So…
**E12 accepts AGW is happening due to pumping out CO2 but for some inexplicable reason can’t take the next logical step that reducing the cause will reduce the effect.
**In spite of mainstream science, WW doesn’t accept that human activity can impact CC at all because it is a natural phenomenon that has occurred before (duh).
**And Sorfed accepts AGW is happening but thinks its desirable because the planet was greener 100 million years ago (conveniently ignoring all other impacts).
And I’m stupid for comparing action to reduce CO2 emissions with action to reduce CFC emissions because they occur and impact differently? Boy…
If you’re talking stupid statements, see the bolded.
There is rarely (except in the case of really exotic synthesised materials) a binary line between pollutant and non-pollutant, it all depends on amount and location. Sewage is a great fertiliser and helps plants grow, for instance, but you still don’t want large amounts of it in your drinking water. Salt is an entirely natural substance and animals will die without enough of it in their diet, but too much of it in soil will still cause plants to die. Woodsmoke is as natural as it comes, but in high enough concentrations it’ll still suffocate you. Hell, asbestos is just a rock, but if it’s crushed up and the dust gets in the air, you’ve got problems. Same with CO2.
CO2 in concentrations significantly above the historical amount of 320-340ppm IS a pollutant. It is an artificially released substance that has a major detrimental impact on the environment. And the stuff about supposed ‘greening’ is bunkum and has been long since discredited in a real-life scenario. In a lab if you grow a plant in a high-CO2 environment, it WILL grow better than one in a low-CO2 environment. However, in the real agricultural world, the small amount of growth increase that plants get from increased atmospheric CO2 level is hugely outweighed by the impoverishment and loss of farmland due to changes in rainfall patterns, higher temperatures, and more frequent droughts. Pretending that the sum effect of artificially high CO2 concentrations is good because of the small amount of growth improvement while ignoring the side effects is like drowning someone in a bath and telling the jury you were doing him a favour because ‘I made sure he was clean for the rest of his life!’
Right wing rag? Fairfax.
It’s the sister paper to The Age, it is in direct competion with the ABC.
What’s your idea of a neutral paper? The Daily Worker, Pravda, Green Left Weekly, Huffington Post, NYT, the Washington Post.
To be honest sorfed, I rarely read any newspapers.
I do not really care about left or right wing bias in any of them, but none of them actually report news anymore. The stories are usually mostly an opinion of a journalist, and I even value your opinion higher than any journalist I know.
I have been screwed royally by both newspaper journalists and TV reporters, so I have a big hatred for the whole lot. I must also add that over the journey, I have watched fine, ethical young journalists change into Caro-type scum. My daughter was choosing University courses and told me that she was considering journalism; after I recovered from my heart seizure, I sat with her and we worked through a variety of news outlets over a few weeks. I tried hard to be objective and looked for stories that were honest, ethical and fair. She concluded that it was more ethical to sell insurance or used cars, and went on to study and then work in Tourism very successfully.
If you review the Age, and look at who they have writing “commentary”, then it is easy to understand the bias both left and right. Ex-Conservative Politicians and former Labor or Union Hacks are actually paid to write the excretement they offer.
Maybe you are missing the point of what increased CO2 does to our environment.
I built a hot-house in my back yard; and I have a wonderful variety of orchids and luscious green plants that thrive. But when the Planet becomes a hot-house, and the Polar Caps eventually melt, weather patterns change and staple foods such as wheat and rice become more difficult to grow then maybe you will re-consider what the effects of “greening” are.
And of course Docklands will be under water and I will probably have sea-views here in the Marsh.
I couldn’t find any mention of 8000 ppm; think the highest estimate ever is 700 ppm, when the sea level of about 30 metres higher than now. We are now at 400 ppm.
Ironic you use a hash site for your claims; have you been eating those cookies again.
And funnily enough, because of the greenhouse effect and increased temperatures, sea levels then were 75-150m higher then than they are now.
Cause and effect. You want the minor increases in plant growth in specific areas that increased co2 levels give you, then you have accept the side effects of sea level increases and spreading desert in other areas.
But if you bothered reading the stuff I’ve written in response to your crap, you’d already know this.
The thing the deniers don’t seem to factor in is the possibility of being wrong. I believe in human-induced climate change, I believe the science and I believe the warnings we are being given. BUT I accept the possibility (remote as I think it is) that I might be wrong.
If I accept that then I also have to accept the consequences of being wrong and if I and the science and the researchers are all wrong then I have to accept that for no good reason I’ve been arguing for action that may temporarily knock a few basis points of global economic growth. But if the deniers are wrong…[insert armageddon scenarios here].