yossarian wrote:
gbaji wrote:
yos wrote:
We have one forum poster who seems to indicate that it isn't - who literally said we will asphyxiate on CO2 before it raises temperature.
Please tell me that this isn't a reference to me. I didn't say that at all. I was responding to someone who said that it wasn't just about temperature, but CO2.
My response was that the only reason we worry about CO2 is because it may cause the temperature to rise via a greenhouse gas effect. So that could be true, except that gbaji said this:
gbaji wrote:
yos wrote:
What gbaji could say is that the amounts of carbon dioxide humans have put don't have the power to change the global temperature much. He almost says this when he says: "The argument is not about CO2 levels themselves. They aren't harmful (unless they're a whole hell of a lot higher)."
Not because the gas is poisonous, but because we can't actually breathe it. Too much CO2 means there's too little O2 and Nitrogen, which is what we need. CO2 is bad for us in more or less the same way that water is. We can't breathe it. That's really it.
See why it is useless to argue with gbaji? Posts the first thing that comes into his head: contradicts anything his opponents say.
When I post about how gbaji acts, and then he
DOES EXACTLY WHAT I SAY HE WILL DO it isn't an insult. It is a prediction.
I'm entirely unsure what you think your point is here.
I mentioned that extremely high levels of CO2 are harmful to animal life only to be complete. I knew that if I didn't mention it, someone would claim that I was wrong since I'd failed to mention that. Of course, I mention it and now you're running around insisting that I'm being inconsistent.
The proposed carbon reductions related to global warming are *not* predicated on a fear that CO2 levels will rise to such levels that we'll all asphyxiate. They are predicated on an assumed greenhouse gas effect which will cause temperatures to rise, melt the icecaps, kill off the polar bears, and raise ocean levels resulting in massive flooding and loss of human life (and other things).
That is the entirety of the argument for reducing carbon emissions. As I've said repeatedly, it's all about temperature increase. It's not enough to just look at the CO2 levels and proclaim an emergency. You have to actually show that this is causing or will cause a significant enough temperature increase to warrant the kind of actions that are being proposed. Someone earlier in the thread insisted that even if temperatures can't be shown to increase, we should still act to reduce CO2 levels anyway. That's what spawned that little debate, to which you choose to be a nit.
It's not all or nothing. I'm not denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I simply disagree that the results of carbon emissions are so great as to justify the costs being proposed. I have been very consistent with this position from the beginning. Yet, no matter how carefully I explain this, I still get ninnies like you twisting the words around to find ways to insist that I'm saying something wrong.
It's funny watching this btw. I can't imagine how some of you manage to so consistently fail utterly to understand a point being made, and instead zero in on single words or phrases, which can be taken out of context to form a pretty silly counter argument. Honestly, I've read that quote above over and over and still can't figure out what you think I'm saying that's inconsistent, or how it somehow validates some position you've taken inside your own mind. It's almost like you're just ignoring all the words in between (which you quoted anyway), finding two sentences which don't actually contradict each other, but insist that if only we all had really poor reading skills that they would, so apparently, they do.
Funny!
