcasm>

NASA Study Shows Global Sea Ice Diminishing, Despite Antarctic Gains

 

[Slade3200]

You seem to suggest that Goebbels was correct, that if 1000 liars lie, that is more convincing than if 100 liars lie.

View attachment 125795

Yeah, i think if thousands of independent scientists from all areas of the globe have a consensus, it is much more likely to be true than a handful of politically motivated neigh-sayers.

Plus, i have common sense on my side. I had fish tanks as a kid, i've seen what happens when homeostasis is disrupted. I have an engineering degree so I understand how the scientific method works. And unlike yourself, I am able to read a variety of reports, review charts, analyze data and determine for myself what probability of truth and accuracy exists.

 

[LaDexter]

NASA Study Shows Global Sea Ice Diminishing, Despite Antarctic Gains


"“Even though Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum this past September,"

DATA = record amounts of ice on Antarctica and in Antarctic sea ice....

Response from the FRAUD = so what, we still want our $$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[LaDexter]

i think

You never think. You just PARROT.

How many of these "scientists" have you met???

ZERO....

Media lies
Slade PARROTS
cycle repeat

 

[LaDexter]

How many times has Antarctic Sea Ice set a new record high in the past decade???

6?

Is anyone still confused as to why THE FRAUD sticks to making a big fuss over Arctic Sea Ice, some 0.3% of the planet's total ice???

 

[Redfish]

your last sentence actually makes a little sense, the answer is NO we cannot stop, slow, or abate climate change. We cannot control the activity of the sun, earth's wobble on its axis, or ocean currents. We can adapt, but we cannot control. To think otherwise is the height of ignorance.

That's what you say and present not one shred of evidence that is so. In comparison, a whole lot of people have a different point of view -- with regard to climate change and the economics of attempting to abate it -- and they corroborate it with complete arguments, facts, figures and detailed analysis that identify what can be done and how long it'll take for those actions to take effect.

• Climate Change Mitigation -- What Can We Do?
  
• The Economic Effects of Climate Change
• Climate Change Abatement Strategies Which Way is the Wind Blowing?
  
• Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage
  
• 10 Solutions for Climate Change Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
  
• Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
  
• Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions

Are the effects of climate change going to be stopped with the immediacy of a moving object colliding with an immovable one? No, but then nobody's expecting that pace result from any actions humanity might undertake. As you'll find in one of the documents listed above, dealing with climate change is inevitable. The situation in which we now find ourselves with regard to direct actions taken to abate climate change is one whereby the question is in what respective proportions will we attenuate, endure and "roll with" the changes. If as I noted earlier you are okay with adapting to the migration of tens of millions of liberals moving into areas that are today conservative-dominated, well, then, you are.

your gullibility is amazing. The articles you cited are rubbish.

Everyone agrees that we need to reduce human caused pollution of our air and water---------------EVERYONE.

But when you try to create a fake link between pollution and climate you lose at least half of the people since at least half of humanity is capable of rational thinking and realizes that climate is controlled by the activity of the sun, the earth's slight wobble on its axis and minor changes in ocean currents.

I just do not understand why the left thinks it needs to link pollution and climate in order to fight pollution. Well, maybe I do. Its not about climate or pollution, its about controlling the actions of people and stopping capitalism. Its a leftist movement towards a world socialist government, led by a very small group of elites who think that they know how the rest of us should live---------------if you think about it rationally, you would understand that this is really what the AGW religion is all about.

Save your semantically derived argument for someone who's likely to cotton to such sophistry.

The articles you cited are rubbish.

So you say, and yet I see nothing from you showing that to be so. All we have is your bald claim to that effect.

Dude, believe whatever you want to believe. I really don't give a shit what you believe or what nonsense has been shoveled into your brain by your handlers.

Man is not changing the climate of planet earth, never has, never will. Polluting, yes, changing climate, no.

Do you seriously believe that pollution, in and of itself, is not a form of climate change? Seriously?

No. pollution is pollution. there is not proven link between pollution and climate, its all theory.

But if your goal is to reduce man made pollution why not just focus on that? You would have 100% support from the people of planet earth.

But when you create a fake link between pollution and climate, you lose more than half of the support because many people are smart enough to recognize bullshit when they see it.

Unless of course, your real goal has nothing to do with climate or pollution and is really finding ways to control the actions of humans. Which is what I have always suspected.