Remember me
▼ Content

The M2C2 smoking gun: holy grail or wholly folly?


The M2C2 smoking gun: holy grail or wholly folly?15-10-2015 19:32
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Should we postpone meaningful action in response to M2C2 (man-made climate change) until we find a M2C2 smoking gun?

Okay, so first, this isn't about whether or not a smoking gun exists for M2C2 (man-made climate change), because if there is one, I sure haven't seen it yet. Instead, when contemplating meaningful action in response to M2C2, this is more about whether it even matters if such a smoking gun does indeed exist. After all, while M2C2 supporters would love to find such a thing so they could point it in the deniers' faces and say, "See, we told you so," one might want to first consider the implications of what it would mean if you did find it. Why? Because we're talking about M2C2 on planet Earth: the place where we all live. Given the potential devastation which M2C2 might cause, do you really want to find such evidence when you live in the barrel of the gun?

Keeping in mind that the most common M2C2 smoking guns talked about today are events called tipping points, to fully prove any such event truly is a tipping point (i.e. - and not just an imposter), you must both approach and pass through that (tipping) point in time. This means, you can only be sure that it was a tipping point after it has already happened. In retrospect, this makes you wonder if maybe they didn't run the Titanic into that iceberg on purpose, just to prove it was unsinkable. Obviously, that probably isn't the most prudent tactic when there is so much at stake.

Additionally, we can't forget about something called the lag time. This is the idea that you may not experience the full force of an event until quite some time later (example: you and I are watching the game on TV and I cut a silent but deadly one). In many instances, people have estimated the lag time for M2C2 related events to be measured in decades. So, let's say that a particular ongoing event which has a lag time also happens to contribute to a M2C2 trigger point. Even once you've passed by and identified that tipping point, you still haven't yet experienced the full force of that contributory ongoing event (example: my original SBD finally hits your nose, but you grin and bear it not realizing that I've already released nine more).

So, yes, in theory, postponing any meaningful M2C2 related actions until you find a M2C2 smoking gun might be one option, but it might not be the most prudent option. If you're still not convinced, come on over and watch the game with me sometime.

By the way, meet my dog stinky:




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 15-10-2015 19:33
16-10-2015 01:07
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Hmm...interesting. I can imagine deniers protesting that it would be a waste of resources to prevent something that in their eyes is not real. Having said that, regulations regarding the use of raw material in an evergrowing population with evergrowing needs, is the logical next step along with clean energies, because whether or not you think there is a global warming, air pollution is very real.

The resolution of environmental pollution is something we can all agree on (I think), so that would be a huge first step in this matter, that we find common ground. The implications this changes in policy regarding environment, will directly affect the "global warming" issue. I know it's not a complete solution, but it's a good start in my opinion.
16-10-2015 09:11
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - no, no one has the complete solution or all the answers. But if you perceive a pending threat, it is best to take at least preparatory action even if you don't have all the answers yet. Kinda like when a hurricane is approaching. You're never quite sure if it's gonna hit exactly where you are, but if you're not prepared and it does, then it's too late to get ready.
16-10-2015 17:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: Should we postpone meaningful action in response to M2C2 (man-made climate change) until we find a M2C2 smoking gun?


Should we commit to expensive and harmful actions just so we can say that we are doing something just in case the religion is true?

Your question is a variant of the Global Warming version of Pascal's wager.

You can believe in God or not believe in God. If you don't believe and you're wrong, you're really hosed. If you believe and are wrong, you've lost nothing.

You can believe in Global Warming or not. If you don't believe and you are wrong, you're really hosed. If you believe and you are wrong, you've lost nothing.

Pascal's wager is a well-published fallacy. It comes as no surprise that the Global Warming congregation turns to it as often as Christians.

trafn wrote: Okay, so first, this isn't about whether or not a smoking gun exists for M2C2 (man-made climate change), because if there is one, I sure haven't seen it yet.

If you dig a hole in your back yard, have you not created "Climate" change? If yes, then there's your smoking gun right there!


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-10-2015 18:10
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - as to Pascal's wager, this is about the physical world, not the spiritual one. Tell me, even if you don't believe in climate change, don't you think that improving solar power to make it economically feasible for most people to use (i.e. - power their homes, cars, etc.) is a good idea?

As to that hole in your back yard, first you'd need to know if it's generating any SBD's.
16-10-2015 19:16
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
I agree tranf.

Should we commit to expensive and harmful actions just so we can say that we are doing something just in case the religion is true?


What actions would you consider to be harmful?
16-10-2015 21:23
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - good question! (take that, IBdaMann!)
17-10-2015 03:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Totototo wrote:What actions would you consider to be harmful?

Legislation that damages the economy. Taxation that punishes people for creating jobs and for adding value. Regulations that make energy unnecessarily more expensive.

...just to name a few.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2015 03:47
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - are you saying that it's totally impossible to ever have M2C2 legislation that actually helps the economy through taxes that create jobs while adding value through regulations that make cleaner energy affordable?

PS - just chiming in Totototo.
17-10-2015 04:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: @IBdaMann - are you saying that it's totally impossible to ever have M2C2 legislation that actually helps the economy through taxes that create jobs while adding value through regulations that make cleaner energy affordable?

Taxes can't create jobs. Regulations can't reduce costs. A country cannot tax itself into prosperity.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2015 15:40
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - wow, and I thought the New Deal at least put some tax money to good use.

As for regulations, who knows, maybe the world could have used a few more thalidomide babies.

After all, their handwriting is so neat:



(I gotta admit, that one even made me a little sick)


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
17-10-2015 15:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - wow, and I thought the New Deal at least put some tax money to good use.

Insufficient. The people who originally had the money that was stripped from them could have done far more good. Charities that were doing excellent work become forced to do far less excellent work just so the government can do a little good work. Government inefficiency increases geometrically with government growth. A thousand people quietly helped by private charities becomes ten people helped by a government official in a photo-op.

Don't buy the photo-op.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2015 16:33
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - yes, they could have, but they didn't.

No use crying over spilt milk now. After all, history only remembers the winners:

17-10-2015 21:31
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Thanks for the answer IB, but I think the situations you describe there can (and are) happening without the excuse of Climate Change. I was mainly asking about the repercutions this would have in science that would be harmful.
17-10-2015 21:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Totototo wrote:
Thanks for the answer IB, but I think the situations you describe there can (and are) happening without the excuse of Climate Change.

Would doing more of it in the name of "Climate" change then somehow not be damaging?

Totototo wrote: I was mainly asking about the repercutions this would have in science that would be harmful.

Spelled: "repercussions."

There can be no repercussions in science. Nothing preached by any religion can have any effect on science.

Environmentally, warmazombies pose a very real danger to humanity and to life on planet earth by working to convince others that CO2, a life essential gas, is somehow a pollutant. They seek legislation to treat it as a toxic/harmful substance. They'd probably have TSA screening passengers for it if given their way.

trafn, you never answered my question! Do you consider oxygen a pollutant?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2015 21:56
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - huh? What? I...uh? Oh! Oh! Sorry about that IBdaMann. I was having the strangest dream, and you were in it. It happened while you were still in school and you were reading your daughter a good night story, and....



And, yes, O2 is a pollutant when its concentration reached toxic levels.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
18-10-2015 00:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:And, yes, O2 is a pollutant when its concentration reached toxic levels.

So your position is that everything is a pollutant.

That renders nothing a pollutant.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-10-2015 00:47
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - you've globalized a limited statement. Keep in mind that one person's pollution is another person's gold mine (literally as in when you're living next to but don't own the gold mine). So under certain circumstances, a given substance may be useful as in normal concentrations of atmospheric O2, but at excessive concentrations it can be lethal as in sustained exposure to 100% O2.

(jeez, a reply without any insults. I'm losing my touch.)
18-10-2015 03:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: @IBdaMann - you've globalized a limited statement.

You removed all limitation. Everything is a pollutant in the manner that you have defined the term (which is a complete redefinition of the term 'pollutant).

When everything is a pollutant, nothing is a pollutant.

You have created an absurd context.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-10-2015 03:55
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - through our ongoing conversations, I feel like I've come to know you so well that I have this image of you in my head, but I have no idea where it comes from:

18-10-2015 05:00
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Would doing more of it in the name of "Climate" change then somehow not be damaging?

I guess you never lived in a country with this situations, but I can tell you in my country, were your worst nightmare is in development (Marxist ideals), the government doesn't need the excuse of Climate Change to perform these actions you mentioned, so I find that argument sort of weak.

Spelled: "repercussions."

Thanks for the correction.

There can be no repercussions in science. Nothing preached by any religion can have any effect on science.

Environmentally, warmazombies pose a very real danger to humanity and to life on planet earth by working to convince others that CO2, a life essential gas, is somehow a pollutant. They seek legislation to treat it as a toxic/harmful substance. They'd probably have TSA screening passengers for it if given their way.

My bad. I should have worded what I said better. When I was refering to Climate Change, in my mind I was talking about climate cycles which happened before, not necessarily about man-made climate change.
Isn't CO2 considered a fund pollutant meaning it's harmless unless the rate of emission exceeds our capacity of absorption?
18-10-2015 17:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Totototo wrote: I guess you never lived in a country with this situations, but I can tell you in my country, were your worst nightmare is in development (Marxist ideals), the government doesn't need the excuse of Climate Change to perform these actions you mentioned, so I find that argument sort of weak.

What country would that be? Venezuela? I have lived in many different countries.

Totototo wrote: When I was refering to Climate Change, in my mind I was talking about climate cycles which happened before, not necessarily about man-made climate change. [quote]
Well, then you must have a working definition in your mind of "climate" and "climate cycles." How do you know whether anyone else uses your definition of those terms? Neither term is defined in science.

[quote]Totototo wrote: Isn't CO2 considered a fund pollutant meaning it's harmless unless the rate of emission exceeds our capacity of absorption?

No. Not in science. In biology, CO2 is essential to life. Period. In no branch of science nor in any industry is CO2 considered a pollutant.

Warmamzombies, on the other hand, absolutely need for CO2 to be considered a pollutant. Their entire religion depends on it. Their entire self identity depends on it.

So they redefine "pollutant" by adding a "sufficient quantity" qualifier, otherwise quantity is not a factor in whether something is a pollutant. But to warmazombies, it is more important to declare every substance in existence a "pollutant" and thus declare CO2 a pollutant, than to allow their religion to collapse under the knowledge that CO2 is simply not a pollutant.

Why do you think warmazombies declare oxygen to be a pollutant? nitrogen? Because they must, in order to get CO2 declared a "pollutant" as well.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-10-2015 05:41
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
What country would that be? Venezuela? I have lived in many different countries.

Oh man that's awesome! Would love to travel in the future. No, it's actually Argentina, but you were really close. Our president greatly supports Maduro's government in Venezuela and the politics model is very similar. Where do you live if you don't mind me asking?

In biology, CO2 is essential to life. Period.

Absolutely.

So they redefine "pollutant" by adding a "sufficient quantity" qualifier, otherwise quantity is not a factor in whether something is a pollutant.

Why do you think warmazombies declare oxygen to be a pollutant? nitrogen? Because they must, in order to get CO2 declared a "pollutant" as well.

So, by definition then everything would be a pollutant right? That would render the definition of pollutant useless.
Then the big problem is how this is expressed. "CO2 is a pollutant" sounds like it doesn't play any important role in our lives and that we should be dead already. "CO2, as well as every substance, is toxic if the emition rate exceeds nature's absorption capabilities" sounds better (feel free to be as blunt as you want about that statement as I'm not sure it's accurate).
I keep searching and reading about "fund pollutant" and it makes sense in my mind, so my question would be what do you think is wrong with that defintion. Perhaps the problem is how it is worded?
An example that comes to mind would be carbon monoxide. You wouldn't put your mouth in the exhaust pipe without consequences, because though it is harmless (and present in our bodies) in small amounts, taking more than our bodies can process is toxic. How wrong am I?
19-10-2015 13:18
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - score one for Totototo with carbon monoxide!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-10-2015 00:40
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
tranf - I...I scored? Woooohoo.

But really, I think I'm not wrong in this one, but who knows.
21-10-2015 01:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Totototo wrote:I keep searching and reading about "fund pollutant"

"Fund pollutant" has a technical code: BO-LUDE-Z

This concept is another stupid warmazombie invention. It is an attempt to redefine "pollutant" so that CO2 meets the definition. Remember, CO2 is essential to life on the planet, but warmazombies NEED for CO2 to somehow be a "pollutant", by any means possible, because their entire religion, and the self-identity of every member of the congregation, depends on it.

A substance either is, or is not, a pollutant, independent of quantity. The idea of a "fund pollutant" is just another attempt to add the "in sufficient amount" qualifier. In this case, the sufficiency qualifier is whether the environment can "absorb" it or not.

Verdict: Summarily dismissed without merit.


Totototo wrote: An example that comes to mind would be carbon monoxide. You wouldn't put your mouth in the exhaust pipe without consequences, because though it is harmless (and present in our bodies) in small amounts, taking more than our bodies can process is toxic. How wrong am I?

Carbon monoxide is a poison, even in small quantitites. It just does less damage in small quantities and you can recover.

If you take a knife and make a small cut on your skin. You will likely heal. You won't die. The cut is still damaging, just not a lot. A small amount of CO will prevent some cells from getting oxygen and they are damaged, but they can probably be replaced by growing new cells.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-10-2015 03:39
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Carbon monoxide is a poison, even in small quantitites. It just does less damage in small quantities and you can recover.

There goes my shitty example haha.

"Fund pollutant" has a technical code: BO-LUDE-Z

This concept is another stupid warmazombie invention. It is an attempt to redefine "pollutant" so that CO2 meets the definition. Remember, CO2 is essential to life on the planet, but warmazombies NEED for CO2 to somehow be a "pollutant", by any means possible, because their entire religion, and the self-identity of every member of the congregation, depends on it.

A substance either is, or is not, a pollutant, independent of quantity. The idea of a "fund pollutant" is just another attempt to add the "in sufficient amount" qualifier. In this case, the sufficiency qualifier is whether the environment can "absorb" it or not.

Technically, it's "BO-LU-DEZ" but the message is pretty clear

That's a more agressive way of saying what I said before (that the big problem for you is the wording), because in your answer you don't deny that substances can be...problematic and have nasty effects depending on their quantity. So would the big problem be that the definition of "pollutant" is losing its true meaning with every TedTalk about environment? Maybe another term is needed...Hhmmm.
21-10-2015 04:17
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you said that Carbon monoxide is a poison, even in small quantitites.

Don't tell that to the Fischer-Tropsch process.*

And the judges rule..... TOTOTOTO'S SCORE REMAINS!!! (and the crowd goes wild)

* - one might want to look up the definition of poison in a chemistry dictionary.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 21-10-2015 04:57
21-10-2015 19:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you said that Carbon monoxide is a poison, even in small quantitites.

It wasn't me. Are you losing context?
trafn wrote:
Don't tell that to the Fischer-Tropsch process.*

Why would a poison interfere with a chemical process. Poisons are poisons BECAUSE they are chemicals the react with living tissue in a certain way. What about the Fischer-Tropsch process contains living tissue?
trafn wrote:
And the judges rule..... TOTOTOTO'S SCORE REMAINS!!! (and the crowd goes wild)

* - one might want to look up the definition of poison in a chemistry dictionary.

A regular dictionary is sufficient.
21-10-2015 21:44
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - my apologies, you are correct.

This was meant for IBdasMarxistischeMenschlicheMinen.

As to your question about poisons in chemical processes, I'll leave you to look that up (suggestion: try a chemistry dictionary).


@IBdasMarxistischeMenschlicheMinen - as for CO being a poison or pollutant, it all depends upon what your goal is. Tobacco companies in the 50's paid for TV commercials that extolled the "health" benefits of smoking. CO is one of the more toxic agents present in second-hand tobacco smoke. That fact did not bother the tobacco companies. They didn't see it as a poison or pollutant. They saw it as money. So, your assertion that CO is always a poison is incorrect. It's all relative to the context.

It's kinda like asking, "Is a piece of shit shit?" Well, hopefully it is if it's you or I looking at it. But it's a piece of food to a dung beetle.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 21-10-2015 21:47
22-10-2015 00:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:@IBdasMarxistischeMenschlicheMinen - as for CO being a poison or pollutant, it all depends upon what your goal is.

I agree. If, for example, your goal is to demonize a life-essential compound in order to save your religion, then even CO2 can become a pollutant, along with every other substance...which would include CO.

By the way, don't think I haven't noticed the time and care you put into crafting, and typing out each time, my new moniker. Thanks.

trafn wrote: Tobacco companies in the 50's paid for TV commercials that extolled the "health" benefits of smoking.

Do you hate liars as much as I do?

trafn wrote: It's kinda like asking, "Is a piece of shit shit?"

Not at all. It's more like asking "Is that shit to me?" "Is that poison to me?" If so, then it doesn't matter the quantity. It is what it is.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-10-2015 00:59
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@climate scientist, Ceist and Tototo only - getting back to the original topic of this thread, given the entire M2C2 scenario is being played on upon the planet where we live, what are some of the key things you have notice or learned about in the past 10 or 20 years that convince you that it's time to take action which addresses M2C2?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 22-10-2015 01:10
22-10-2015 01:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
@ Everybody Only According to the whole "global warming greenhouse gas climate forcing effect" thing, what can humans do that will have what verifiable effect on what?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-10-2015 08:53
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@Tranf - Hmm...I wasn't really in touch with the news about the pollution of the environment ten years ago. The answer would be nothing though.

Nothing has convinced me that it's time to take action against man-made climate change. What I do think, is that it's time to take action against environmental pollution, and I'm not telling you this as someone that reads scientific papers or research about this but as a witness.

In case anyone is interested, you should read about the conflict between Argentina-Uruguay and the papeleras (don't know the word in english but it's a paper making factory). Huge impact in the people of a town I hold dear, Gualeguaychu.
In the town where I live, we have a river that crosses it, which is contaminated. The water treatment plants use a lot of chemicals to make it "drinkable" but even then...I won't risk drinking it, same with a lot of people I know.
The poor management of garbage also makes it really hard for some people to live.
"El impenetrable chaqueño". Search about that also.
The mining companies droping hazardous waste on nearby rives, and the very recent problem with that in the province of San Juan.

I could go on and on. So yeah, there's my answer. Will tackling this environmental issues theoretically help M2C2? If that's so, I will gladly support M2C2 based regulations just to avoid seeing my people suffer.

@IB, you didn't answer my question about the term "pollutant".
22-10-2015 11:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Totototo wrote: that's a more agressive way of saying what I said before (that the big problem for you is the wording), because in your answer you don't deny that substances can be...problematic and have nasty effects depending on their quantity. So would the big problem be that the definition of "pollutant" is losing its true meaning with every TedTalk about environment? Maybe another term is needed...Hhmmm.

To4, if everything is a pollutant then nothing is a pollutant.

If everything is a poison then nothing is a poison.

We understand that all substances are harmful in some sufficient quantitiy therefore any definition involving some "sufficient quantity" makes all substances pollution/poison, which makes nothing pollution/poison.

Any definition of pollution/poison must rely on inherent harmful properties independent of quantity. Existing definitions are sufficient. We don't need new words.

pol·lute
pəˈlo͞ot/Submit
verb
contaminate (water, air, or a place) with harmful or poisonous substances.
"the explosion polluted the town with dioxin"
synonyms: contaminate, adulterate, taint, poison, foul, dirty, soil, infect; literarybefoul
"fish farms will pollute the lake"
defile; corrupt.
"a society polluted by racism"
synonyms: corrupt, poison, warp, pervert, deprave, defile, blight, sully; literarybesmirch
"propaganda polluted this nation"

pol·lu·tion
pəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.
"the level of pollution in the air is rising"
synonyms: contamination, adulteration, impurity

poi·son
noun
a substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-10-2015 17:30
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@climate scientist, Ceist and Tototo only:

- Totototo: In the United States, we too have had similar circumstances, the most infamous being Love Canal. These types of situations occur when corporations put their own profits ahead of the well-being of people. The tobacco industry, like the polluters you are dealing with, are also examples of this type of malevolent behavior.

M2C2 is the conglomerate result of human-kinds innumerable insults which it has placed upon this planet's environment. I applaud you for your chosen field of study, as you will have the opportunity to re-write some of these wrongs.

PS - in regards to another conversation you're having in this thread, it's your choice, but you might want to take it into a PM.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 22-10-2015 17:31
22-10-2015 18:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote to Totototo:PS - in regards to another conversation you're having in this thread, it's your choice, but you might want to take it into a PM.


Totototo, I have no idea why trafn would think this. These threads are exactly the place for these conversations...unless he's trying to keep opposing viewpoints out of these threads. But how could that be the case when he has told us that all he wants is a free flow of differing ideas?

You don't think he might have been insincere, do you?

You can feel free to remind everyone that CO2 is not a pollutant here in this thread, or anywhere you wish in this forum.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-10-2015 03:23
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@Tranf - Read about the Love Canal, what a disaster. I will search a bit about the tobacco companies. Thanks for the words about my chosen path, it's very nice of you.

About IBdaMann, I tend to use pm for more personal questions. The conversation with him in this thread concluded with his final answer, he thinks there's no need for new words that point the danger some substance precents past certain quantity, I think otherwise. And that's totally fine.

I will in the future consider answering IB through pm though.
23-10-2015 10:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
Okay, so first, this isn't about whether or not a smoking gun exists for M2C2 (man-made climate change), because if there is one, I sure haven't seen it yet. Instead, when contemplating meaningful action in response to M2C2, this is more about whether it even matters if such a smoking gun does indeed exist. After all, while M2C2 supporters would love to find such a thing so they could point it in the deniers' faces and say, "See, we told you so," one might want to first consider the implications of what it would mean if you did find it. Why? Because we're talking about M2C2 on planet Earth: the place where we all live. Given the potential devastation which M2C2 might cause, do you really want to find such evidence when you live in the barrel of the gun?


I like most of the above.

You say that there is no smoking gun.. ie no actual evidence that catastrophic warming has taken place or indeed that any sort of unprecidented warming has taken place. OK, good start.

Then you want to talk about it as though it is a killer threat to humanity.

Well you will need evidence of that. You will need to show that the whole world has gotten it wrong. that the IPCC's predictions are way below the mark.

I have seen some of the stuff you have posted. It is "I drew a line on a graph but it was not high enough so I made it an expnential line. Aren't I clever!!". No you are not. You will need a mechanism to explain. This mechanism has to stand up to scrutiny. It has to be robust and follow what we know of physics.

If you don't know much physics then don't even try. I know some physics. Not much but a bit. If I can find any wrong bit in your energy budget for this casastrophy then it falls at the first and is drivel. Unlucky that's the scientific process for you. It is not about being polite.




Join the debate The M2C2 smoking gun: holy grail or wholly folly?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
So, how many M2C2 deniers can you fit on the head of a needle?1018-07-2017 03:28
Is the United States doomed to be the global dumb-dumb when it comes to M2C2?5611-03-2017 20:51
When it comes to solving M2C2, is technology our saviour or the ghost in the machine?2724-12-2016 17:15
Philosophically speaking, where to M2C2 denialists come from?621-11-2015 01:23
Michael Oppenheimer, M2C2 Lecture, Pace Univ, 20142020-11-2015 00:41
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact