Does CO2 cause global warming? Is it good to reduce CO2? Who the Frack cares!

[desert dude]

Yeah, except for those pesky earthquakes that fracking seems to be inducing in Texas.

Amen, brother. Dallas used to be a pretty nice city till it submerged into the earth.

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[Dr Kynes]

1. It will never be "proven", just as the theory of flight will not be, nor the theory of evolution. Even when we know what is going on, when we can finally measure the particulars of global climate, we will never be able to prove it was man made. That is the wonderful quailty of science where things can only ever be disproven. I will wager that anthropormorphic climate change will never be disproven.

there you are wrong, science "proves" shit all the time, what science fails at is disproving shit. "you cannot prove a negative" is the aphorism you were looking for,, also, flight is not a theory, it is a FACT.

2. the general warming trend is not on "hiatus". I don't know where this idea that the planet is no longer in a warming cycle came from but it is rapidly becoming "generaly accepted truth". Just as those with the most interest in the status quo would like it to be. Or did you not notice all of the 100 year events that have been transpiring from hurricanes to drought.

the warming trend IS on hiatus, since we have had seven or so consecutive years of cooling off the last peak, this is a temporary condition, since the general trend is still scheduled to be decidedly upward for another 200 years or so.

3. I doubt that climatologists are reasonably forecasting an end to a 100 thousand year cycle in either direction.

they are. and it's the 10,000 year glacial cycle, the axial precession where the poles trade off generally superior climates in the north for the shitty one currently running the game in the south. projected next in the big axial tilt chinese fire drill: southern hemisphere gets the warm winters and cool summers, and northern hemisphere gets the hot ass summers and frosty ass winters. the southern hemisphere has been on the hind tit for a while now, and the pendulum is swinging the other way. projected time till axial tilt goes full retard and the northern hemispher becomes the dry dusty unpleasant half of the world: ~10,000 years since we is right in the middle of the switch currently.

4. It is well established that we are not on the cusp of any solar cycle - this "the sun is doing it" is another lay idea spread by those with the most interest in the energy status quo.

so the current maunder maximum period is totally irrelevant. ill alert noaa and nasa, tell them they can take the next 50 years or so off.

5. True enough, but until then it is entirely possible that our world will endure climatological changes that will make us as a species, very very uncomfortable.

or improve crop growth rates and yields, reduce the number of people freezing to death each winter and increase the duration of bikini season.

6. Hysterical demands for any world wide alterations in the way mankind does business is always rediculous and short sighted. When we see an oncoming car's headlights in our own lane, it is not considered hysterical to contemplate changing lanes, or at the very least, applying pressure to the brake pedal rather than claiming that the lights are an illusion and we should accelerate.

implying i suggest starting up massive CO2 generating facilities to accelerate CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. are we terraforming mars in this scenario?

7. No, "most" of the proponents have not discredited themselves or their work.

silent spring, the population bomb, earth in the balance, climate gate, the new ice age 1978-79, and so many more. nope, not discredited at all. next up: "peak oil"

8. I believe that the last medieval warm period brought an influx of rat infestation and with it, a species of insect that, in concert with a certain bacteria caused the death of one quarter to one half of all humans. One could argue that there was no cause for alarm because the disease didn't wipe out all of humanity and they might even have an argument - but the dead would have one as well.

the black derath was the result of europe's exposure to asiatic diseases through the oriental trade which had been opened up by large ships, not warm temps. rats do well anyplace where humans live. it is their nature. they are not climate dependent, like cockroaches and fleas, they do well any time humans do well.

9. The problem with the cart before the horse argument - that CO2 rise is secondary to warming is one that most dismiss but the essential portion of the debate is the fact that the mechanism of causality is understood in the case of co2 to warming. Warming to Co2 remains unexplained. So long as it is,, it has no bearing on the discussion - again, Occam's razor comes to play.

CO2 as a greenhouse gas is a new idea, william of okham had nothing to do with it, further,, CO2 is not the biggest greenhouse driver, that would be H20. if you seek the simplest explanation for CO2 rise following temp increase, then youre not reading much on the subject. when the seas warm, they can hold less CO2 (and other gasses) in solution, thus as temp increases, the sea gasses off Co2 (and other gasses) resulting in warm periods followed by resultant increases in CO2, followed by increased photosynthesis, followed by cooling, which results in a gradual increase in Co2 in the oceans. rinse and repeat. this model has been tested. it works remarkably well.

10. Bad? Bad for whom? parasite bearing insects? those who live in regions that they would like to be warmer? As a whole, we all figure that increases in drought, the spread of other diseases, hurricanes and tornados, loss of valuable shoreline real estate, destruction of reefs, halting the oceanic conveyor, heavy and extended precipitation in areas not accustomed to such downfall are usually considered to be bad things.

presumptive and lacking all evidence. next youll want to propose the 80 meter sea level rise whe every scrap of ice on earth melts at once. this sort of doggerel is long since refuted. "Waterworld" is not a documentary.

11. Because we didn't cause the last warming cycle has nothing to do with our having caused this one. We could as easily go to easter island and state that ten million years before Humans cut down every single living tree in order to put up their statues, there were no trees on the island and therefore it wasn't a problem that the trees are gone this time.

circular logic as an accusation of circular logic. well played. but the climate cycles i am talking about are right on schedule, the only real issue is whether human activity is INCREASING the current expected and predicted warming trend or not. so far i find "not" to be a more persuasive argument.

12. WE agree, it is not a game of consensus. There was a time when the consensus in the new science of geology was that the earth was only 8 thousand years old. That God created the earth and that he did it exactly as described in the old testament was a given.

jesus! it's 6000 years of biblical timeline since adam and eve in the garden. your biblical scholarship is absolutely refuted by every authority on the subject! the 8000 years bullshit is just liberal propaganda!

The problem however, is that climatologists are not free to work it out in a political vaccuum. They had their chance at it, certain interested parties caught wind of it and figured that climatologists needed some help - in the way of propaganda. Thus was born the GCC and from that point on what was pure science became a political event. Follow the money and you will find comparatively little on the side of man made global climate change. That is a real problem and results finally in the hysterical shouting you describe.

the money is cascading down onto anyone who wants to study anything if they put "global warming" in the title of their grant proposal.

a british ground squirrel expert (and fetishist apparently) spent ten years trying to get a grant to study mating habits of britain's ground squirrels, and was rejected every time, till he simply dropped "global warming" into the proposal title and bam! twice as much as he requested. noaa gets more funding now, the un's silly global warming panel is a candyshop for international bureaucrats and do-nothings, and every nation on the planet and many municipalities now hire "experts" to tell them how fucked they will be when global warming doomsday comes. the city of Vallejo Ca (which has gone bankrupt, again) spent $6 million on a global warming impact study in 2009. turns out, when global warming hits, the entire city will be under 120 feet of ocean. ETA for this highly improbable atlantean redux: 2099.

FYI it's all bullshit. the city got rooked by some eco-hucksters.

 

[cannabineer]

there you are wrong, science "proves" shit all the time, what science fails at is disproving shit. "you cannot prove a negative" is the aphorism you were looking for,, also, flight is not a theory, it is a FACT.

Actually, Dr. -
science never proves anything. It can accumulate fact but not truth. Science has no way of digging us out of the subjectivist conundrum (there's no way to show that reality is indeed real) that Berkeley and Hume left in the middle of the parlor, and that philosophers have been ignoring since ... on the basis that if you don't LOOK at its corpse, it can't be quite so smelly. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

Actually, Dr. -
science never proves anything. It can accumulate fact but not truth. Science has no way of digging us out of the subjectivist conundrum (there's no way to show that reality is indeed real) that Berkeley and Hume left in the middle of the parlor, and that philosophers have been ignoring since ... on the basis that if you don't LOOK at its corpse, it can't be quite so smelly. cn

fuck cartesian navel gazing.

science has proved a lot of shit, objects fall at the same rate regardless of relative masses (inB4 density vs air resistance), the venturi principle (the basis for the "theory" of flight becoming the FACT of flight) the bernouli principle, the "theory" of f=MxV, the "theory" that compressing a gas and allowing it to expand again can result in refrigeration, or the "theory" that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon is not made of cheese.

theoretical physics is the one that cant prove shit.
im pretty satisfied with the state of the mechanical universe. newton is pretty well proved.

also, if you bury your corpses in a timely fashion you can prevent any aromatic clues for the cops when they come looking for all those missing hookers.

 

[cannabineer]

fuck cartesian navel gazing.

science has proved a lot of shit, objects fall at the same rate regardless of relative masses (inB4 density vs air resistance), the venturi principle (the basis for the "theory" of flight becoming the FACT of flight) the bernouli principle, the "theory" of f=MxV, the "theory" that compressing a gas and allowing it to expand again can result in refrigeration, or the "theory" that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon is not made of cheese.

theoretical physics is the one that cant prove shit.
im pretty satisfied with the state of the mechanical universe. newton is pretty well proved.

also, if you bury your corpses in a timely fashion you can prevent any aromatic clues for the cops when they come looking for all those missing hookers.

But you are describing relations within a system and stating (correctly) that they are all consistent with each other. But Berkeley and Hume installed the Great Disconnect between consistency and outright reality. To get past that, you have to do what every philosopher (except the inheritors of subjectivism, who simply reported that yes, the hole is deep and no, no rabbit sighted yet) has had to do since: posit "Assume an actual external reality."
Cross Go and collect $200 ... but the reality question has then been declared sour grapes. I must admit that that fascinates me. The fabric of reality makes for quite the Imperial wardrobe. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

But you are describing relations within a system and stating (correctly) that they are all consistent with each other. But Berkeley and Hume installed the Great Disconnect between consistency and outright reality. To get past that, you have to do what every philosopher (except the inheritors of subjectivism, who simply reported that yes, the hole is deep and no, no rabbit sighted yet) has had to do since: posit "Assume an actual external reality."
Cross Go and collect $200 ... but the reality question has then been declared sour grapes. I must admit that that fascinates me. The fabric of reality makes for quite the Imperial wardrobe. cn

Cartesian underpants are self-Melvining.

once you step into the nightmarish questioning of whether you yourself actually exist, you leave philosophy, and enter sophistry, and eventually masturbatory self-stimulation as reality.

people who doubt their own existence make themselves irrelevant to those of us who discount their endless circlejerk of non-logic. if you dont exist then how can you possibly contemplate anything, and if nothing exists how can you contemplate it's non-existence.

better to simply accept that the hole exists, and the rabbit droppings can be viewed as prima facia evidence of the bunny's existence, and possible deliciousness.

 

[cannabineer]

Cartesian underpants are self-Melvining.

once you step into the nightmarish questioning of whether you yourself actually exist, you leave philosophy, and enter sophistry, and eventually masturbatory self-stimulation as reality.

people who doubt their own existence make themselves irrelevant to those of us who discount their endless circlejerk of non-logic. if you dont exist then how can you possibly contemplate anything, and if nothing exists how can you contemplate it's non-existence.

Weed helps a lot.

better to simply accept that the hole exists, and the rabbit droppings can be viewed as prima facia evidence of the bunny's existence, and possible deliciousness.

I wonder how you can determine deliciousness from the lagomorph's spoor. But I don't wonder too profoundly. That some crazy shit right there. cn

 

[Harrekin]

I think both of you should just go frack yourselves

 

[cannabineer]

I think both of you should just go frack yourselves

Now you're being fractious? cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

I wonder how you can determine deliciousness from the lagomorph's spoor. But I don't wonder too profoundly. That some crazy shit right there. cn

hard round and copious piles of pellets with no strong odour indicate a wabbit which is well fed,, and generally healthy, thus, most likely delicious.

trackers gonna track.
hunters gonna hunt
carnivores gonna ...? carnivore?

ill bust a cap on a lepus and put him in a fryin pan quicker than shit.

 

[Harrekin]

Now you're being fractious? cn

I can see a whole new line of tshirts coming along.

"Everyone loves a good fracking!"

"Go frack yourself!"

"I fracked your mother".

 

[abandonconflict]

flight is not a theory, it is a FACT.

This little snippet shows your lack of scientific aptitude.

Flight is a theory like gravity, evolution and man made global warming and this does not mean it isn't a "FACT". This shows the difference between cogent inductive logic and sound deductive logic. This is the basis of science as outlined by Bacon. This isn't "Cartesian navel gazing" it is right there in the language and you're abusing it.

 

[canndo]

You sound like a well meaning guy, Canndo. I think you are jumping the gun, though. I agree with Kynes' list. It is not proven that "anthros" are causing what warming we are seeing, nor, for that matter, whether global warming is even necessarily a bad thing on a global scale. Climate change has been happening for tens of thousands of years, long before humans were in any way significant. It is apparently cyclic.

Rushing out to shut down economic pursuits would cause unimaginable human suffering. The Kyoto accord is a scam. The US was correct to reject it. Green energy is a foolish waste of money when pursued as we are doing now. It should be pursued in a researchy way instead of a government subsidized market penetration manner. IF it ever becomes economically competitive then the market will embrace it.

But, here is the thing, the original topic was not directly about GW, it was about the ever-present conundrum of the enviro-lefties: We have reduced CO2 emissions by fracking. "Oh, God, we can't frack... Oh, God, we must reduce CO2 emissions..." Dear enviros, please choose one.

Your argument presumes that to do nothing will not cause suffering. I mention diseases, we see devistation already and you think that simply riding it out while continuing to expect proof before we do anything is a better way to go. I have spoken of the ineadequacies of the free market when it comes to its ability to confront crisis and yet so many still believe that market will save us all in the nick of time. It won't. How many 100 year storms in a century or two will it take for the naysayers to finally come to the conclusion that so many learned people have already reached - that there is a problem and it can and should be dealt with, the sooner the better.

 

[canndo]

Amen, brother. Dallas used to be a pretty nice city till it submerged into the earth.

Wait a minute. You aren't claiming that because cities havn't been shaken into the ground there is no problem with creating widespread, uncontroled earthquakes as a result of injecting huge quantities of chemicals into the ground - are you? you don't see some problem with this? You can't imagine that if the frackers never anticipated such a thing that maybe, possibly there are other things that they didn't anticipate either and that if their practices have the power to precipitate earthquakes then there may be an issue?


I once ran into the house after having seen my brother point a loaded 22 pistol at my sister. Now it was obvious even then that my mother favored my brother. When I told her of the incident she replied with "well, it isn't a very big gun is it."

 

[Grandpapy]

At one time the Earth was flat. FACT

We don't know, what we don't know.

To "err" on the side of caution seems wiser then folly. JMO

 

[cannabineer]

At one time the Earth was flat. FACT

We don't know, what we don't know.

To "err" on the side of caution seems wiser then folly. JMO

A universal or near-universal belief isn't a fact.

And in this instance, caution means opposite things to the two sides on this issue. cn

 

[Harrekin]

Wait a minute. You aren't claiming that because cities havn't been shaken into the ground there is no problem with creating widespread, uncontroled earthquakes as a result of injecting huge quantities of chemicals into the ground - are you? you don't see some problem with this? You can't imagine that if the frackers never anticipated such a thing that maybe, possibly there are other things that they didn't anticipate either and that if their practices have the power to precipitate earthquakes then there may be an issue?


I once ran into the house after having seen my brother point a loaded 22 pistol at my sister. Now it was obvious even then that my mother favored my brother. When I told her of the incident she replied with "well, it isn't a very big gun is it."

Think logically for a second... if fracking caused earthquakes, the US military would have an earthquake weapon of some variety by now.

 

[abandonconflict]

Think logically for a second... if fracking caused earthquakes, the US military would have an earthquake weapon of some variety by now.

and we would know about it...

 

[Harrekin]

and we would know about it...

Well Iran would be having a pretty "bouncy time" right now if they did.

So my guess, nah...