• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Activists Brace for Failure at COP21

Yes. I do not see the increased amount of CO2 in the air being anywhere near to being damaging. I do not see it becoming such in the future, as far as is reasonable to predict.

I do not see fossil fuels being the primary power source of humanity for that long. I think solar power and other things will come along fairly quickly, within a few decades. This will make the hype over GW utterly irrelivant.

The last time that the CO2 concentration rose by 80 points (the amount that it rose from 1900 to 2000) took approximately 5,000 years. This information is based on ice core data which goes back nearly 800,000 years.

When you can take into account that the CO2 concentration has risen more sharply over the more recent years, it still doesn't seem alarming or damaging to the currently existing plants and animals?
 
The last time that the CO2 concentration rose by 80 points (the amount that it rose from 1900 to 2000) took approximately 5,000 years. This information is based on ice core data which goes back nearly 800,000 years.

When you can take into account that the CO2 concentration has risen more sharply over the more recent years, it still doesn't seem alarming or damaging to the currently existing plants and animals?
Why would you think 400 ppm or even 450 ppm of CO2 would be anything to worry about?
Those levels are not harmful to plants or animals.
The Climate sensitivity to the extra CO2 appears to be at the lowest end of the predicted scale.
In addition most of the warming will be in nighttime lows not being as low.
The earth is greening up, and plant hardiness zones are expanding.
We will be onto our next energy solution within 30 to 40 years, perhaps much before then.
Organic oil will be relegated to only being the feedstock for plastics and medicine.
 
The last time that the CO2 concentration rose by 80 points (the amount that it rose from 1900 to 2000) took approximately 5,000 years. This information is based on ice core data which goes back nearly 800,000 years.

When you can take into account that the CO2 concentration has risen more sharply over the more recent years, it still doesn't seem alarming or damaging to the currently existing plants and animals?

The currently existing plants and animals seem to be coping quite happily with this increase in a trace gas that does them no harm and helps the plants to grow.

Why do you think that it should do harm? The CO2 directly that is.
 
Why would you think 400 ppm or even 450 ppm of CO2 would be anything to worry about?
Those levels are not harmful to plants or animals.
The Climate sensitivity to the extra CO2 appears to be at the lowest end of the predicted scale.
In addition most of the warming will be in nighttime lows not being as low.
The earth is greening up, and plant hardiness zones are expanding.
We will be onto our next energy solution within 30 to 40 years, perhaps much before then.
Organic oil will be relegated to only being the feedstock for plastics and medicine.

Yes, don't invest too heavily in oil companies.
 
Machines are not similarly limited. They are the primary sources of excessive CO2 production because of that reason.
As far as I know, there is no excessive CO2 production. There really can't be. CO2 is neither a pollutant nor a poison. CO2 is essential for life. I realize that warmizombies believe CO2 has magical heat superpowers but that's just religiously-induced scientific illiteracy.

I hope you weren't trying to leverage faith in CO2's divine powers as support for a carbon tax. Wouldn't it be easier to just tax nitrogen? You wouldn't have to tie it to any sort of production; you could just tax it, like Maryland taxed rain. Simple. Straightforward. Gets the job done.
 
Yes, don't invest too heavily in oil companies.
I think the opposite.
Oil companies are really energy companies, setting on a three leg stool.
Exploration and extraction
Refining
distribution and retail.
I think the most likely follow on to fossil fuels, is alternative energy stored as hydrocarbon fuels.
The Oil companies already have the refineries and the distribution infrastructure,
to provide the man made fuels.
Newcomers to the game would have a century worth of catch up.
The Exploration and extraction leg of the oil business has always been the risky side of the business,
with wild price fluctuations.
The value of their know reserves will only drop to the price of the alternatives,
except some blends will have greater value for plastics. (less stuff to remove)
 
As far as I know, there is no excessive CO2 production. There really can't be. CO2 is neither a pollutant nor a poison. CO2 is essential for life. I realize that warmizombies believe CO2 has magical heat superpowers but that's just religiously-induced scientific illiteracy.

I hope you weren't trying to leverage faith in CO2's divine powers as support for a carbon tax. Wouldn't it be easier to just tax nitrogen? You wouldn't have to tie it to any sort of production; you could just tax it, like Maryland taxed rain. Simple. Straightforward. Gets the job done.

Hmm.

I guess all that time I spent on managing hypercapnia in patients was pointless, because CO2 isn't dangerous ever.
 
Hmm.

I guess all that time I spent on managing hypercapnia in patients was pointless, because CO2 isn't dangerous ever.
Hypercapnia is a symptom not a cause, for a healthy person CO2 levels below 1000 ppm would not be an issue.
 
Hypercapnia is a symptom not a cause, for a healthy person CO2 levels below 1000 ppm would not be an issue.

Sort of. Hypercapnia is not a symptom, but a sign, and the cause is excess CO2.

And elevated CO2 in the atmosphere is not directly harmful, but the consequences of it (again, outlined in WG3, IPCC) are likely very harmful to human health.

But that's just scientists talking. For an opposite perspective, you can read blogs written by mining consultants.
 
As far as I know, there is no excessive CO2 production. There really can't be. CO2 is neither a pollutant nor a poison. CO2 is essential for life. I realize that warmizombies believe CO2 has magical heat superpowers but that's just religiously-induced scientific illiteracy.

I hope you weren't trying to leverage faith in CO2's divine powers as support for a carbon tax. Wouldn't it be easier to just tax nitrogen? You wouldn't have to tie it to any sort of production; you could just tax it, like Maryland taxed rain. Simple. Straightforward. Gets the job done.

Did you know that Fat is essential for human life? Did you know that Fat can be a bad thing when you have too much? CO2 has the same quality. Without it - we would be dead. With too much of it - there will be a large amount of problems.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is not a superpower. It is a basic fact of physics. Venus is nearly twice as far from the Sun as Mercury. Given the fact that radiation scales on a logarythmic scale such that radiation decreases by 4x for every doubling of distance, that means that Venus should be much colder than Mercury. And yet it is not. The reason is because of a run-away greenhouse gas effect created by Venus' atmosphere that is roughly 97% carbon dioxide.
 
Sort of. Hypercapnia is not a symptom, but a sign, and the cause is excess CO2.

And elevated CO2 in the atmosphere is not directly harmful, but the consequences of it (again, outlined in WG3, IPCC) are likely very harmful to human health.

But that's just scientists talking. For an opposite perspective, you can read blogs written by mining consultants.
If you are "managing hypercapnia in patients" from existing CO2 levels there is some underlying problem.
400 ppm is not harmful to normal healthy people.
 
Hypercapnia is a symptom not a cause, for a healthy person CO2 levels below 1000 ppm would not be an issue.

CO2 levels can rise above 1000 ppm. As long as there is ~20% oxygen then our lungs will be fine. Remember, our atmosphere has 790,000 ppm nitrogen and it causes no problems.

The problems with excessive CO2 arise when too much of it enters an enclosed space and, being heavier than oxygen, it displaces the oxygen closer to the floor/ground where humans are trying to breath the oxygen that is being displaced. In those cases, oxygen levels fall below ~20% with substantial effects on breathing.
 
I think the opposite.
Oil companies are really energy companies, setting on a three leg stool.
Exploration and extraction
Refining
distribution and retail.
I think the most likely follow on to fossil fuels, is alternative energy stored as hydrocarbon fuels.
The Oil companies already have the refineries and the distribution infrastructure,
to provide the man made fuels.
Newcomers to the game would have a century worth of catch up.
The Exploration and extraction leg of the oil business has always been the risky side of the business,
with wild price fluctuations.
The value of their know reserves will only drop to the price of the alternatives,
except some blends will have greater value for plastics. (less stuff to remove)

New technologies are always disruptive.

I don't know which of the possible new power sources out there will be the one to dominate but it is often the way that the small startuo which is focused on doing just what it does is quicker to do that than the big old organisation which has to focus on it's existing business always.
 
New technologies are always disruptive.

I don't know which of the possible new power sources out there will be the one to dominate but it is often the way that the small startuo which is focused on doing just what it does is quicker to do that than the big old organisation which has to focus on it's existing business always.
Perhaps, for the development, but the massive scale up necessary to meet existing fuel demands,
would demand quite a bit of infrastructure.
Also do not underestimate how high tech oil companies can be,
Remember Texas Instruments started as a geophysical company.
 
Back
Top Bottom