The M2C2 smoking gun: holy grail or wholly folly?

trafn wrote: Should we postpone meaningful action in response to M2C2 (man-made climate change) until we find a M2C2 smoking gun?

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.

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?

Totototo wrote:What actions would you consider to be harmful?

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?

trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - wow, and I thought the New Deal at least put some tax money to good use.

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.

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

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

trafn wrote: @IBdaMann - you've globalized a limited statement.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

In biology, CO2 is essential to life. Period.

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.

Totototo wrote:I keep searching and reading about "fund pollutant"

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.

"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.

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you said that Carbon monoxide is a poison, even in small quantitites.

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

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.

trafn wrote:@IBdasMarxistischeMenschlicheMinen - as for CO being a poison or pollutant, it all depends upon what your goal is.

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

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

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.

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.

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?