Is Global Warming The Greatest Lie In Human History?

[tzor]

Well climate denial is pretty dumb I still have yet to see how climate change is a bad thing.

It's all well and good until England starts to freeze.

(That's not intuitive until you remember that most cities in Canada are further south than England. The gulf stream provides warmer waters which increases regional temperatures. A key element of global warming is the shutting down of the normal gulf stream circulation pattern.)

[demonfork]

You're pretty much in 2nd place, right behind Symm. But keep trying because you have what it takes to be #1.

You don't know anything about Andrew Wakefield. I bet that you've never even read his Lancet paper.

Do you mean this paper? It's a good thing I read it over a decade ago. The red text stamped all over it now is pretty distracting.

I reckon I can't really prove that I read it before it was retracted. Like, I work in neurology and both my wife and I are involved in public health. But this is all just an internet forum. Anyone can say they do anything.

Oh wait, this is an internet forum! Here's me talking about this topic, and following Wakefield's crashing and burning as his papers are retracted and his license is revoked. And look who else we see! A spork defending, of all people, Jenny fucking McCarthy. This was even back when I was a discourse nerd. I was downright pleasant in that thread. Meanwhile, you were using your own fucking kid as a shield for your garbage opinions and attempts to blame a little neurodivergence on someone else instead of embracing it like a good parent would.

Who's the dipshit now?

Aside from my mistake of stating methyl and not ethyl (FDA considers them equivalent with respect to toxicity) most of what I said was fact based and not opinion based. Furthermore, where did I use my kid as a shield against "garbage opinions"?

As far as Wakefield and the Lancet... Do you know why the paper was retracted? I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with autism or vaccines, as really the paper itself has little to do with autism & vaccines and everything to do with the relationship between the gut and the brain.

Yes this was 10 years ago & I to was just a pupil compared to now & myself & my wife both work in related fields (my wife's post graduate studies are in special education, neurodiversity & now has two masters degrees, Ph.d & is credentialed in CA).

Shall we move this discussion to another thread?

[Symmetry]

You're pretty much in 2nd place, right behind Symm. But keep trying because you have what it takes to be #1.

You don't know anything about Andrew Wakefield. I bet that you've never even read his Lancet paper.

Do you mean this paper? It's a good thing I read it over a decade ago. The red text stamped all over it now is pretty distracting.

I reckon I can't really prove that I read it before it was retracted. Like, I work in neurology and both my wife and I are involved in public health. But this is all just an internet forum. Anyone can say they do anything.

Oh wait, this is an internet forum! Here's me talking about this topic, and following Wakefield's crashing and burning as his papers are retracted and his license is revoked. And look who else we see! A spork defending, of all people, Jenny fucking McCarthy. This was even back when I was a discourse nerd. I was downright pleasant in that thread. Meanwhile, you were using your own fucking kid as a shield for your garbage opinions and attempts to blame a little neurodivergence on someone else instead of embracing it like a good parent would.

Who's the dipshit now?

Aside from my mistake of stating methyl and not ethyl (FDA considers them equivalent with respect to toxicity) most of what I said was fact based and not opinion based. Furthermore, where did I use my kid as a shield against "garbage opinions"?

As far as Wakefield and the Lancet... Do you know why the paper was retracted? I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with autism or vaccines, as really the paper itself has little to do with autism & vaccines and everything to do with the relationship between the gut and the brain.

Yes this was 10 years ago & I to was just a pupil compared to now & myself & my wife both work in related fields (my wife's post graduate studies are in special education, neurodiversity & now has two masters degrees, Ph.d & is credentialed in CA).

Shall we move this discussion to another thread?

Wait! Did someone lazily reference me with regards to a lancet paper that was debunked? Wakefield was stripped of his medical licences for his fraud.

For those not in the know, he was paid to promote certain kinds of vaccine, and he falsified data to support the idea that a cheaper vaccine caused autism. All of his data has been shown to be a lie).

[demonfork]

You're pretty much in 2nd place, right behind Symm. But keep trying because you have what it takes to be #1.

You don't know anything about Andrew Wakefield. I bet that you've never even read his Lancet paper.

Do you mean this paper? It's a good thing I read it over a decade ago. The red text stamped all over it now is pretty distracting.

I reckon I can't really prove that I read it before it was retracted. Like, I work in neurology and both my wife and I are involved in public health. But this is all just an internet forum. Anyone can say they do anything.

Oh wait, this is an internet forum! Here's me talking about this topic, and following Wakefield's crashing and burning as his papers are retracted and his license is revoked. And look who else we see! A spork defending, of all people, Jenny fucking McCarthy. This was even back when I was a discourse nerd. I was downright pleasant in that thread. Meanwhile, you were using your own fucking kid as a shield for your garbage opinions and attempts to blame a little neurodivergence on someone else instead of embracing it like a good parent would.

Who's the dipshit now?

Aside from my mistake of stating methyl and not ethyl (FDA considers them equivalent with respect to toxicity) most of what I said was fact based and not opinion based. Furthermore, where did I use my kid as a shield against "garbage opinions"?

As far as Wakefield and the Lancet... Do you know why the paper was retracted? I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with autism or vaccines, as really the paper itself has little to do with autism & vaccines and everything to do with the relationship between the gut and the brain.

Yes this was 10 years ago & I to was just a pupil compared to now & myself & my wife both work in related fields (my wife's post graduate studies are in special education, neurodiversity & now has two masters degrees, Ph.d & is credentialed in CA).

Shall we move this discussion to another thread?

Wait! Did someone lazily reference me with regards to a lancet paper that was debunked? Wakefield was stripped of his medical licences for his fraud.

For those not in the know, he was paid to promote certain kinds of vaccine, and he falsified data to support the idea that a cheaper vaccine caused autism. All of his data has been shown to be a lie).

Wrong and wrong!

First, there were 12 other scientists that signed their name to the case study. Not a single one of them, to this day, has stepped up to disclaim it or say that it was a fraud.

Two of the 13 scientists lost their licenses, John Walker-Smith & Andy Wakefield and not for fraud but for professional misconduct. Both Wakefield & Walker-Smith were never accused or found guilty of fraud or for falsifying data. They were found guilty of misconduct because they participated in the research without first getting ethical approval.

Wakefield & Walker-Smith argued that treatments of lumbar punctures & colonoscopies, were clinically indicated and were necessary for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment, but not for the research project. Nevertheless, the GMC fitness to practice panel found both Wakefield & Walker-Smith guilty of misconduct.

Andy Wakefield or Walker-Smith were NEVER convicted of fraud, they never even attempted to try them for fraud. It boiled down to controversy over if the testing that they did on the 10 children was for research or for clinical purposes to treat the children. The GMC decided that it was for research and they were then disciplined because they didn't get ethical approval to perform the medical procedures (colonoscopies & lumbar punctures).

John Walker-Smith appealed the ruling and won in 2012, the judge in the case said that the GMC's disciplinary panel used "inadequate & superficial reasoning" in their verdict and that the Lancet paper should be reinstated immediately.


Read the fucking Lancet paper and you will see that nowhere does it say that the vaccine caused autism. Read the 80 pages that the judge wrote in the Walker-Smith appeal ruling.

Stop perpetuating this lie that Wakefield was convicted of fraud.

[Neoteny]

Aside from my mistake of stating methyl and not ethyl (FDA considers them equivalent with respect to toxicity) most of what I said was fact based and not opinion based. Furthermore, where did I use my kid as a shield against "garbage opinions"?

As far as Wakefield and the Lancet... Do you know why the paper was retracted? I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with autism or vaccines, as really the paper itself has little to do with autism & vaccines and everything to do with the relationship between the gut and the brain.

Yes this was 10 years ago & I to was just a pupil compared to now & myself & my wife both work in related fields (my wife's post graduate studies are in special education, neurodiversity & now has two masters degrees, Ph.d & is credentialed in CA).

Shall we move this discussion to another thread?

That's a hell of a tone change. You might need to visit a physician after that whiplash.

Furthermore, where did I use my kid as a shield against "garbage opinions"?

Here:

Furthermore, being the father of a 9 year old child with autism I can assure you that I am no where near the point of ignorance on the matter.

So, nice work having a kid, I guess?

As far as Wakefield and the Lancet... Do you know why the paper was retracted?

I do! It lists the reasons in, you know, the retraction.

In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.

For those of us not scientifically inclined, consecutive referral is a sampling method wherein you accept all subjects meeting your criteria until you hit your desired sample size. If you aren't sticking to your methodology there, then you're cherry picking. If you're cherry-picking your data, then your data is corrupted. If your data is corrupted, then your conclusions are corrupted. That's bad science.

On top of that, there were ethics violations, which speaks for itself. You can't even poke a rat without miles of paperwork, and human protections are even more rigorous for good reason. Wakefield didn't seem too worried about that though. Potential conflict of interest was also known at the time, but was not listed as a reason for retraction.

But wait! A year after the retraction, further investigation brought to light evidence of outright fraud, as discussed in the journal formerly known as the British Medical Journal. Why they changed to just the letters is beyond me. They will never be as cool as JAMA.

Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

Lancet hasn't added any of this to their retraction, since they've already retracted it, and I suspect they don't want to shine any more light on their embarrassment than they have to.

I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with autism or vaccines, as really the paper itself has little to do with autism & vaccines and everything to do with the relationship between the gut and the brain.

Oh say it ain't so!

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Nothing to do with autism or vaccines?! Even a quick ctl-f shows that "autism" is mentioned more than "colitis" and "hyperplasia" combined. And "vaccine" is mentioned more than either. I recognize that it's a pretty shallow analysis of the paper, but nobody else here is going to read the paper, and it demonstrates that saying it has little to do with autism and vaccines is extremely dishonest. It's very clearly central to the paper.

Shall we move this discussion to another thread?

idgaf get back at me in the Jenny McCarthy thread if you want.

[Neoteny]

Wrong and wrong!

First, there were 12 other scientists that signed their name to the case study. Not a single one of them, to this day, has stepped up to disclaim it or say that it was a fraud.

Two of the 13 scientists lost their licenses, John Walker-Smith & Andy Wakefield and not for fraud but for professional misconduct. Both Wakefield & Walker-Smith were never accused or found guilty of fraud or for falsifying data. They were found guilty of misconduct because they participated in the research without first getting ethical approval.

Wakefield & Walker-Smith argued that treatments of lumbar punctures & colonoscopies, were clinically indicated and were necessary for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment, but not for the research project. Nevertheless, the GMC fitness to practice panel found both Wakefield & Walker-Smith guilty of misconduct.

Andy Wakefield or Walker-Smith were NEVER convicted of fraud, they never even attempted to try them for fraud. It boiled down to controversy over if the testing that they did on the 10 children was for research or for clinical purposes to treat the children. The GMC decided that it was for research and they were then disciplined because they didn't get ethical approval to perform the medical procedures (colonoscopies & lumbar punctures).

John Walker-Smith appealed the ruling and won in 2012, the judge in the case said that the GMC's disciplinary panel used "inadequate & superficial reasoning" in their verdict and that the Lancet paper should be reinstated immediately.


Read the fucking Lancet paper and you will see that nowhere does it say that the vaccine caused autism. Read the 80 pages that the judge wrote in the Walker-Smith appeal ruling.

Stop perpetuating this lie that Wakefield was convicted of fraud.

Oh goodness, this is delicious!

[demonfork]

Furthermore, where did I use my kid as a shield against "garbage opinions"?

Here:

Furthermore, being the father of a 9 year old child with autism I can assure you that I am no where near the point of ignorance on the matter.

So, nice work having a kid, I guess?

Let me rephrase the question... Why do you believe that my statement about the reason why I'm informed is due to having an autistic child is, "using my kid as a shield"?

The fact is that if I didn't have an autistic child, we wouldn't even be having this conversation as these topics would be irrelevant and uninteresting to me otherwise. The fact is that if my wife and I didn't have an autistic child then our shift of academic study & our subsequent degrees & changes in professions, over the last 16 years, wouldn't have happened.

Having a child with autism was the antecedent to why I'm informed.

[Neoteny]

Let me rephrase the question... Why do you believe that my statement about the reason why I'm informed is due to having an autistic child, is "using my kid as a shield"?

The fact is that if I didn't have an autistic child, we wouldn't even be having this conversation as these topics would be irrelevant and uninteresting to me otherwise. The fact is that if my wife and I didn't have an autistic child then our shift of academic study & our subsequent degrees & changes in professions, over the last 16 years, wouldn't have happened.

Having a child with autism was the antecedent to why I'm informed.

Sure sure. I said you were ignorant based on your responses (or lack thereof). You responded that you had a kid. That's cool that your child inspired you to pursue an education, though it sounds like it didn't do you much good. Truly shocked to hear your interest in public health is entirely self-serving.

[DoomYoshi]

Well, he does wear a watch:

[demonfork]

Let me rephrase the question... Why do you believe that my statement about the reason why I'm informed is due to having an autistic child, is "using my kid as a shield"?

The fact is that if I didn't have an autistic child, we wouldn't even be having this conversation as these topics would be irrelevant and uninteresting to me otherwise. The fact is that if my wife and I didn't have an autistic child then our shift of academic study & our subsequent degrees & changes in professions, over the last 16 years, wouldn't have happened.

Having a child with autism was the antecedent to why I'm informed.

Sure sure. I said you were ignorant based on your responses (or lack thereof). You responded that you had a kid. That's cool that your child inspired you to pursue an education, though it sounds like it didn't do you much good. Truly shocked to hear your interest in public health is entirely self-serving.

Again you're an idiot that has a hard time with reading comprehension and you have a habit of extrapolating from single data points.

I didn't say that my daughter inspired me to pursue AN education you dolt, I said that it was the reason why we pursued additional education in a different field of study. I already had a post graduate degree in material science prior to pursuing an interest in behavioral science.

Because I would't have pursued an education in behavioral science if I didn't have an autistic child doesn't mean that my interests now are self serving you fucking clown. My wife and I have spent years, for free, advocating for and consulting many, many parents of neurodiverse children. Including attending IEP's and helping parents navigate and sign up for the various programs that are available (ABA, speech therapy, IHSS etc). So again you are fucking fool and I feel extremely bad for anyone that is unlucky enough cross paths with you in the health care sector as I'm sure that you are likely to suck ass at your job.

[Neoteny]

Again you're an idiot that has a hard time with reading comprehension and you have a habit of extrapolating from single data points.

I didn't say that my daughter inspired me to pursue AN education you dolt, I said that it was the reason why we pursued additional education in a different field of study. I already had a post graduate degree in material science prior to pursuing an interest in behavioral science.

Because I would't have pursued an education in behavioral science if I didn't have an autistic child doesn't mean that my interests now are self serving you fucking clown. My wife and I have spent years, for free, advocating for and consulting many, many parents of neurodiverse children. Including attending IEP's and helping parents navigate and sign up for the various programs that are available (ABA, speech therapy, IHSS etc). So again you are fucking fool and I feel extremely bad for anyone that is unlucky enough cross paths with you in the health care sector as I'm sure that you are likely to suck ass at your job.

Lol god, look at all this indignation. You literally said you wouldn't care about vaccines and autism if it didn't affect you personally. And I don't give a f*ck about your credentials. They clearly aren't doing you any good. You busted up in this thread calling people dipshits and claiming I don't know anything about Andrew Wakefield. Whoops. You wanted to pick a fight over a topic you were unprepared for. Whoops! Now you've dug this weird hole where you're explaining your family history to an online dude who doesn't give a f*ck about you. Maybe rethink your shit. If you want to defend a fraud, by all means, defend him. But the only one here making a fool of themself is you.

If only there were a vaccine against being a little bitch. Because you'd need a series of three.

[demonfork]

Again you're an idiot that has a hard time with reading comprehension and you have a habit of extrapolating from single data points.

I didn't say that my daughter inspired me to pursue AN education you dolt, I said that it was the reason why we pursued additional education in a different field of study. I already had a post graduate degree in material science prior to pursuing an interest in behavioral science.

Because I would't have pursued an education in behavioral science if I didn't have an autistic child doesn't mean that my interests now are self serving you fucking clown. My wife and I have spent years, for free, advocating for and consulting many, many parents of neurodiverse children. Including attending IEP's and helping parents navigate and sign up for the various programs that are available (ABA, speech therapy, IHSS etc). So again you are fucking fool and I feel extremely bad for anyone that is unlucky enough cross paths with you in the health care sector as I'm sure that you are likely to suck ass at your job.

Lol god, look at all this indignation. You literally said you wouldn't care about vaccines and autism if it didn't affect you personally. And I don't give a f*ck about your credentials. They clearly aren't doing you any good. You busted up in this thread calling people dipshits and claiming I don't know anything about Andrew Wakefield. Whoops. You wanted to pick a fight over a topic you were unprepared for. Whoops! Now you've dug this weird hole where you're explaining your family history to an online dude who doesn't give a f*ck about you. Maybe rethink your shit. If you want to defend a fraud, by all means, defend him. But the only one here making a fool of themself is you.

If only there were a vaccine against being a little bitch. Because you'd need a series of three.

I actually, literally didn't at all, literally say that. Am I surprised that once again you are having trouble with comprehension? Nope.


I actually, literally said this.

The fact is that if I didn't have an autistic child, we wouldn't even be having this conversation as these topics would be irrelevant and uninteresting to me otherwise

But somehow you take what I said above to mean this..

You literally said you wouldn't care about vaccines and autism if it didn't affect you personally

and this...

Truly shocked to hear your interest in public health is entirely self-serving.

Just because I wouldn't spend my time in an online forum having a conversation on "these topics" because they would be irrelevant or uninteresting to me if I didn't have an autistic daughter doesn't mean that I don't care about things that don't affect me personally or that my interest in public health is entirely self-serving.

[jusplay4fun]

Andrew Wakefield, vaccines, and autism are NOT the topic here.

Demon and Neot can move that conversation of throwing disparaging crap at each other to another place. They are irrelevant to Global Warming.

Back to Global Warming: CO2 levels have a major impact on Global warming and there are projects to sequester CO2 and carbon. I recently read one report that an oil company is putting CO2 in the ground where they pumped out natural gas (Methane to sell as a fuel). That seems to be a good way to help solve this problem.

Methane, especially as released from farm animals can also contribute to Global Warming, but I think CO2 is much more significant Green House gas due to the relatively large amount of it in the atmosphere (compared to CH4). The data at the Maua Loa is very cogent in this discussion:

"Maua Loa Observatory. When available, daily average values for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are posted here as a year-over-year comparison. Measurements are made by two independent CO2 monitoring programs (NOAA and Scripps) at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, about 3400 metres above sea level." https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

See also: What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-CO2-in-the-atmosphere CO2 is more than 100x a factor in the atmosphere, which negates the greater impact CH4 has to raise temps vs. CO2, ASSUMING EQUAL amounts, which is NOT the case.

One more: https://www.britannica.com/science/greenhouse-gas

[tzor]

Methane, especially as released from farm animals can also contribute to Global Warming, but I think CO2 is much more significant Green House gas due to the relatively large amount of it in the atmosphere (compared to CH4).

But again, that's not the right question since we are talking about man made contributions. A significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not man made. Here is an interesting comment I saw ... it's a comment so take it with a grain of salt. Source .. comment is from "Joe"

Historically(averaging over the past 400,000 years) CO2 is around 240ppmv, and now it is around 385ppmv(60% higher). Methane is historically(over past 1,000 years) around 700ppb and now at 1700ppb(140% higher). The % for CO2 is smaller if we start from the warm period average of around 280ppmv.

While the sheer volume of human released carbon dioxide and its warming affects probably are far greater than that of human released methane, humanity seems to have changed the concentration of atmospheric methane much more than that of carbon dioxide.

The fact is that changes in agriculture and diet are the easiest way for an individual to lesson his or her environmental impact. Local, organic, and vegetarian diets are a simple highly effective remediation strategy.

Thisweb page makes the following statement, "All told, methane is responsible for 20% of the current warming trend."

If the shit is going to hit the fan, it's not because of CO2, it's because we reached the point where methane trapped in Arctic ice is suddenly released into the air.

One last word on this, Effect of methane on climate change could be 25% greater than we thought

Research led by the University of Reading indicates that emissions of methane due to human activity have, to date, caused a warming effect which is about one-third of the warming effect due to carbon dioxide emissions – this methane contribution is 25% higher than previous estimates.

[jusplay4fun]

If only 20% of warming is caused by methane, it is NOT the most significant part. CO2 is and it is the largest by % of the Green House gases released into the atmosphere by man.

CO2 is released by burning oil, coal, and natural gas by man's work and endeavors (heating, cooking, powering machines, and more). We release MUCH more CO2 NOW due to this set of activities; 60% to use YOUR data and sources.

Global warming is caused by man's activities and is NOT due to natural causes. I think we agree on this, tzor. Whether it is due to methane or CO2, does it REALLY matter?

QED

Methane, especially as released from farm animals can also contribute to Global Warming, but I think CO2 is much more significant Green House gas due to the relatively large amount of it in the atmosphere (compared to CH4).

But again, that's not the right question since we are talking about man made contributions. A significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not man made. Here is an interesting comment I saw ... it's a comment so take it with a grain of salt. Source .. comment is from "Joe"

Historically(averaging over the past 400,000 years) CO2 is around 240ppmv, and now it is around 385ppmv(60% higher). Methane is historically(over past 1,000 years) around 700ppb and now at 1700ppb(140% higher). The % for CO2 is smaller if we start from the warm period average of around 280ppmv.

While the sheer volume of human released carbon dioxide and its warming affects probably are far greater than that of human released methane, humanity seems to have changed the concentration of atmospheric methane much more than that of carbon dioxide.

The fact is that changes in agriculture and diet are the easiest way for an individual to lesson his or her environmental impact. Local, organic, and vegetarian diets are a simple highly effective remediation strategy.

Thisweb page makes the following statement, "All told, methane is responsible for 20% of the current warming trend."

If the shit is going to hit the fan, it's not because of CO2, it's because we reached the point where methane trapped in Arctic ice is suddenly released into the air.

One last word on this, Effect of methane on climate change could be 25% greater than we thought

Research led by the University of Reading indicates that emissions of methane due to human activity have, to date, caused a warming effect which is about one-third of the warming effect due to carbon dioxide emissions – this methane contribution is 25% higher than previous estimates.

[jusplay4fun]

CO2 can be put out by animals in the wild (and domesticated, too). So do volcanoes and fungi. And that EXPLAINS Global Warming? DOUBTFUL. VERY

Methane, especially as released from farm animals can also contribute to Global Warming, but I think CO2 is much more significant Green House gas due to the relatively large amount of it in the atmosphere (compared to CH4).

But again, that's not the right question since we are talking about man made contributions. A significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not man made. Here is an interesting comment I saw ... it's a comment so take it with a grain of salt. Source .. comment is from "Joe"

Historically(averaging over the past 400,000 years) CO2 is around 240ppmv, and now it is around 385ppmv(60% higher). Methane is historically(over past 1,000 years) around 700ppb and now at 1700ppb(140% higher). The % for CO2 is smaller if we start from the warm period average of around 280ppmv.

While the sheer volume of human released carbon dioxide and its warming affects probably are far greater than that of human released methane, humanity seems to have changed the concentration of atmospheric methane much more than that of carbon dioxide.

The fact is that changes in agriculture and diet are the easiest way for an individual to lesson his or her environmental impact. Local, organic, and vegetarian diets are a simple highly effective remediation strategy.

Thisweb page makes the following statement, "All told, methane is responsible for 20% of the current warming trend."

If the shit is going to hit the fan, it's not because of CO2, it's because we reached the point where methane trapped in Arctic ice is suddenly released into the air.

One last word on this, Effect of methane on climate change could be 25% greater than we thought

Research led by the University of Reading indicates that emissions of methane due to human activity have, to date, caused a warming effect which is about one-third of the warming effect due to carbon dioxide emissions – this methane contribution is 25% higher than previous estimates.

[tzor]

CO2 can be put out by animals in the wild (and domesticated, too). So do volcanoes and fungi. And that EXPLAINS Global Warming? DOUBTFUL. VERY

We don't need to "explain" global warming. We need to explain the parts of global warming that are under our control and the net effects that each action is going to have on that final result.

And that's the point. Our handles on the human emitted methane controls will produce a far greater mitigating effect than our human emitted carbon dioxide controls because while we may have more human emitted carbon dioxide, the human emitted (actually it's animals/rice for the former and machines for the later but they are out animals/rice/machines) methane has a far greater impact on climate. It's a damn bitch to cut down power consumption by 50% ... cutting down meat consumption by 50% is actually doable. (Not to mention that a lot of these meat farms are dumping a ton of nitrogen into the water systems which forms a chain reaction that eventually causes all oxygen based aquatic animals to locally die.)

You are like trying to argue "the sun is the biggest source of light there is ... therefore we should block out the moon." And if you looked at the last quote the percentage is no longer 20% but 33%.

[mookiemcgee]

Duku can you post that image of the temp line running through history? I can find it but i was a very tall image, and to me probably the simplest and hardest to argue against image of human's and their tech affect on global temp the last 250 years.

[Dukasaur]

Duku can you post that image of the temp line running through history? I can find it but i was a very tall image, and to me probably the simplest and hardest to argue against image of human's and their tech affect on global temp the last 250 years.

I'm not sure which image you mean. I posted a link to this article: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature but I wasn't able to extract the image from it. People that are interested can follow the link.

If you're talking about some other image from some other post, give me a link and I'll see what I can do.

[HitRed]

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/ber ... -29-12.pdf

I was expecting the devistation of ww2 to show a bigger impact.

[mookiemcgee]

Duku can you post that image of the temp line running through history? I can find it but i was a very tall image, and to me probably the simplest and hardest to argue against image of human's and their tech affect on global temp the last 250 years.

I'm not sure which image you mean. I posted a link to this article: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature but I wasn't able to extract the image from it. People that are interested can follow the link.

If you're talking about some other image from some other post, give me a link and I'll see what I can do.

Well that's the problem I can't find it to link to.

It was a line that pointed out some key points over time when the climate moved up and down in temp. Then Way way down at the bottomit showed a steep curve indicating the last 200 or so years. It was a giant image that you had to scroll very far to get through the whole thing. It had kind of a cartoon look to it, and it was about 2 years ago

[jusplay4fun]

You missed my main point. Look at the TITLE of this thread. There are many here who read this forum who DENY Global Warming; hence the need to EXPLAIN Global Warming. There are also many in RL who do the same. I am offering cogent arguments to show the reality of Global Warming.

33% vs 20%....really? you want to argue minutia? Again, you miss the MAIN point.

Now I will agree with you that we can and should focus on DOABLE things, such as reducing the methane and CO2 emissions. Those are both worthy goals and both are not easy. Greener energy is NOT easy and not reliable and currently are very expensive.

CO2 can be put out by animals in the wild (and domesticated, too). So do volcanoes and fungi. And that EXPLAINS Global Warming? DOUBTFUL. VERY

We don't need to "explain" global warming. We need to explain the parts of global warming that are under our control and the net effects that each action is going to have on that final result.

And that's the point. Our handles on the human emitted methane controls will produce a far greater mitigating effect than our human emitted carbon dioxide controls because while we may have more human emitted carbon dioxide, the human emitted (actually it's animals/rice for the former and machines for the later but they are out animals/rice/machines) methane has a far greater impact on climate. It's a damn bitch to cut down power consumption by 50% ... cutting down meat consumption by 50% is actually doable. (Not to mention that a lot of these meat farms are dumping a ton of nitrogen into the water systems which forms a chain reaction that eventually causes all oxygen based aquatic animals to locally die.)

You are like trying to argue "the sun is the biggest source of light there is ... therefore we should block out the moon." And if you looked at the last quote the percentage is no longer 20% but 33%.

[Neoteny]

I actually, literally didn't at all, literally say that. Am I surprised that once again you are having trouble with comprehension? Nope.


I actually, literally said this.

The fact is that if I didn't have an autistic child, we wouldn't even be having this conversation as these topics would be irrelevant and uninteresting to me otherwise

But somehow you take what I said above to mean this..

You literally said you wouldn't care about vaccines and autism if it didn't affect you personally

and this...

Truly shocked to hear your interest in public health is entirely self-serving.

Just because I wouldn't spend my time in an online forum having a conversation on "these topics" because they would be irrelevant or uninteresting to me if I didn't have an autistic daughter doesn't mean that I don't care about things that don't affect me personally or that my interest in public health is entirely self-serving.

It's amazing to me that you've fixated on something you can weasel your words around to defend instead of actually arguing the point you burst in here to defend. You've been called out as a shitty person, sure, but let's be real; that's not news to anyone. You've bloviated enough. Let it go, man.

[jusplay4fun]

Go start your autism thread elsewhere please. And take your petty squabble there too.

[Dukasaur]

Methane, especially as released from farm animals can also contribute to Global Warming, but I think CO2 is much more significant Green House gas due to the relatively large amount of it in the atmosphere (compared to CH4).

But again, that's not the right question since we are talking about man made contributions. A significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not man made. Here is an interesting comment I saw ... it's a comment so take it with a grain of salt. Source .. comment is from "Joe"

Historically(averaging over the past 400,000 years) CO2 is around 240ppmv, and now it is around 385ppmv(60% higher). Methane is historically(over past 1,000 years) around 700ppb and now at 1700ppb(140% higher). The % for CO2 is smaller if we start from the warm period average of around 280ppmv.

While the sheer volume of human released carbon dioxide and its warming affects probably are far greater than that of human released methane, humanity seems to have changed the concentration of atmospheric methane much more than that of carbon dioxide.

The fact is that changes in agriculture and diet are the easiest way for an individual to lesson his or her environmental impact. Local, organic, and vegetarian diets are a simple highly effective remediation strategy.

Thisweb page makes the following statement, "All told, methane is responsible for 20% of the current warming trend."

If the shit is going to hit the fan, it's not because of CO2, it's because we reached the point where methane trapped in Arctic ice is suddenly released into the air.

One last word on this, Effect of methane on climate change could be 25% greater than we thought

Research led by the University of Reading indicates that emissions of methane due to human activity have, to date, caused a warming effect which is about one-third of the warming effect due to carbon dioxide emissions – this methane contribution is 25% higher than previous estimates.

Tzor, I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say. I'm not being argumentative, I'm really not sure what your point is.

So, here's what we've done:

1. We've fucked the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and adding huge quantities of CO2
2. We've fucked the atmosphere by breeding billions of cattle who burp and fart methane
3. We've fucked the atmosphere by bulldozing billions of acres of forest which would normally be scrubbing the carbon compounds out.
   In addition, as a result of 1, 2, and 3, we have
4. Additional warming due to increased albedo as the glaciers shrink, and
5. Additional warming due to methane released from arctic clathrates as the permafrost line recedes.

It seems to me that all your nitpicking about what percentage of warming is attributable to 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 is some kind of obfuscation. All these effects work in tandem, and their relative importance seems to be subject to only very rough estimates.

If I can be permitted a small analogy, it seems that you are like a defense attorney, with a client (let's call him M for short) who shot, stabbed and bludgeoned his victim (let's call the victim A) and you think you can get him off the murder rap because the Crown can't say for sure whether it was the bullet or the knife or the candlestick to the head that killed him. But real courts don't work that way. In a real court, if you shot, stabbed and bludgeoned someone, and they died, that would be sufficient for a murder rap. The Crown might try to untangle which was the most critical blow, but they're under no obligation to do so. In fact, people have been convicted of murder in cases where they burnt the body to the point that the actual cause of death was impossible to establish. All that's necessary for us to show is that A was alive and well before M started heaping abuse on him, and now he's toast.

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what your point is? I'm willing to be corrected.