T Nation

Princeton Physicist: CO2 is Good

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
b-b-b-but…there is no science behind global warming! Rush says it’s so!

Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis”

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Yup, there is inconclusive data, from a politicized organization that is stacked by politicians to serve a very specific agenda.

You do not see any problem with that when it comes to interfering with the world economy to the extend of trillions of dollars per year?

Or maybe you or not interested in Bjorn Lomborgs calculations either, that you could save 13000 malaria victims now for every human death that you could prevent due to global warming in few decades.

No, obviously there is NO debate whatsoever!!! Haven’t you been paying attentionz?!!/?

Where you found that in my post shall remain your secret.
[/quote]

I’ll share my secret…it was the joke in my first post quoted here. Happy reading.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
oh yea because the laws of science have not changed in 80million years, the changes in ecosystems over that time and our current ecosystem is completely irrelevant, and we should return to that CO2 level. what a tool.

some people were happy in the dark ages, current happiness is meaningless, RETURN TO THE DARK AGES!

do you even read what you post?

If life prospered with much higher CO2, then why would it not prosper with those same levels today?

Do you know how to start a sentence with capital letters? I suppose now you’ll bore me by writing in all capital letters or some other such juvenile stupidities. If you’re going to write drivel, at least write like a man, not a cracked out metrosexual.

[/quote]

you know how a cracked out metrosexual writes? kind of odd, but that’s your personal business.

i never said it wouldn’t. reading comprehension please.

the geography and ecosystem of 80million years ago when CO2 was higher looked completely different than today, to simply say we should return to those levels and we will “prosper” is absurdly ignorant.

no wonder our schools are doing so poorly, they let people like you teach. a voucher and non public school system would be good, it would rid us of teachers like you.

I am proponent of the sun-theory

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
oh yea because the laws of science have not changed in 80million years, the changes in ecosystems over that time and our current ecosystem is completely irrelevant, and we should return to that CO2 level. what a tool.

some people were happy in the dark ages, current happiness is meaningless, RETURN TO THE DARK AGES!

do you even read what you post?

If life prospered with much higher CO2, then why would it not prosper with those same levels today?

Do you know how to start a sentence with capital letters? I suppose now you’ll bore me by writing in all capital letters or some other such juvenile stupidities. If you’re going to write drivel, at least write like a man, not a cracked out metrosexual.

you know how a cracked out metrosexual writes? kind of odd, but that’s your personal business.

i never said it wouldn’t. reading comprehension please.

the geography and ecosystem of 80million years ago when CO2 was higher looked completely different than today, to simply say we should return to those levels and we will “prosper” is absurdly ignorant.

no wonder our schools are doing so poorly, they let people like you teach. a voucher and non public school system would be good, it would rid us of teachers like you.[/quote]

Since you still don’t understand that capital letters begin sentences, then I agree about the lousy educational system. I teach at a very prestigious private school btw, the tuition being quite probably higher than your annual income.

As the good doctor explains, life went merrily on even when CO2 was quite a bit higher. The current hoopla created by scum like Al Gore and Barbara Boxer is simply part of what is appropriately deemed by some as ‘The Anti-Industrial Revolution’. You’ve been conned by libs. I suggest you Google anti-industrial revolution.

Well, I know you’re dumb so I’ll do it for you:

Global warming is a belief nothing more.

“Scientists” can’t predict the weather reliably for the next 30 days. Assuming they can predict it in 100 years, with certainty, to the degree, is sheer stupidity.

A simple look at who is falling for this belief should be a simple guideline to judge it’s merits.

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
oh yea because the laws of science have not changed in 80million years, the changes in ecosystems over that time and our current ecosystem is completely irrelevant, and we should return to that CO2 level. what a tool.

some people were happy in the dark ages, current happiness is meaningless, RETURN TO THE DARK AGES!

[/quote]

Believe it or not, the “Dark Ages” actually took place during what they call a “mini ice age.” If one believes that rising CO2 levels are a product of the Industrial Revolution and man, then you should actually credit CO2 with bringing us out of the Dark Ages.

That being said, I am far less convinced that global warming is a bad thing than I used to be. I believe it’s certainly happening, and sure, it’s bad for some species, but that is the nature of the planet- shit changes, and things either adapt or go extinct.

What really influenced my thinking on this is the fact that for right now, we’re between ice ages. The history of the Earth is generally pretty ugly, consisting of glacial ice sheets covering most of the planet. We’re on our way there again, no matter what the politicians say, because this planet is a little more powerful than our measly efforts.

So, although I am absolutely against pollution, the CO2… might not be such a terrible thing. I wish they would spend more time researching instead of more time screaming about how it’s happening.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
100meters wrote:
of course the east coast was underwater 80 million years ago, other than little things like that, most of us will be fine.

Exactly. I have read a couple of studies that show that global food production would be up at the projected C02 levels however that will be small comfort to anyone with coastal property.

We are not talking about something that will harm the planet or life on the planet. We are talking about something that would seriously fuck up some major cities though.[/quote]

Unfortunately, because it’s going to seriously fuck up humans doesn’t mean it’s at all stoppable. I don’t think the planet really cares too much…

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
oh yea because the laws of science have not changed in 80million years, the changes in ecosystems over that time and our current ecosystem is completely irrelevant, and we should return to that CO2 level. what a tool.

some people were happy in the dark ages, current happiness is meaningless, RETURN TO THE DARK AGES!

Believe it or not, the “Dark Ages” actually took place during what they call a “mini ice age.” If one believes that rising CO2 levels are a product of the Industrial Revolution and man, then you should actually credit CO2 with bringing us out of the Dark Ages.

That being said, I am far less convinced that global warming is a bad thing than I used to be. I believe it’s certainly happening, and sure, it’s bad for some species, but that is the nature of the planet- shit changes, and things either adapt or go extinct.

What really influenced my thinking on this is the fact that for right now, we’re between ice ages. The history of the Earth is generally pretty ugly, consisting of glacial ice sheets covering most of the planet. We’re on our way there again, no matter what the politicians say, because this planet is a little more powerful than our measly efforts.

So, although I am absolutely against pollution, the CO2… might not be such a terrible thing. I wish they would spend more time researching instead of more time screaming about how it’s happening.[/quote]

To classify CO2 as pollution is in and of itself problematic.

Oxygen was a “pollution” once that pretty much killed off all major higher life forms once.

CO2 is what it is, a trace element in the atmosphere.

[quote]orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
oh yea because the laws of science have not changed in 80million years, the changes in ecosystems over that time and our current ecosystem is completely irrelevant, and we should return to that CO2 level. what a tool.

some people were happy in the dark ages, current happiness is meaningless, RETURN TO THE DARK AGES!

Believe it or not, the “Dark Ages” actually took place during what they call a “mini ice age.” If one believes that rising CO2 levels are a product of the Industrial Revolution and man, then you should actually credit CO2 with bringing us out of the Dark Ages.

That being said, I am far less convinced that global warming is a bad thing than I used to be. I believe it’s certainly happening, and sure, it’s bad for some species, but that is the nature of the planet- shit changes, and things either adapt or go extinct.

What really influenced my thinking on this is the fact that for right now, we’re between ice ages. The history of the Earth is generally pretty ugly, consisting of glacial ice sheets covering most of the planet. We’re on our way there again, no matter what the politicians say, because this planet is a little more powerful than our measly efforts.

So, although I am absolutely against pollution, the CO2… might not be such a terrible thing. I wish they would spend more time researching instead of more time screaming about how it’s happening.

To classify CO2 as pollution is in and of itself problematic.

Oxygen was a “pollution” once that pretty much killed off all major higher life forms once.

CO2 is what it is, a trace element in the atmosphere.

[/quote]

I feel you. But I meant more that because the CO2 is not necessarily bad, that doesn’t mean that air pollution is OK. That’s more what I was getting at… some dipshits will confuse the two.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Assuming this guy is onto something, can anyone point out to an industrial process which exclusively releases CO2?
[/quote]

We can’t produce enough CO2 to effect climate, intensional or not.

this isn’t a an arguement in and of itself. It attacks one part of the global warming scare. That CO2 has a negative effect on the environment as a whole.

discussing purposely pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is silly.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I feel you. But I meant more that because the CO2 is not necessarily bad, that doesn’t mean that air pollution is OK. That’s more what I was getting at… some dipshits will confuse the two.[/quote]

Yeah, I know, but I am one of those libertarians that feel that nobody has the right to use my lungs as a toxic waste dump.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Global warming is a belief nothing more.

“Scientists” can’t predict the weather reliably for the next 30 days. Assuming they can predict it in 100 years, with certainty, to the degree, is sheer stupidity.

A simple look at who is falling for this belief should be a simple guideline to judge it’s merits.[/quote]

You are not comparing like with like. They cannot predict what the weather will be like at a specific point in time, but they are pretty good at predicting averages over a period.

And the argument is really not about harming the planet so much as harming the established economies of major coastal cities and the impact on the global economy.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
100meters wrote:
of course the east coast was underwater 80 million years ago, other than little things like that, most of us will be fine.

Exactly. I have read a couple of studies that show that global food production would be up at the projected C02 levels however that will be small comfort to anyone with coastal property.

We are not talking about something that will harm the planet or life on the planet. We are talking about something that would seriously fuck up some major cities though.

Unfortunately, because it’s going to seriously fuck up humans doesn’t mean it’s at all stoppable. I don’t think the planet really cares too much… [/quote]

Fully agreed. When we were a nomadic species, rising water levels were not an issue. Now you have people building huge cities in the middle of a flood plain and being suprised when the carpet gets a bit soggy.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Global warming is a belief nothing more.

“Scientists” can’t predict the weather reliably for the next 30 days. Assuming they can predict it in 100 years, with certainty, to the degree, is sheer stupidity.

A simple look at who is falling for this belief should be a simple guideline to judge it’s merits.

You are not comparing like with like. They cannot predict what the weather will be like at a specific point in time, but they are pretty good at predicting averages over a period.

And the argument is really not about harming the planet so much as harming the established economies of major coastal cities and the impact on the global economy.[/quote]

I don’t think they are good at predicting averages over time. The models that have been created have all been found faulty. If they can’t model it, with certainty, it’s a belief.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Global warming is a belief nothing more.

“Scientists” can’t predict the weather reliably for the next 30 days. Assuming they can predict it in 100 years, with certainty, to the degree, is sheer stupidity.

A simple look at who is falling for this belief should be a simple guideline to judge it’s merits.

You are not comparing like with like. They cannot predict what the weather will be like at a specific point in time, but they are pretty good at predicting averages over a period.

And the argument is really not about harming the planet so much as harming the established economies of major coastal cities and the impact on the global economy.

I don’t think they are good at predicting averages over time. The models that have been created have all been found faulty. If they can’t model it, with certainty, it’s a belief.

[/quote]

It’s just a THEORY!!!1!!11!1!!!

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
hedo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Global warming is a belief nothing more.

“Scientists” can’t predict the weather reliably for the next 30 days. Assuming they can predict it in 100 years, with certainty, to the degree, is sheer stupidity.

A simple look at who is falling for this belief should be a simple guideline to judge it’s merits.

You are not comparing like with like. They cannot predict what the weather will be like at a specific point in time, but they are pretty good at predicting averages over a period.

And the argument is really not about harming the planet so much as harming the established economies of major coastal cities and the impact on the global economy.

I don’t think they are good at predicting averages over time. The models that have been created have all been found faulty. If they can’t model it, with certainty, it’s a belief.

It’s just a THEORY!!!1!!11!1!!! [/quote]

Actually… it isn’t quite a theory yet…

[quote]hedo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Global warming is a belief nothing more.

“Scientists” can’t predict the weather reliably for the next 30 days. Assuming they can predict it in 100 years, with certainty, to the degree, is sheer stupidity.

A simple look at who is falling for this belief should be a simple guideline to judge it’s merits.

You are not comparing like with like. They cannot predict what the weather will be like at a specific point in time, but they are pretty good at predicting averages over a period.

And the argument is really not about harming the planet so much as harming the established economies of major coastal cities and the impact on the global economy.

I don’t think they are good at predicting averages over time. The models that have been created have all been found faulty. If they can’t model it, with certainty, it’s a belief.

[/quote]

No, it would be a belief if there were no supporting evidence therefore it is a theory.

Admitidly there are probably too many factors to have a highly accurate model at this stage. One of the big issues for the model is that the oceans buffer C02 in the atmosphere, at higher temperatures they are able to dissolve more C02. This buffering effect is very hard to model on a planet sized scale.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Global warming is a belief nothing more.

“Scientists” can’t predict the weather reliably for the next 30 days. Assuming they can predict it in 100 years, with certainty, to the degree, is sheer stupidity.

A simple look at who is falling for this belief should be a simple guideline to judge it’s merits.

You are not comparing like with like. They cannot predict what the weather will be like at a specific point in time, but they are pretty good at predicting averages over a period.

[/quote]
bullshit. they can’t even get their models to predict past events.

[quote]

And the argument is really not about harming the planet so much as harming the established economies of major coastal cities and the impact on the global economy.[/quote]
This is all a bunch of hoohaa as well. If it was underwater before, why would we think we can keep it from being underwater again? Either grow gills, move or build a sea wall.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
oh yea because the laws of science have not changed in 80million years, the changes in ecosystems over that time and our current ecosystem is completely irrelevant, and we should return to that CO2 level. what a tool.

some people were happy in the dark ages, current happiness is meaningless, RETURN TO THE DARK AGES!

do you even read what you post?

If life prospered with much higher CO2, then why would it not prosper with those same levels today?

Do you know how to start a sentence with capital letters? I suppose now you’ll bore me by writing in all capital letters or some other such juvenile stupidities. If you’re going to write drivel, at least write like a man, not a cracked out metrosexual.

you know how a cracked out metrosexual writes? kind of odd, but that’s your personal business.

i never said it wouldn’t. reading comprehension please.

the geography and ecosystem of 80million years ago when CO2 was higher looked completely different than today, to simply say we should return to those levels and we will “prosper” is absurdly ignorant.

no wonder our schools are doing so poorly, they let people like you teach. a voucher and non public school system would be good, it would rid us of teachers like you.

Since you still don’t understand that capital letters begin sentences, then I agree about the lousy educational system. I teach at a very prestigious private school btw, the tuition being quite probably higher than your annual income.

As the good doctor explains, life went merrily on even when CO2 was quite a bit higher. The current hoopla created by scum like Al Gore and Barbara Boxer is simply part of what is appropriately deemed by some as ‘The Anti-Industrial Revolution’. You’ve been conned by libs. I suggest you Google anti-industrial revolution.

Well, I know you’re dumb so I’ll do it for you:


[/quote]

you’re grasping at straws here. “a very prestigious private school” HAH highly doubtful, your a fucking loon. Or at least ill give you credit for being a great con man if youre correct, why anyone would pay you any amount of money to teach their kids is being duped to the nth degree. Cmon voucher system, HH will be out in the street within a week, probably with an “end is near” cardboard sign around his neck.

and making stupid assumptions, i dont go along with either gore or boxer at all.

of course life will go on merrily with higher C02, it would go on merrily with lower C02, or higher 02 or lower ect, but thats not the point. Things were not exactly the same today as they were 80million years ago in regards to our ecosystem and topography, to simply say increase C02 and things will only get better is stupid, beyond stupid.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
adapt or go extinct.

So, although I am absolutely against pollution, the CO2… might not be such a terrible thing. I wish they would spend more time researching instead of more time screaming about how it’s happening.[/quote]

the argument that people who support “faster” global warming among other things , is that human acceleration of planetary changes it happening too quickly for any kind of adaptation in the ecosystem. To an extent which is true for some species, normalcy of their behavior is changing for the worse some times.

but is this due to humans or just natural course? you’re right its not really appropriate to claim either way.

spot on. less screaming more thinking.