12 December 2013

More warmist stupidity -- CO2 is "pollution"

Again CO2 is confused with real pollution in a comment by a warmist.
Now, according to the convoluted AGW theory, CO2 is pollution because it causes dangerous warming. But there's no direct harm of CO2 on humans or animals -- even the IPCC would admit to that. But as usual a warmist lives in his own fantasy and is quite happy making up any old claptrap, no matter how unscientific. He claims CO2:
"..harms the health of citizens.."

Wow. The whole quote from Phillip Givens is below, from this Forbes article. It's the last comment of the article at the moment on page 40 of the comments. (Screen shot).
Perhaps he's thinking of carbon monoxide, I've seen warmists get this mixed up before? It is true that most energy production processes produce, along with CO2, real pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, ozone, sulphur dioxide etc, but the CO2 itself is not pollution.

CO2 wouldn't kill or harm humans even if there were 10 times as much in the atmosphere. At 100 times CO2 you would choke to death, but this trace gas could never get to that level because, firstly there's not that much carbon to burn, and secondly at a certain point the atmospheric CO2 will be so high it will easily dissolve into the ocean. (This could start happening soon, in which case atmospheric CO2 would fall and AGW would be toast!!)

Warmists are unaware of the huge natural carbon cycle that dwarfs human CO2 output. They're completely unaware that CO2 is soluble in water and there's already 27 times as much CO2 in the ocean busily being turned into carbonate rocks by ocean biota.

The warmists view is that the atmosphere is dead -- a closed volume in which evil human's CO2 from the industrial era will last FOREVER!!!!  Ooh, are you scared?

What happened to the living Gaia theory?  It's like the earth is dead and has no natural negative feedbacks with the ability to regulate its temp, CO2 etc. And humans are more powerful than nature. Warmists haven't abandoned Gaia just because its creator James Lovelock came to his senses and realised AGW was exaggerated have they?

From Wiki:

...the [Gaia]  hypothesis postulates that the biosphere has a regulatory effect on the Earth's environment that acts to sustain life.

Oh wait, I know what they'd say: Gaia is being disrupted. Well what good is a living system of negative feedbacks if it can't be disrupted? Disruption is what living "Gaia" planets do. And it's had much worse than this miniscule 0.8C warming in the past, so what's the big deal?

CO2 is plant food that is pumped into greenhouses to help plants grow.  If you were to pump car exhaust into a greenhouse that would harm the plants, but not because of the CO2, but the other, real pollutants.
Here's the whole quote in red and a rebuttal in black:
I personally do not understand why there is such a debate about global warming. Whether or not global warming is happening begs the point that carbon dioxide is pollution and harms the health of citizens and causes huge expense. One study,
...and many others demonstrate the cost of air pollution (the major cause of global warming). Why would anyone be against limiting pollution.

The study linked too is about pollution in general, not CO2. There's a difference.

Does Phillip know what the pollution in London right now would be if we didn't have the internal combustion engine? You wouldn't see the other side of the street, the air would be that thick with pollution from horse manure particles from all the horse drawn carriages.

In the developing world people die 20 - 30 years earlier because they don't have electricity powered by fossil fuels, and so have to burn dirty fuels in fires inside their house to cook.

No one in their right mind is in favour of pollution Phillip, you fool. Rich capitalist countries have a far better environment than socialist and poor countries.  In any case, CO2 is not pollution it's plant food.

Why was this part of the abstract not mentioned?

Because it's not in the abstract it's in the introduction, as pointed out on the Judith Curry blog. Why should we be so concerned with these past studies? Just because you don't like the results of this current one?

Not to mention this part of the article is equivalent to prevarication. I expected much greater honesty for someone writing for Forbes.
So in other words, because the new results don't paint as strong a picture of the consensus, looking at the new results is avoiding the other older, less reliable Doran survey results, because the percentage in agreement is at the higher figure of 97% in the Doran survey, which you like more than 52%. 97% sounds more authoritative and more scary.

It's that important to Phillip to have everyone agree, even though science is an adversarial system, even on issues that are well understood, let alone an issue as complex and controversial as climate science.

If only we all could be goose stepping and frogmarching toward a Marxist paradise of complete climate control like Phillip is, I guess we could be happy and see his vision for a harmonious world.

Yet no matter how often socialism fails, Marxist freaks keep coming out of the woodwork.

From the above quoted article:
“Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).”
Yes, Phillip that's the article quoting previous work. Work that has now been superseded by this survey. So what Phillip's saying is: ignore this work and just consider what those past works say.

In any case, the Doran survey was bogus, sample article on that here:


This latest survey of the American Meteorological Society is actually an improvement on the useless vague questions that were used in the Doran survey. Phillip only likes evidence when his delusions are confirmed by it.

1 comment: