On Jan 27, 11:36*am, "marcodbeast" wrote:
literal wrote:

*You do realize that after we inhale oxygen, we
exhale CO?.

* Completely irrelevant, unless you eat fossil fuel.



LOL! Bulls-eye, Marco!

On Jan 27, 1:23*am, Mr Right wrote:
On Jan 27, 6:43*pm, john fernbach wrote:





On Jan 26, 1:03*am, Catoni wrote:

On Jan 25, 1:32*pm, T. Keating wrote:

Just in case one was wondering about the temperature increase in
Antarctica was real or fake .. * ..

"Freezing rain kills Antarctica penguin chicks"http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24013207-954,00.html
July 13, 2008 11:00pm

Some excepts..

"THOUSANDS of penguin chicks are freezing to death as Antarctica is
lashed by rain and scientists say Adelie penguin numbers may have
dropped 80 per cent."

"Scientists say if the downpours continue, the species will be extinct
within 10 years."

"Temperatures in the Antarctic have risen by 3C in the past 50 years
to an average of -14.7C and rain is now more common than snow."

"Such rain in Antarctica was a new phenomenon, and penguins were
freezing to death, said explorer Jon Bowermaster."

Just think.. 10 years and Emperor Penguins will only exist on film.

Shame on All AGW deniers, who pollute these news groups with mindless
drivel.

Makes one wonder how they survived the Medieval Warm Period, The Roman
Warm Period, and other warm times. Especially the Eemian Interglacial
125,000 years B.P. when global average temperatures were anywheres
from 3 - 8 degrees warner then now. Even our caveman ancestors
survived that, as well as the Ice Age.

* *Just how did those pesky Polar Bears, Penguins, Reindeer and Coral
Reefs etc. etc. survive all the previous Warm Times ???????

* * * * * *Funny also how latest studies show the Antarctic for the
most part is cooling.
* * Climate keeps changing but you guys want to stop climate change
and keep some sort of artificial man-controlled stable climate. *At
what cost?-

Actually, I think that would be a great idea, although maybe it's an
impossibly Promethean project.

Long term, what the human species should NOT want is any return of the
ice ages, which would
be even more destructive to our civilization than AGW.

So if we can, I think we should use the great scientific data that is
currently being generated by AGWes and the more sensible AGW Skeptics/
Contrarians; and in time we should try to devise a way to arrive at
a Goldilocks sollution -- "Not too hot, not too cold, but just right."

But in the meantime, Catoni - if *you think this idea is too
Promothean, too human-centric, then what about a fallback position
reflecting "Green" and "natural" values?

We give up the hope of "keeping some sort of artificial man-controlled
stable climate" as an exercise in human hubris, okay?

But in the same spirit of humility we abandon all actions we're taking
that are likely to interfere with what "nature" would do, if allowed
to take its course.

We END all human-generated CO2 and methane emissions, and END human
involvement in tropical deforestation, etc., on the grounds that this
ALSO means working for "some sort of artificial man-controlled
climate" -- just not a stable one.

Does that work for you?

Or is your real objection not to the hubris of "keeping some sort of
artificial man-controlled stable climate," but instead to the idea of
curbing anthropogenice CO2 and methane emissions?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But in the same spirit of humility we abandon all actions we're
taking
that are likely to interfere with what "nature" would do, if allowed
to take its course.

Does your plan mean no more agriculture, and no more irrigation, and
no more cities, and no more electricity?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think it would have to. And I don't say it's necessarily a
great plan, either.

But it would fit in with the fake Green/faux humble/ objection to
trying to stabilize the climate.

First you Deniers propose the continuation of a massive human-
generated experiment with climate change that stems from our ongoing
and basically reckless and uncontrolled use of fossil fuels, our
expansion of global agriculture, and our destruction of tropical
rainforests.

You basically say, "Yeah, we're changing the whole frigging world, and
who cares? We like it that way."

Then if someone says, let's not gamble on altering the climate of the
planet in this way, the Denier response is, "Whatsamatta, climate
changes all the time, are you Greens tryin' to impose an artificial
stability on the climate? Let nature take its course."

This is a basically dishonest or at least disingenuous argument, and
I'm trying to call you on it.

Beyond that -- well, some Greens may object to my saying this, but I
submit that it's nonsense to suggest that humanity, at this stage in
the game, can really "let nature take its course."

Whatever we 6.3 billion humans are doing, just to survive, is going
to affect the climate and the global ecosystem. The question is
whether the effect should be a positive or a negative one.

But if you want to object to Green efforts to head off global climate
change on the grounds that they're "artificial" and "man-imposed,"
well, hey - let's be consistent here. Let's get rid of ALL
"artificial" and "man-imposed" changes, okay? Including the ones that
benefit world agriculture, the electric utility industry and its
consumers, and so on.

If we're going to adopt an absurd philosophical stance to win a
debate, I want the absurd standard applied to both sides.

Meanwhile, I do think it behooves both AGW Deniers and advocates of
mainstream climate science, advocates of AGW Realism, to think beyond
the immediate issue we're fighting about and consider the long-term
risk of a new ice age.

From every sane AGW commentator that I've read, I hear that the
question of how ice ages arise and dissipate was central to the
motivations of Arrhenius and other early climate researchers who
pieced together the foundations for our current ideas about "global
warming" aka global climate change.

It was while exploring the factors that might cause another
catastrophic ice age that the early researchers stumbled on the risk
of anthropogenic GHG emissions leading to a catastrophic warming
event.

So to my mind, it seems clear that serious climate researchers and
climate theorists should be thinking about two big risks: the short-
term to medium-term risk of "greenhouse warming," however we phrase
it, and the longer-term risk of a new ice age occurring in response to
the usual Milankovitch cycle factors.

Common sense suggests that if we can, humans should seek to avoid both
risks. Much of human and non-human life survives through a tendency
of living systems towards homeostasis, an ability to maintain
"Goldilocks" conditions where the planet is neither too hot nor too
cold, neither too acidic nor too basic, neither too dry nor too wet,
etc. And in the long term, I think many of the AGW Skeptics and many
of the AGW Believers will discern that we have a common human interest
in working for the maintainance of a "Goldilocks" world.

That makes more sense than a fundamentalist Green zeal that would
embrace all "natural" change, including a new ice age, no matter how
destructive it might be.

And it makes more sense than a fundamentalist Libertarian or
fundamentalist Capitalist stance that embraces all natural and social
outcomes of "market" processes, no matter how destructive they may be.

Being intelligent and responsible means learning to make pragmatic
choices, I submit, and it means making them from a responsibly
"internationalist" perspective that recognizes the interdependence of
humans on one another and the mutual interdependence of human
civilization and the natural world.

I think ultimately, many people on both sides of the AGW debate will
recognize this. First, though, maybe we need to wade through some
dumb "straw man" arguments on both sides.

On Jan 27, 2:28Â*am, literal
wrote:
In ,
on Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:43:29 -0800 (PST), john fernbach,

wrote:
We END all human-generated CO2 and methane emissions, and END human
involvement in tropical deforestation, etc., on the grounds that this
ALSO means working for "some sort of artificial man-controlled
climate" -- just not a stable one.

Does that work for you?

Â* You do realize that after we inhale oxygen, we
exhale COâ‚‚. Â*Seems sort of extreme, but I guess there
are those of you who believe that humans are a blight
on the earth and deserve to be the next extinct species.

Â* Since you seem to be volunteering... what's your
prefered method for your own extinction?

Huh? I suggest that we work for a "Goldilocks" world, neither too hot
nor too cold, because that's best for human civilization, and you're
interpreting that as my preferring my own extinction?

Get real. Or if you're sincere here and not simply making a fake
argument, please get educated.

As Marcodeast writes, one reason that humans don't promote "global
warming" when we exhale CO2 is because we aren't eating fossil fuels
to produce it.

CO2 obviously is a good thing in its place and is essential to life as
we know it. AGWers as well as AGW Deniers recognize that.

But the risk is that when we dig up buried carbon deposits -- coal,
oil, natural gas, peat etc. -- that have been "sequestered" from the
global carbon cycle for millions or tens of millions of years, we
have the effect of increasing the total concentration of CO2 in the
global carbon cycle. This has the effect of increasing the total
atmospheric concentration of CO2 (and let's not forget about
atmospheric concentrations of carbon embedded in methane, another GH
gas).

And in turn, this increasing concentration of carbon and methane and
other greenhouse gases in the air is the fact that the AGWers think is
now driving changes in the global climate.

When human beings eat food containing carbon, metabolize it in our
bodies and breathe out CO2, however, we're just taking carbon that's
already flowing through the global carbon cycle and moving it to the
next phase in the cycle.

We're not unlocking that buried carbon that's been deposited in the
earth in the form of fossil fuels, and so we're not putting CO2 back
into the air that's been absent from the air since roughly the time
that the dinosaurs and their favorite vegetation died out.

So I don't suggest that human beings stop breathing in order to fight
"global warming." What we need to do is to stop burning fossil fuels
and releasing methane; also we need to halt and maybe reverse
deforestation around the world.

We don't need the "extinction," voluntary or otherwise, of human
beings, IMHO. We need the "extinction," voluntary or otherwise, of
fossil fuel companies.

john fernbach wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:03 am, Catoni wrote:

Just how did those pesky Polar Bears, Penguins, Reindeer and Coral
Reefs etc. etc. survive all the previous Warm Times ???????


WHICH previous warm times?

Because I don't believe that the current species of mammals and birds
-- not sure about the corals -- actually did survive ALL of the
previous Warm Times that the planet has experienced.

There have been five great "Extinction Events" in the earth's history,
according to the evolutionary biologists, and I believe that at least
some researchers are saying that the very worst of them, back in the
Permian or thereabouts, was associated with a huge build up of
greenhouse gases and major changes in global temperatures.

You just made that up. Cite?