Apolitical Staples

The emotional component of many people’s belief that humans are destroying the world makes it difficult to critically examine the science without being labelled a “denier”, with the connotations that carries.

Or in other words…

“You can’t reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into.” -Mark Twain

That was an excellent piece.

I’ve been curious about one thing though: what conditions must exist for the earth to be saved? Has anyone ever heard an answer to that question?

Ian, ” And Mo Strong sayeth, the earth can only be saved by more socialism” Kyoto Kreationism Chapter 9

So Greg, straight out, do you believe human generated CO2 is a threat to human survival?

PS. Given the whoppers your leader tells regularly, I’d be careful who you label a “liar”.

The useful point Maich makes, and I’m glad the point is getting some mainstream media exposure, is that Kyoto defenders have become increasingly ideologically stubborn over objectives which become progressively more stupid and irrelevant as the intentions and circumstances of the key polluters, and other climate influences and mechanisms, become clearer. Many of the people lining up as Defenders of the Faith are, curiously and simultaneously, critical of other people who take up and defend positions for reasons of ideology and belief. So much for the reality-based community and rationalism.

Human’s have a stubborn way of adapting so no I do not believe that the very survival of the species is at stake.

And Jack Layton said “Many of the countries that have signed on, most of them have made specific commitments are achieving those targets and China and India, who are the countries that are to come on board with targets after 2012 are very enthusiastic about the idea” which is not true.

Conservatives should drive hard on conservation. That should become the number 1 item on the next big 5. India is correct, pollution is about bad economics. Fix the economics and you can afford to fix pollution. Run a socialist state and you’ll end up polluting the environment – lots of evidence of that after the fall of the USSR.

It’s interesting what a regime change has taken place at Maclean’s.

“Given the whoppers your leader tells regularly…”

Why should alleged untruths spoken by Mr. Harper (I assume you mean him and not the Most High and Secret Glorious Leader of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, who is somebody, like TOTALLY different)have any relevance to Mr. Staples assertions with respect to the mendacity of mighty Jack? How are the two matters connected? It seems to me that Conservative Greg doesn’t hesitate to crap all over Harper and his team as warranted.

Conservative Greg doesn’t hesitate to crap all over Harper and his team as warranted.

Greg is a better person than I am.

Once you pull the Blanket of Emotional appeal of any socialist proposal you see and smell the bullshit!

if Kyoto disciples want to beleive global warming pseudo science so be it, but to say that CO2 is the major player in climate change is nothing but an outright lie. If true then why did we have an ice age in the Ordovician Period when CO2 levels were 12 times higher than today? The answer is that other factors influence climate by orders of magnitude greater than CO2. One of the comments I sometimes see is “is better to be safe than sorry when it comes to action global warming”. The reality is that no matter how much you reduce CO2 emissions you will have almost no affect on the earth’s climate

If true then why did we have an ice age in the Ordovician Period when CO2 levels were 12 times higher than today?

Um, because the unified land mass that was the earth 500 million years ago settled on the South Pole toward the end of the Ordovican Period.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/ordovician/ordovician.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician

If you read this too, you will find out that CO2 levels fell before the ice age event. So to answer your question high CO2 created warming, lower CO2 caused cooling. Thanks for playing Richard.

Greg, I believe you just proved Richard’s point. the presence of CO2 was secondary to the location of the landmass. If it was a secondary effect then, why is it a primary effect now?

Likely answer is that its not a primary effect.

Well, actually, the second article is pretty clear about the end of a stable greenhouse effect due to the lowering of CO2 and the ice age.

From that article: The most commonly accepted theory is that these events were triggered by the onset of a long ice age, perhaps the most severe glacial age of the Phanerozoic, in the Hirnantian faunal stage that ended the long, stable greenhouse conditions typical of the Ordovician. The event was preceded by a fall in atmospheric CO2 which selectively affected the shallow seas where most organisms lived. (emphasis mine) As the southern supercontinent Gondwana drifted over the South Pole, ice caps formed on it, which have been detected in late Ordovician rock strata of North Africa and then-adjacent northeastern South America, which were south-polar locations at the time.

the preceding drop in CO2 was minor as was the later rise in additon there was more water vapor in the air (a better greenhouse gas than CO2) yet the temp drop was extreme; whereas in the Silurian & Devonian the drop and rise was far greater yet the temp remained stable; it wasn’t until the mid Devonian to mid Carboniferos when there was a huge drop, 4000 to about 300 PPM, that the CO2/temp correlation is plausible and at the beginning of the triassic, 300 to around 2000 when the temps also went up; hovever in the mid jurassic a 1000 PPM rise was followed by a drop in avg temp; but even if CO2 is the major player in temp change, the changes don’t seem to occur for at least a million years after the high/low C02 levels; so I still think that other factors are far more influential that CO2 levels but I’d always be willing to look at evidence/info to the contrary. However I would still not support Kyoto with the bogus credit buying system. Still Playing.