Tuesday, August 31, 2010

the Carbon Starved Earth Argument, the Debunking of

via Pacific Views and Climate Progress.

Update: Xymphora, from earlier today:

"USGS Confirms Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting & Climate Change is to Blame"

"Lomborg: Just Kidding. We Do Need Climate Action Now" "Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change" Convenient how this asshole changes his mind right after his bullshit was used to derail climate change action.

Labels: , ,


At August 31, 2010 11:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What? You mean if I buy a terra cotta planter, fill it with carbon (ashes of things burnt), and bury that pot in my yard, I won't be reversing the SKAY-UH-WEE loss of carbon?


I'm sad.

At August 31, 2010 1:24 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

Cheer up Charles, the implosion of the global economy may still save the environment if co-operation doesn't work.

At August 31, 2010 2:23 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

It's all theory. Much of the global warming debate can be traced back to the nuclear industry as in Al Gore who is heavily invested in it. The geological record is clear about the earth being dynamic rather than static. That means climate change is a natural event. Until somebody actually proves that global warming is being caused by humans then I will reserve my judgement though I must admit it reminds me of a witch hunt. There are plenty of reasons to keep the air clean without getting hysterical over global warming.

At August 31, 2010 3:42 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

Guys, as I see it the the preponderance of evidence says global warming is for real. Naturally caused fluctuations in global weather are far less significant. Gore doesn't have to be a perfect spokesman for battling "GW" for it to be a valid stance.

At August 31, 2010 4:45 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

When you say that the preponderance of evidence is real that is just another way of saying it’s a theory because there is no way you can say global warming is a fact. You can say you believe global warming as caused by humans exists but that is the most you can say with any certainty.

Facts are not theories and it was the mixing up of theories and facts that helped us into the Iraq War. A fact is something that can be proven repeatedly like dropping a pencil on the floor to show how gravity works. A theory is a supposition based on incomplete data or evidence. And what is the evidence for global warming? I would guess most of it is data and data can be interpreted more than one way which is why not everyone agrees global warming as caused by humans exists.

Almost every science show or special on PBS used to slip in somewhere that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a very big meteor or comet. But the fact is nobody knows to this day what killed the dinosaurs. The meteor theory is just that, a theory and many top paleontologists do not agree with it. Neither do I not that that matters. And global warming is exactly the same. A lot of people repeat that global warming exists but the truth is they do not know that it does. They may think it does but thinking something exists and knowing something exists are again two separate items.

The preponderance of evidence also says Al Gore (who during the Clinton presidency traipsed about the countryside calling for the removal of Saddam) is connected to the nuclear industry which has a huge stake in people believing global warming caused by human pollution is real.

So this is where I part ways with the global warming scare. What I can see are some very real problems that we know exist like the mercury that coal burning electrical generators spew into the air which causes birth defects and lung cancer. That’s real, that’s a fact. We can do something about that unlike with theories which you can only guess at educated or not. What about the hundreds of nuclear bomb tests in the western deserts? Where did all that radiation go? Into the ground, into the air, into your lungs, into your food and water? How far did the jet stream carry the radiation? What about the pollution in our rivers and lakes? Did you know that those beloved 49ers used mercury to separate gold and silver from ore? And that they polluted the waters and ground heavily with the stuff? People are out of work, people are dying in stupid wars that make no sense. These are things we know exist and are problems that can be addressed so why not worry about those rather than a theory developed by a bunch of con artists? If you will excuse the expression but yes I see Al Gore as a con artist. How many times does it have to be shown that we cannot trust the government hence people like Al Gore?

At August 31, 2010 9:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, Jonathan!

My sadness has evaporated.

And I agree with you on this one:

"Guys, as I see it the the preponderance of evidence says global warming is for real. Naturally caused fluctuations in global weather are far less significant. Gore doesn't have to be a perfect spokesman for battling "GW" for it to be a valid stance."

At August 31, 2010 9:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At August 31, 2010 9:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, had to delete the prior version of this because it had a hugely confusing paragraph. Fixed now.


Rob --

I haven't read a single AGW skeptic account for the effect human pollution has had on the air, land and water and how that stew has created atmospheric problems.

When I worked on air quality planning in the early 90s it was clear back then that ground-level ozone pollution is directly related to human activity of various industrial and/or carbon-burning (internal combustion, mostly) processes. It was also clear that human air pollution has created greenhouse effects.

These are not theories any more than it's a theory that if your color vision is "normal" human, the sky is generally "blue" when not cloudy. Is it "blue" because of theoretical convention?

I frequently use the analogous story to demonstrate humankind's industrial operations on the Earth's atmosphere: place 4 guys in a small car like a Mini Cooper, send them on a 2-hr road trip for a Mexican meal chow-down, belt-bursting type. What happens in that MiniCooper on the drive home, there's your analog. I've yet to hear any AGW skeptics demonstrate how the methane output in that car, for example, isn't actually fouling that air.

Aside from that, isn't it really just a question of prioritization of human endeavor? If there's some chance our industrial impact on the atmosphere can be improved or even reversed, shouldn't we make the effort?

Is it sufficient to say it will "harm the economy" in some nebulous fashion? Is that really justification for not taking remedial steps, "economic" impacts?

What good is an "economy" if the humans who propel it are dying and going sick?

If you want to discuss theory, I have one to spend your energy on. I have an epidemiological theory suggesting that most human, plant and animal cancers that are deleterious are a direct result of what mankind has wrought through industrial process.

Mesothelioma might be a good starting cue.

At August 31, 2010 10:58 PM, Blogger Unknown said...


I didn’t say pollution was a theory I said global warming as caused by humans is a theory. There are scientists on both sides of the debate so you pick which ones you agree with. By the fact that there are those qualified scientists for and against it shows that global warming caused by pollution has not been proven. I haven’t heard anyone say or read any article that said global warming caused by pollution is a fact. If there is such a news article I’d be glad for the link. In other words, show me the proof and I’ll believe you. All I’ve seen so far is graphs and opinions which are great but they aren’t positive proof.

I absolutely think that we should do something about industrial pollution, no arguments there. If you read what I said you will see I went to some trouble to point out some of the problems we know exist including air quality, all that stuff that I feel is important.

Just for the sake of argument let’s say okay, global warming is caused by pollution. Now what? I don’t think the federal government would do much of anything since they are in bed with the polluters to begin with. A great example is Obama and the oil spill in the Gulf. It was the machinations of Obama, his administration and BP that created the conditions that led to the spill. Not only that but they will continue to drill there even after the horrendous spill. So who is going to do what to fix it? The oil companies? Does it sound like the Obama administration would care much about global warming? Perhaps Obama could declare that pollution has been eliminated like his announcement that the Iraq War is ended. Problem solved!

Look, I’m not saying I know global warming caused by pollution isn’t possible. What I said and have been saying is that I don’t know that it is a fact because it has not been proven one way or the other. Until then I will reserve my judgment which I already said. You know, if global warming caused by humans was proven as a fact it would be big news, I’m fairly certain it would have made the headlines but I don’t recall seeing anything like that.

One more consideration is the scientists themselves. I’ve worked with plenty of physicists, some of them couldn’t tell their left for their right. I’m not kidding some of those guys are real whack jobs. There’s nothing holy about scientists. You think scientists are too pure to want to cash in on something? Then why do so many of them work for defense companies helping them to build some really nasty things? Not all scientists are Carl Sagan or Einstein searching for the pure truth and the meaning of the universe. I think a good healthy dose of skepticism is in order when it comes to global warming.

At September 01, 2010 1:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


The pollution is the AGW. Distinguishing them as if separate, that's a ruse.

I'm not deferring to any "expert" when I say AGW is real.

I am using my own experience combined with my own science background.

I am unaware of AGW skeptics who are legitimate atmospheric scientists not in the pay of industrial or economic concerns.

Can you identify a few?

At September 01, 2010 4:08 PM, Blogger Unknown said...


You understand exactly what I’m saying but you pretend not to. Fine. I see it is just as I thought, you cannot prove pollution is causing global warming because there are no articles declaring that global warming is a fact. I’m sorry but what you are saying strikes me as ridiculous that is that there is no debate among scientists on the theory that pollution causes global warming. That is the first time I have heard anyone say there is no debate.

I see global warming as similar in many respects to UFOs and Bigfoot and other such stuff. Why are there people who rant about space aliens? Because it makes their life more important, space aliens traveled a gazillion miles just to study and help us because we are special. The idea that humanity is causing global warming suddenly makes humans far more important than when they weren’t causing global warming. Isn’t that a fact? But then humanity has always had an outsized perception of our own importance. First we were the center of the universe which got revised to the center of the solar system which got revised to the third planet orbiting a large yellow star at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy. We have been usurped from the center of the universe and we don’t like it hence we get what I call the Chicken Little Sky is Falling syndrome which is basically people are fascinated by things that make us seem more important so we reinvent reality to make our lives more meaningful and fulfilling. No?

Look at Alverez, the guy who invented the dinosaurs died by meteor theory. Guess what, he’s an astronomer not a paleontologist. Alverez comes up with a very sexy theory and the public and television love it because it is just ever so dramatic, and sexy! I mean c’mon, that red hot planetoid plunging into the yielding flesh of mother earth, wow. It’s the stuff of dreams. Unfortunately the fossil record actually shows the dinosaurs were already gone by the time the meteor hit demarking the so-called K-2 boundary. But suddenly, Alverez is very, very famous an overnight celebrity. Too bad his theory isn’t true. But now Alverez is very important just like the people who were abducted by space aliens.

In the meantime while y’all go chasing comet tails people need to eat, it’s one of those pesky boring facts and though it isn’t nearly as sexy as glaciers falling on our heads it is important. You really have to love Americans, first we hog up all the resources and pollute like there is no tomorrow and after destroying a lovely and pristine continent in record time we turn about and tell the world that we shall lead the way to save them from global warming and that they should not be allowed to do what we did. Ah, the white man’s burden, tis a load that is almost too much to bear!


Post a Comment

<< Home