OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Hollywood Jesus]

You realise the affect it has on oceans?

Here's another implied lie - ocean acidification.

Here's the truth - the oceans will never become acidic.

Never.

Do you know the pH scale? Do you know how it works? Do you know the line of differentiation between acidic and alkaline is 7.0?

Did you know that the oceans are unable to absorb the amount of carbon required to go below 7.3/7.4?

Did you know that, therefore, the oceans will always remain alkaline? That they will never become acidic?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I have a biology degree, mate, but I mean if you think it'd help...

You're pretty ignorant on the subject for a guy claiming to have a degree in biology. Not to mention that the "argument from authority" is a sign of failure.

Are you telling me that I'm wrong? That the optimum carbon dioxide level for plants is not above 1000ppm.

It's a simple question - am I wrong or am I right?

 

[84 Baby]

Here's another implied lie - ocean acidification.

Here's the truth - the oceans will never become acidic.

Never.

Do you know the pH scale? Do you know how it works? Do you know the line of differentiation between acidic and alkaline is 7.0?

Did you know that the oceans are unable to absorb the amount of carbon required to go below 7.3/7.4?

Did you know that, therefore, the oceans will always remain alkaline? That they will never become acidic?

Is that why Sydney Harbour is as pristine as the Southern Ocean?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Is that why Sydney Harbour is as pristine as the Southern Ocean?

I've already covered this, 84.

Pollution <> Climate Change.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Here's a little piece on how to lie about "data".

The trick is to start (and sometimes stop) the data set only when it suits the narrative you want to put forward.



OMG, everybody! Climate Change! The world is burning!

Qld Bushfires! Greenland fires! THE AMAZON, EVERYBODY!!!

CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!!!!!

*cough*



*cough*

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Neither is it pollution - in any way.

My point is I wasn't referring to carbon dioxide.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

If that doesn't work...just "adjust" the data...

...you know, because....science!!!

 

[Bazal]

You're pretty ignorant on the subject for a guy claiming to have a degree in biology. Not to mention that the "argument from authority" is a sign of failure.

Are you telling me that I'm wrong? That the optimum carbon dioxide level for plants is not above 1000ppm.

It's a simple question - am I wrong or am I right?

I have no idea. Nor do I overly care, as I'm not a botanist. I haven't refuted that figure nor will I.

But what you've done is claim one piece of information, without context, as the basis for your whole emotive little tanty.

Let's accept your figure. How is it affected by, say, tree numbers? You yourself I believe mentioned deforestation earlier... If there is more carbon and fewer trees, how does that affect the equation?

What about grasses and whatnot? Does severely reduced acreage affect the ideal figure?

What about everything that isn't a tree? How does excess carbon affect them? What's the ideal number for a hummingbird, or a bell frog, or a human?

Is it carbon pollution if it, theoretically of course, reaches a level where mammals can't breathe? Is it only not pollution when it suits your little love affair with the plants?

You will note I haven't alleged you are wrong or right on the subject of climate change, BTW. But your assertions so far have been as ludicrous as suggesting there are 64 trillion genders or whatever.

Let go of the plant obsession and actually look at the systems as a whole

 

[84 Baby]

I've already covered this, 84.

Pollution <> Climate Change.

All good. I knew the answer anyway.

How does too much carbon dioxide improve bee populations, given they are a significant part of plant proliferation?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

There's something really similar about my last two posts...

...I wonder what it is...

...could it be...the 1930s...?

I wonder...

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

My point is I wasn't referring to carbon dioxide.

Of course you f**king were.

I say this as someone who supports climate action. There's no conclusive proof of most of the claims bring made, but I believe the burden of proof should lie with those who support more pollution. I also don't think meaningful climate action is possible without hurting the economy. People need to be prepared for this. Unfortunately most would rather provide for their kids than worry about what will happen to their great grandchildren.

Climate action followed immediately by pollution.

Hahaha.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Why is there a problem with an increase? You're just making an assumption, with no evidence, that the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem - specifically, that it increases global temperature.

No data shows this link in the past. Carbon dioxide levels have been almost 20 times what they are now and there was no runaway greenhouse effect. As a matter of fact, evidence from the likes of the Vostok Ice Cores show carbon dioxide actually trails temperature throughout the historical record, not the other way around.

If carbon dioxide causes temperature increases then why did global temperature drop between 1940 and 1970?

Why was it warmer during medieval times? Even warmer than that during Roman times? Even warmer than that during Egyptian times? Carbon dioxide levels were lower back then...

Why did the post-1970 warming trend stop just prior to 2000? What caused the increase between 1910-1940, when carbon dioxide levels were stable?

So what does it matter if the greening of the Earth (which you correctly stated is happening) can absorb the increase in carbon dioxide levels? At no point in our historical record is there any evidence to suggest that increases in carbon dioxide lead to increases in temperature. The historical record shows that higher temperatures than what we have now have been great for life (both human society and animals and plants).

So, hat does it matter?

And how does this relate to your original claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant?

I never mentioned carbon dioxide. If I referred to anything it was pollution, specifically pollution of the air. I'm no scientist but I'm sure plants don't crave carbon MONoxide or methane.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I have no idea. Nor do I overly care, as I'm not a botanist. I haven't refuted that figure nor will I.

Hahahaha, you referred to your so-called "biology degree" as a refutation of claims regarding plants and carbon.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

But what you've done is claim one piece of information, without context, as the basis for your whole emotive little tanty.

Let's accept your figure. How is it affected by, say, tree numbers? You yourself I believe mentioned deforestation earlier... If there is more carbon and fewer trees, how does that affect the equation?

What about grasses and whatnot? Does severely reduced acreage affect the ideal figure?

What about everything that isn't a tree? How does excess carbon affect them? What's the ideal number for a hummingbird, or a bell frog, or a human?

Is it carbon pollution if it, theoretically of course, reaches a level where mammals can't breathe? Is it only not pollution when it suits your little love affair with the plants?

You will note I haven't alleged you are wrong or right on the subject of climate change, BTW. But your assertions so far have been as ludicrous as suggesting there are 64 trillion genders or whatever.

Let go of the plant obsession and actually look at the systems as a whole

In regards to this argument, it's absolutely irrelevant.

The topic is climate change. Does carbon dioxide increase temperature?

The answer is no. I just happened to point out that carbon dioxide actually has some proven positive effects, and that was only because Pou claimed that it was a pollutant.

As for your questions - is there any evidence that there is a negative effect? Because carbon dioxide levels have been almost twenty times what they are now, and yet here we are....all living and alive and shit.

You can't just go - well, you're right about plants but there might be some possibility of some other negative consequence that no one has ever mentioned or argued for or even suggested but IT MIGHT f**kING HAPPEN SO YOU'RE f**kING WRONG!!!!!!!

Yet another great argument from a psuedo-intellectual.

Keep them coming, gentlemen.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

All good. I knew the answer anyway.

How does too much carbon dioxide improve bee populations, given they are a significant part of plant proliferation?

I don't know.

Has anyone ever suggested it might have a negative consequence?

Or are you just doing a Bazal and trying to make up any excuse that might have some small chance of sticking?

 

[84 Baby]

I never mentioned carbon dioxide. If I referred to anything it was pollution, specifically pollution of the air. I'm no scientist but I'm sure plants don't crave carbon MONoxide or methane.

BBQs EAT methane!

 

[Avenger]

Only now are the summers starting to get as hot as I remember when I was a kid. The South West is however hotter than the Shire so disregard.

 

[84 Baby]

Has anyone ever suggested it might have a negative consequence?

Probably not in your myopic range of research

 

[Bazal]

Hahahaha, you referred to your so-called "biology degree" as a refutation of claims regarding plants and carbon.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.



In regards to this argument, it's absolutely irrelevant.

The topic is climate change. Does carbon dioxide increase temperature?

The answer is no. I just happened to point out that carbon dioxide actually has some proven positive effects, and that was only because Pou claimed that it was a pollutant.

As for your questions - is there any evidence that there is a negative effect? Because carbon dioxide levels have been almost twenty times what they are now, and yet here we are....all living and alive and shit.

You can't just go - well, you're right about plants but there might be some possibility of some other negative consequence that no one has ever mentioned or argued for or even suggested but IT MIGHT f**kING HAPPEN SO YOU'RE f**kING WRONG!!!!!!!

Yet another great argument from a psuedo-intellectual.

Keep them coming, gentlemen.

Your understanding of science is US primary school level, tbh....lol

 

[Bazal]

I don't know.

Has anyone ever suggested it might have a negative consequence?

Or are you just doing a Bazal and trying to make up any excuse that might have some small chance of sticking?

If you only look at one thing out of thousands, you can essentially create any argument you like.

As you've done.

FWIW I disagree with a lot of climate science. But to claim that carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant because TREES EAT IT YOU GUYS is absolutely, positively ridiculous

 

[84 Baby]

If you only look at one thing out of thousands, you can essentially create any argument you like.

As you've done.

FWIW I disagree with a lot of climate science. But to claim that carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant because TREES EAT IT YOU GUYS is absolutely, positively ridiculous

I eat alcohol so why do my plants die when I pour metho on them