Originally Posted by Jaberwocky
His words are CO2 is a clourless, odourless and naturally occurring gas that is a benefice to life.
Jabberwocky, if you're going to gaze into your crystal ball and attempt to determine where I got the info from that Bob Carter relates CO2 not being harmful to being colourless and odourless, it would behove you to ask me first so that you don't come up with the wrong source, as you just have.
Opinion Piece, Bob Carter, October 5th 2011, The Daily Climate
"carbon dioxide is not toxic, nor a pollutant, but rather a colorless, odourless and tasteless gas essential for life on earth"
He uses this same argument repeatedly. Carter (or "Bob", as you and he seem to be great mates), is clearly inferring that being colourless and odourless has something to do with CO2's alleged harmlessness. It has nothing to do with the debate at all. Zero. Carter is simply absurdly attempting to prop up his argument by using CO2s physical properties when they bear no relevance.
Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
Sure go stand in a chamber of 100% CO2 and see how long you last, but if you won't do that how about a chanber of 100% Nitrogen??? Ok Dutchie that is stupid, so how about 100% oxygen? Nope did not think you would be in that either.
Huh? ITS A GREENHOUSE GAS. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BREATHING IT IN A CHAMBER. Oh yeah, and I'd be happy to stand in a chamber of 100% oxygen, BTW, as long as no-one lit a match. But I don't get it - how can oxygen be so life-giving yet so potentially harmful?
Do you understand that something may be detrimental in some ways yet not in others? Can you understand, for example, that phosphorus is an essential trace element in the body with detrimental effects if you have a deficiency, yet in other circumstances, like when it's stacked in drums in the corner of a fireworks factory, that it can be extremely hazardous? Can you get your mind around this "might be good in some ways, bad in others" concept? Honestly, if you don't comprehend that principle, I'm at my wits end as to how to explain it to you. I don't think I can help you any further and I don't think this avenue of the argument can progress at all.
I have to correct you again Dutchie, the IPCC and AGW's have always maintained a fear campaign on DANGEROUS......go watch the Al Gore movie again, without rose tinted glasses.
Once again, your crystal ball malfunctions badly. You really need to get it checked out. I have never watched Al Gore's movie. Al Gore is not the IPCC. I don't care what Al Gore says and I never have. I have never read his book. He is not a scientist. I do care what the scientists say, and I subscribe to and read online (and in hardcopy for a few) a lot of scientific articles, magazines, journals, and a university textbook or two. Which is a heck of a lot more than I can say for some people on this thread. Because hey, when you're a sceptic, why would you actually read about science from a science book when you can learn everything you need from a conspiratorial website or movie?
explain to me how when CO2 has kept increasing, the temperatures have done the opposite?
They haven't "done the opposite". They have risen at a slower rate for a decade. This phenomenon of natural variability is not unusual, and has been addressed many times. The rising temperatures still continue either side of it though (since industrialisation). Also what is happening now, and what happened thousands of years ago, are not the same thing.
And of course Climategate 1.0 and Climategate 2.0
They are the same batch of emails! The 2nd batch are the previously unreleased ones which were hacked with the first batch. They're referring to exactly the same things that were referred to years ago and have been addressed by a multitude of different inquiries. Some of the new emails are in fact
identical (ie, exactly the same email, but renumbered to make it look as if they're new), but fake-sceptics, completely lacking any ability to critically examine them at all, think that they're new.
And just like the first time, they are cherry picked one-liners which feed the fake-sceptics all the info they need without any context (which fake-sceptics don't need). Example:
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.”
Fake-sceptics are right onto this one as evidence of yet more vast scientific conspiracies to mislead the public, and it even gets a mention a couple of pages back on this very thread. But some fake-sceptics are
so freaking stupid and lazy, that they don't realise that the full email says this:
“I think the hardest yet most important part is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In looking back over your good outline, sent back on Oct 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom just after this time) you cover A LOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data – not inconclusive information.”
Puts a totally different perspective on it, right? They were doing nothing more conspiratorial than editing a large chunk of information down to what was really relevant and essential.