Home Forums Green World Rising: Carbon

This topic contains 4 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Trevor Larkum 2 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9739

    Trevor Larkum
    Keymaster

    In support of a US carbon tax: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP-Twj2lzB8
    [See the full post at: Green World Rising: Carbon]

    #9743

    donald
    Participant

    Sorry for the response, Trevor, I’m aware you feel this stuff is important but I feel a balance is useful. I neither put myself in a position with accepting the arguments for or against AGW, but I am sorry to say this video (as far as I was prepared to watch it) is a wonderful piece of non sequitur nonsense.

    We’re slap bang in the middle of an ice age, and the carbon being discussed was mostly ‘sunk’ in periods of much higher temperature (i.e. when there was no perennial ice at the caps). All we would do by burning it back into CO2 is to put back into the atmosphere was was already there. It is self-evident that life did not die out in those conditions, on the contrary it flourished.

    I switched off at the point where it showed London pea-soupers and the modern equivalent in China. The former was a result of winter time inversion layers trapping SO2 from sulphur bearing coal, which was dealt with by the clean air act. The latter is a result of NOx reactions leading to low level ozone (and no doubt some fraction of industrial SO2 is in there too). A carbon tax? How would that have helped in these examples?

    A few shots of water cooling towers releasing billowing clouds of … water vapour. Probably convinces some that it looks terrible.

    This is the end-game for Governments promoting these modern ideas of man made climate change. They have now buttered up the populous to believe it is OK to be taxed for releasing naturally occurring planetary gases into the atmosphere.

    It is quite easy to demonstrate that this (i.e, it is a ploy for more taxes) is by far the most rational interpretation: I neither agree nor disagree about CO2 leading to climate change, but I don’t need to! It is as plain as day to me that we should, indeed, leave fossil fuels in the ground as far as possible that we can. I say that because any sort of profligate and unnecessary waste is wrong at several levels, both moral and common sense. I believe we should do everything in our power to prevent any further exploitation of fossil fuel sources, and move immediately to full renewable and nuclear sources.

    It is OBVIOUS to anyone with half a brain that we should do this. Arguments about climate change are irrelevant – it should be done even if no-one had the slightest concern about the climate. So the argument about climate change and CO2 MUST be leading to something else, because the argument about moving away from carbon based energy does not need to be dependent on a climate change argument.

    Meanwhile, we have Governments who promote exploration, even fracking [#forehead-slap!] whilst pontificating about CO2 and that we must be taxed for it.

    Let me put it this way – Who would you vote for:
    a) someone who doesn’t believe man-made climate change is remotely real but calls for immediate cessation of fossil fuel exploitation and a move to 100% renewable/nuclear, or
    b) someone who says it is really important we all believe in man-made climate change and that we pay taxes to encourage us not to generate CO2, yet who carries on incentivising, funding, promoting and doing nothing at all to stop the oil industry?

    Taxing us, and making people think it is the right step, is the end-game for this climate change debacle. There is no intent for any taxes received to do anything about CO2 emissions that would not already be done because these things could be done already, if that was truly the intent.

    #9744

    Trevor Larkum
    Keymaster

    Sorry for the response, Trevor, I’m aware you feel this stuff is important but I feel a balance is useful.

    Not at all, donald – my hope is to encourage debate. As you know, though, I sit at the opposite end of the spectrum from you. I studied as a physicist before moving into engineering and recently, given my increasing concerns about global warming, I took an online course in climate change from the University of San Diego. The science is clear and unequivocal – the planet is warming at a rate unprecedented in geological history and we now have the highest concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere for nearly a million years, and certainly much longer than there has been human civilisation. I am in no doubt that my grandchildren, if not my children, will have their lives dominated by climate change – and that the planet will not be able to support projected levels of human life towards the end of this century if we continue on the current emissions path.

    That having been said, it doesn’t mean I don’t agree with your general opinion of the uselessness and hypocrisy of most politicians (particularly conservatives) who won’t look beyond the next election, nor that this particular video is scientifically completely accurate.

    #9747

    donald
    Participant

    the planet will not be able to support projected levels of human life towards the end of this century if we continue on the current emissions path.

    hmmm… the current ’emissions path’ is around 2ppm per year, and is currently on a slowing path. But still assuming constant rate, by the end of the century we’d be at ~600ppm.

    Thrinaxodon was probably the first warm blooded animal we know of, and it evolved at a time when the earth was around 2000ppm. Over the next 100 million years the CO2 first dropped to 1000ppm and then went back up to ~2500ppm. All this time, mammals not only survived, but they evolved and flourished.

    ** Probability that the planet will be uninhabitable by humans because CO2 hits 600ppm? .. Zero.

    ** Probability that technologically based humans will run out of energy to use, become non-viable, and shrink back to being stone-age primitives, unless we move on to ‘sustainable’ energy sources very very soon? Very high!

    It’s a no-brainer to me. Flying climate scientists and politicians around the world in stratospheric jet planes to attend conferences to pontificate about what they should be doing is beyond a hypocrisy. Keep that cash to get on and fund low/zero CO2 energy. Man made global warming is an academic point.

    #9749

    Trevor Larkum
    Keymaster

    There’s no argument that it was hot before, the dinosaurs liked it hot, but not since human civilisation began. On the current emissions path we will see 6 degrees of warming by the end of the century. That will have a devestating effect on agriculture and water supplies.

    ** Probability that the planet will be uninhabitable by humans because CO2 hits 600ppm? .. Zero.

    Not uninhabitable by humans, no – but absolutely uninhabitable by 7+ billion humans.

    Flying climate scientists and politicians around the world in stratospheric jet planes to attend conferences to pontificate about what they should be doing is beyond a hypocrisy. Keep that cash to get on and fund low/zero CO2 energy. Man made global warming is an academic point.

    Just because there is hypocrisy does not mean there isn’t an existential threat. Global warming is absolutely not an academic point. Fortunately I don’t believe we will continue on our current emissions path – with the climate havoc it will wreak it would be almost impossible – but that doesn’t mean it won’t have a devastating effect on the lives of our children and their children.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.