You keep repeating this... CO2 is harmless, CO2 is not toxic. Yet that is blatantly not the case.
So, you still want to claim CO2 is harmless? I'm sure all the people who have died from CO2 poisoning and will disagree with you.
Lots of things are poisonous if you take too much of them, but otherwise harmless.
Water is essential for life, but fatal if you get too much of it. Same with CO2.
Yeah, but that is not he has been claiming otherwise he would have to admit that CO2 actually is harmful in certain concentrations, and as soon as you head down that path you have to start to admit that certain concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have an impact on global climate, and from there is just a short path to acknowledging that human activity is impacting the climate.
An animal can be exposed to high concentrations of CO2 for a period of time. But long periods in low CO2 air is required for better health.
Once the general atmospheric CO2 gets to 560 ppmbv, we've already reached the maximum level that can be called healthy for mammals. After that the efficiency of respiration starts declining.
It didn't bother the dinosaurs because they had a way more sophisticated system of respiration. This was inherited by the birds that can fly at 10,000 meters, while the mammalian counterpart the bat can only reach 3,000 meters.
Yeah, but that is not he has been claiming otherwise he would have to admit that CO2 actually is harmful in certain concentrations, and as soon as you head down that path you have to start to admit that certain concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have an impact on global climate, and from there is just a short path to acknowledging that human activity is impacting the climate.
Andrew (and I) already acknowledge that human activity probably is impacting the climate. Our point is that human activity is just one of many factors impacting the climate, and that the degree of climate change caused directly by human activity is unknown. It might be fairly insignificant, or it might not. Nobody knows and there is no consensus.
THE most prominent political climate sceptics see no reason to change their minds, despite the welter of studies over the past fortnight showing forecasts of global warming were correct or underestimates.
Many of the climate sceptics, influential in elevating Tony Abbott to Coalition leader, say they see nothing to convince them that human activity is causing the climate to change.
The Global Carbon Project has released forecasts that the planet could warm by between 4 degrees and 6 degrees by the end of the century and Nature Climate Change on Monday published a study finding that warming is consistent with 1990 scientific forecasts.
South Australian senator Cory Bernardi, formerly Mr Abbott's parliamentary secretary, said: ''I do not think human activity causes climate change and I haven't seen anything that changes my view. I remain very sceptical about the alarmists' claims.''
Queensland senator Barnaby Joyce said the whole debate about whether humans were causing the climate to change was ''indulgent and irrelevant''.
''It is an indulgent and irrelevant debate because, even if climate change turns out to exist one day, we will have absolutely no impact on it whatsoever … we really should have bigger fish to fry than this one,'' Senator Joyce said.
West Australian backbencher Dennis Jensen, who had read the recent scientific literature, said he interpreted the findings in different ways and believed climate scepticism within the Coalition was increasing.
''The scientific papers saying it is as bad as we thought, or worse, are talking about concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - and concentrations are indeed increasing - but global temperatures have not gone up in a decade,'' he said.
''It's the impact of the increased concentrations of CO2 that is in dispute and I agree with [US professor] Richard Lindzen that it is more likely to be 0.4 degrees than 4 to 6 degrees … the doomsday prophesies do not stand up to reason.''
There is no science to support the existence or non-existence of gods.
There is no science that shows the degree to which humans influence the global climate, nor is there any consensus on the degree to which humans influence the global climate.
Why the unprovoked abuse? It seems my post has hit a nerve... Skeptical Science is not a balanced site. It is a biased/alarmist/warmist site with an agenda.
There is science that contradicts many of the established claims by religion. Much of known science would bring into question any notion of an omnipotent god.
The main point of course, is that there is no scientific reason to believe in a god,, so presenting it as a dichotomy just further highlights your ignorance
There is established science that supports AGW, deal with it. Nowhere in your gibberish post did you state varying degrees, nor do you have any scientific basis to determine what degrees would have what impact on us as a species.
Because fools irritate me.
Poontang
10 Dec 2012, 11:39 PM
1. I agree, it is why I am agnostic
2. I agree with this too, I have no doubt the earth is going/goes through climate change. I am yet to see convincing data that we humans are the cause of major climate change
An agnostic is someone who believes that a god in unknowable.
You either believe in a god or you don't If you don't, you are an atheist. The notion that an atheist KNOWS there are no gods is utterly false. That would be something like an anti -deist.
Yeah, but that is not he has been claiming otherwise he would have to admit that CO2 actually is harmful in certain concentrations, and as soon as you head down that path you have to start to admit that certain concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have an impact on global climate, and from there is just a short path to acknowledging that human activity is impacting the climate.
I said originally that C02 was essentially an almost harmless gas...essential to life that was being demonised by pictures of water pouring from cooling towers.
The fact that it is common in an unventilated bedroom to have C02 concentrations that are 125 times the atmospheric concentration says it all
If you breathe pure nitrogen which is a common component of the atmosphere you will also die quickly
There is science that contradicts many of the established claims by religion.
'Established claims by religion' is not the same as belief in gods.
There is also science that contradicts many claims by climate change alarmists.
Quote:
Much of known science would bring into question any notion of an omnipotent god.
Please post links to any scientific studies that disprove the existence of gods.
Quote:
The main point of course, is that there is no scientific reason to believe in a god
There is no scientific reason to believe humans are the predominant cause of changes to the global climate.
Quote:
presenting it as a dichotomy just further highlights your ignorance
More abuse. You really are rattled by people who challenge your views!
Quote:
There is established science that supports AGW
There is no science that supports the theory that humans are the predominant cause of changes to the global climate, or that even establish the degree to which humans contribute.
Quote:
Nowhere in your gibberish post did you state varying degrees
I suggest you calm down, cut out the abuse, and read my post again.
Quote:
nor do you have any scientific basis to determine what degrees would have what impact on us as a species
Nobody, including myself, knows the degree to which humans impact the global climate.
'Established claims by religion' is not the same as belief in gods.
There is also science that contradicts many claims by climate change alarmists.
Please post links to any scientific studies that disprove the existence of gods.
There is no scientific reason to believe humans are the predominant cause of changes to the global climate.
More abuse. You really are rattled by people who challenge your views!
There is no science that supports the theory that humans are the predominant cause of changes to the global climate, or that even establish the degree to which humans contribute.
I suggest you calm down, cut out the abuse, and read my post again.
Nobody, including myself, knows the degree to which humans impact the global climate.
An agnostic is someone who believes that a god in unknowable.
You either believe in a god or you don't If you don't, you are an atheist. The notion that an atheist KNOWS there are no gods is utterly false. That would be something like an anti -deist.
"You either believe in god or you don't." is not a true statement. Many people have no particular belief either way. An agnostic doesn't necessarily think the existence of God is unknowable. They may just not believe they know themselves, or may hold that nobody knows without asserting that the question is unknowable. It's a fine distinction. Unknown is not quite unknowable.
BTW a deist holds the view that there was a god creator that then did not interfere in the universe after creation. So no miracles. - a sort of halfway house between theism and atheism.
At any rate, science can provide no answers here. It's the realm of non-natural philosophy.
Where I think some people get confused is in the whole creationist "debate". Obviously it is a clash between science and religion, but it is because religion is trying to dress itself up as science, not the other way around.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
