I had the following conversation with Joe Mohr at http://joemohrtoons.com/2011/03/16/the-republican-book-on-cience-cartoon
As you can see, I gave Joe ample opportunity to explain his comment on toxicity of CO2.
At first he spammed my question, but of course I keep copies of my comments exactly for such contigencies.
I find it depressing though, these people in my mind are simply religious maniacs. I have not found one blog where one of these AGW believers can actually justify their beliefs.
It is obvious that when a question arises that shakes their belief all they can do is ignore/spam the question.
This is evidence in my mind that either cannot answer the question without prejudicing their beliefs or they simply are completely at sea about how to address it.
I therefore say two things to these people.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF FOLLOWING THE IPCC ARE DIRE AND WITHOUT REASONABLE PROOF WE SHOULD NOT GO THERE.
IF YOU CANNOT ANSWER REASONABLE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS HOW DARE YOU PROSLETYSE THEM ON A PUBLIC FORUM!
Now to the comments;
There may or may not be global warming CAUSED BY THE HUMAN INDUCED INCREASE OF CO2 CONCENTRATIONS IN THE ATMOSPHERE, but there is no actual PROOF.If there was proof surely the scientists Doug and Denise during my conversation at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com would have been able to explain it to me.What is very certain though are the consequences if we follow the IPCC demands for CO2 emission reductions. This is what is set to happen.
In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.
As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.
No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices. (Ironically this scenario is exactly what OPEC have been attempting to establish for the last 30 years)
Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.
The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.
You may also notice that I have not even included the IPCC proposed wealth transfers from western economies to less developed nations in this comment.Without scientific proof AGW is baloney anyway! Maybe we should get some decent proof before we proceed to commiting hari kari.
rogerthesurf | March 17, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“Given all the other ill effects that come with carbon pollution (the myriad of harmful toxins)” ” Reduce the level of toxicity of our air, water and soils”
Joe, which toxins are you talking about exactly?
I assume you are talking about something other than the life giving gas, carbon dioxide, with out which, all life on earth would perish.
Just in case you are, you might benefit from reading a few facts which I have compiled for you.
A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, http://api.ning.com/files/X-APctmkiwvgEI5fT6iiGjWFvKNX*cWuzeO4qmDVbgA_/Greenhouses.CarbonDioxideInGreenhouses.pdf
Our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/inhaledexhaled.html
Up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.).
Up to 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)”
Medical oxygen has between 10,000 ppmv and 20,000 ppmv in it.
Currently our atmosphere has about 380 ppmv in it.
So once again, please explain your meaning of “toxicity” in your comment.
rogerthesurf | March 17, 2011 at 4:00 pm | Reply
PS Joe, I posted this before. Somehow it disappeared.
Looking forward to your answer.