On Jan 1, 4:18 pm, "oobnz" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Jan 1, 2:57 pm, "oobnz" wrote:



"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Dec 31, 3:35 pm, "oobnz" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Dec 31, 11:40 am, "oobnz" wrote: 31 Dec 2008
It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is
necessary
for
life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth's
atmosphere.

It is instructive to reflect on this statement.
1. CO2 is necessary to life on Earth (true)
2. There is both CO2 and abundant life on Earth, especially of the
human kind
*******************************************

The second statement seems to have a note of regret in it Fran baby!
You're not a misanthrope by any chance are you baby?

You're the one asserting, inter alia, that:

a) humans can do nothing about climate change, and are irrelevant

Absolutely.

Humans are irrelevant? Well that's misanthropic ...
************************************************** *****

[sigh]
I'll spell it out ...
The implication was that we are irrelevant to the course of climate change.


Yes ... and therefore that humans must simply accept their fate,
humans are at the mercy of nature. As I said, misanthropic AND
empirically unjustified.

************************************************** ******* b) climate cycles that involves mass extinctions over millions of
years are OK with you, and relevant to today

Climate cycles are unavoidable. We can only adapt as necessary.

It doesn't matter if billions of humans are wiped out? That's
misanthropic.
*****************************************

[sigh]
I'll spell it out ...
The implication was that we are irrelevant to the course of climate change.


And so, in your view, humans have no choice but to passively accept
extinction, or at best, eons of death and misery. As I said,
misanthropic AND empirically unjustified.



****************************************** c) the climate regime of PETM or the Permian-Triassic or the
carboniferous era are suited to supporting 9 billion people

Most probably.

That's implicitly misanthropic and ignorant
*****************************************

Huh?
[sigh]
I'll spell it out ...
The implication was that higher CO2 levels would be conducive to the support
of greater human populations.


Except that these levels did not support anything like human life, not
did they support the variety in vegetation necessary to support 7
billion humans. As I said, misanthropic AND empirically unjustified.


*************************************** d) burning coal is perfectly fine

Absolutely. Our atmosphere is starved of CO2.

That's just silly. The right level of CO2 is the level that all things
considered, is best for us. The last 13,000 years suggests that we've
had plenty. Atmospheres don't "starve".
*************************************

[sigh]
If the atmosphere needs more CO2 to stimulate plant growth then it is
"starved".

Atmospheres don't "need" anything. Humans and living things need
stuff.

There's simply no evidence that plant growth *of the type humans can
actually use to meet our needs* will be greater, because

a) not all plants used by humans grow better with elevated CO2
b) some that do only do so if there is increased water and nutrient
and no increase in heat stress
c) Some plants that do this show increased growth but no increased
yield in the parts of the plant humans are interested in. Having more
leaf or woody biomass is not necessarily useful, unless one is
operateing plantation timber or trying to produce feed for grazing
animals
d) changes in climate will disrupt the ecologies attending plant
growth by fostering the survival and dispersion of plant diseases and
parasitic small fauna
e) rises in sea level will likely disrupt coastal agriculture and port
infrastructure for the carriage of food
f) changes in distribution of crops may trigger population movements
which will disrupt relations between and within states

As always, it's the integrity of the modelling that is key, and your
unstated "all else being equal" assumption is an obvious flaw.

Any greenhouse keeper, who regularly enriches the air inside those
greenhouses with CO2, will tell you this.


But greenhouses are utterly controlled environments with plants
selected specifically for their ability under ideal circumstances are
used. The elevated CO2 is far above what we are likely to see in the
near future (up to 1000ppmv or more) and no humans live there. Very
little of mass production agriculture is conducted in greenhouses,
because it's too expensive.


************************************************** ****
It's the humans that count, but as you said, "humans are irrelevant".
You are the misanthrope here.
*******************************************

Huh?
How is your statement relevant here?
Burning coal is not misanthropic.


Advocating the poisoning of humans is not misanthropic?

********************************** e) being dependent on crude oil is perfectly fine

It's a fact, however unpalatable, that we are, until maybe the hysteria
over
nuclear dies down.

That's just weird. What has "hysteria over nuclear" to do with
dependence on crude?
How much electricity comes out of oil-fired
plants in the west?
************************************************** *

[sigh]
For a start, nuclear could supply electricity for all those electric cars
you alarmists seem to prefer.

Only when a significant proportion of the vehicle fleet runs on mains-
rechargeable batteries. That day is a long way off, and even when it
comes, any low emissions technology would serve as well. I favour
nuclear in the mix in many places, but this side of something like an
emissions trading system or a carbon tax or the kinds of government
subsidy that attends nuclear everywhere it is a factor in energy
production, (which subsidies you say you hate because it's
"socialism"), coal will be cheaper for a very long time, in part
because the sunk cost on each of these plants will have to be
recovered and the recurrent costs at the point they are recovered are
comparatively low.

ergo, less dependence on oil.
Why do I have to spell everything out like this?


Because if I don't require it, you will respond with some frivolous
remakr and run away like the BGB that you are.

************************************************ f) trashing the biosphere on which all life depends is perfectly fine

Huh?
Who's advocating trashing the environment?
Not me!

You sure are.
Let me remind you:
"burning coal is perfectly fine ... Our atmosphere is starved of CO2."
Burning coal destroys the environment by putting toxic substances into
the air and water table making it less fit for human habitation or
use.
***********************************

[sigh]
The toxic substances could be easily filtered out, and they probably are
being filtered out currently.

Err no ... they aren't. Filtering them out would massively increase
the cost of such plants and reduce their viability. It would also
change the EROEI of these plants since this kind of effort is energy-
intensive.

But the CO2 should be fed straight into the atmosphere to promote plant
growth I'm advocating the greening of the planet with CO2!


Actually, the CO2 is only one issue ... its the toxic particulates in
the fly ash that is the real concern, and of course the stuff people
breathe in digging up coal.

*************************************** By contrast I advocate human intervention based on the idea that good
science and human reason can secure our welfare.

You advocate socialism,

Yes ... note the fragment "social" whioch refers to human
collaboration. You are hostile to collaboration, and I am not. You're
the misanthrope.
*******************************************

You are the misanthrope.
Socialism is only fit for much lower orders in the animal kingdom, such as
ants and other assorted insects, where individual liberty is meaningless.

But you say humans are irrelevant.

IOW socialism, as grim history has proven, is not fit for human
consumption!!


Socialism is applied human reason and collaboration. It's what
distinguishes us from all animals.

********************************************** population control,
draconian regulation of
everything we do,

Cite?
************************************************** ******

"Kyoto represents the first component of authentic global governance" French
President Jacques Chirac


Authentic global governance is "draconian"? Get a dictionary Bonzo.

************************************************** * and severe taxation to redistribute wealth from the creators of wealth to
the undeserving.

Actually, I favour redistribution from those who have more than they
need to create wealth to those who have less than they need to create
wealth, Mr Misanthrope.
************************************************** *

IOW
severe taxation to redistribute wealth from the creators of wealth to
the undeserving.


IOW the enabling of nearly everyone to be productive, sooner or later
and to share in it.

Fran