The Forum > Article Comments > Carbon dioxide, public enemy No1? > Comments
Carbon dioxide, public enemy No1? : Comments
By Pierre Jutras, published 11/2/2010The carbon dioxide paradox; or how the greatest hero of life’s history unjustifiably came to be known as public enemy No1.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by phoenix94, Thursday, 11 February 2010 12:36:49 PM
| |
Emotive argument, assertion and ideology are no substitutes for rigorously researched science. Prof Jutras should be commended for pouring cold water on the unfounded assertion that CO2 is the climate-changing villain. On the other hand, if anyone has irrefutable scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of global warming, then he/she should table that evidence for all to see. Climate change ideologists automatically disqualify themselves.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 11 February 2010 12:57:29 PM
| |
The article glosses over the fact there have been extinction events in the Earth's past that cannot be attributed to volcanic or astronomical factors. The planet Venus (second brightest object in the night sky) got hot and stayed hot. To state the bleedin' obvious the Earth never before had such a high maintenance species. To their credit the dinosaurs never dug up the coal, oil and gas that had built up over eons, but they died anyway. The 6.8 bn H. sapiens are merrily using up that endowment, breeding like crazy and failing to develop or pass on knowledge to live without it. We're also talking climate change speeds of decades, not hundreds of thousands of years.
Another thing; since climate change models don't predict the dinosaur period how about geological models predict next week's weather? Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 11 February 2010 1:07:02 PM
| |
"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is, in fact, the “greenest” gas in our atmosphere, and the most essential ingredient for life itself."
Wrong. _Every_ plant nutrient is essential for the existence of life. Take away the nitrogen (in the form of nitrates), sulphur, phosphorus and various trace elements and life simply would not exist. If Jutras can't even get basic high school biology right, why should I trust his understanding of the much more complex areas of meteorology and atmospheric physics? Posted by Paul Bamford, Thursday, 11 February 2010 2:33:16 PM
| |
Folks
This is the geologists three card trick. Pretend that AGW is about CO2. and then prove that C02 is natural and necessary. In reality it isn't CO2 it's *too Bloody* much of the stuff. The point is these individuals are out of their element . The other glaring problem with this mans article is that the specific Tibetan glaciers that provide 60% of the fresh water for the four main rivers for China, India, Bangladesh are retreating for 80 years. (upward of 300 MILLION people are threatened by this + the sea rise). There are before and after photos, the ice that is melting was laid down over 1000's of years....it isn't temporary thing. The ice on that end of the Tibetan plateau is disappearing it is turning intro the Gobi. They don't want to accept that Glacier gate was only over the 35 yr time line not the fact they're retreating. http://asiasociety.org/onthinnerice http://sites.asiasociety.org/chinagreen/icimod-for-mountains-and-people/http://sites.asiasociety.org/chinagreen/ sideshows and videos http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/nocs/news.php?action=display_news&idx=707 This last post show that geologists have underestimated the length of the last glacier /ice melt it didn't bounce back for between 2-2.5 1000years. They also ignore the obvious differences between then and now 6.? Billion people. In short geologists are simply out of depth. Posted by examinator, Thursday, 11 February 2010 3:32:05 PM
| |
Well rstuart,put your money where your mouth is.How about a bet,say $10,000.00 that the earth will not warm as much a as Al Gore says it will in the next 5 years.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 11 February 2010 4:16:23 PM
|
If anyone does not believe the faith as you believe the faith they have to be wrong!
If anyone works for the oil & gas industry or a power generator their research is automatically flawed!
Obviously you believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and support the IPCC Report. If you ever grow up enough to look at both sides of an argument google the NIPCC Report.
It is written by scientists who are just as qualified as your idols but being retired scientists they don't have to grovel for the research grants and give their masters the reults that are asked for. You did that? Now google Lysenkoism by Prof Cliff Ollie. Then research Eugenics and wonder why you believe what you believe.
I'm sceptical? Better than gullible.