"But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

Here's one:

Tell me more about how to pump CO2 into the ground. What kind of pump should I buy? How deep in the ground should I dig? Should I buy CO2 as bottled gas, or dry ice, or can I use natural gas from my home supply lines? How about if instead of using a pump, I buy some charcoal and bury it in my yard; would that suffice?


I already did: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14130572#post14130572
Except, of course, that you are asking about what you can do as an individual, i.e. one of those solutions that let the fossil-fuel industry continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere while you find a way to think highly of yourself for doing 'the little you can do' on an individual basis while the calamity continues.

Then when I want the fossil fuel industry to pay for the expenses I've incurred, what name and address should I invoice? What are the account and purchase order numbers? What office should I mail it to?


Is that what the victims of Philip Morris' disinformation did? You can go on pretending that you you don't know the difference, but you are well aware that it's pretense for your argument's sake. (If you aren't: Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (Wikipedia) By no means did it actually make up for the damage they had done (and still do), but it would be a start, a way to make the ******** see that this is serious and that they need to stop.)

I'm doing the math on how much time I can realistically spend digging and how much of my yard I can dig up before the neighbors complain, and it still seems to me that using less fossil fuels personally (such as, cold showers and less travel) would be more effective at reducing the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.


You are so funny! The best part of your joke is when you pretend that cold showers and less travel helps reduce (!!!) "the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere." It makes it obvious that you have no real interest in reducing this "net amount" and instead resort to comforting yourself that it is what you are doing - while Bill Marr and other celebrities and leaders of industry and politicians are traveling to climate conferences (well, Bill Marr wouldn't go to one of those) in their private jets.

So either your advice is faulty, or there's something about it, as it applies to me individually, that you're failing to clearly communicate.


I have communicated it very clearly. That the message doesn't appeal to me is not my fault.
 
There was an impromptu climate change discussion at work the other day. Consensus: We're screwed. Big Time! :( ...

The consensus was, we're screwed (Big time!) because:
a. The long lead time -- estimated at thirty years -- before CO2 in the upper atmosphere begins to decrease after we begin pumping less CO2 into the atmosphere.

b. Even now, we have not begun to reduce the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere. NOAA reports average global carbon dioxide emissions reached a new record high in 2022.

c. It's not just an American problem or a Western problem. We need an international effort and that may be hard to achieve.

d. We may not get the kind of broad international consensus on the need to address the greenhouse gas issue until it's too late in the game to make much difference (especially given the decades long period before the atmosphere begins to clean out enough to make a significant difference).

Interestingly, this was a break room conversation with seven or eight people with another eight or ten passing through. It was a multi-racial, multi-ethnic group, of a wide age range -- nineteen or twenty up to sixty -- a mix of blue-collar and white-collar employees.

I was actually surprised how uniformly pessimistic everyone was. One gentleman, an operations manager, listened for a few minutes while heating his lunch in a microwave and then, unprompted, commented:
Even if we drastically reduce emissions, there is no guarantee the weather will respond. It might take a long, long time to recover.
 
I already did: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14130572#post14130572
Except, of course, that you are asking about what you can do as an individual...


The light dawns! OF COURSE I'm asking about what I can do as an individual. Like everyone else everything I do is as an individual, and I can only do anything as an individual. Even if what I'm doing is voting, writing letters, signing or getting others to sign petitions, demonstrating in public, supporting a candidate or a cause, joining an organization or even founding an organization, I'm still an individual doing those things.

You keep talking about things you want some undefined yet presumably powerful organization to do, but you are talking to individuals like myself. Maybe there's someone you think I should vote for (and yet, you repeatedly point out that the non-voted-for petroleum executives seem to get their way regardless of who is voted into office—while also pretending that the only influential people no one votes for are in China, which is just weird). Or maybe there's some collective entity I should send money to, or canvass for, or post enthusiastically about online. Maybe. You haven't been forthcoming about any of that. Just things like "you should bury carbon!" and "you should make the rich make sacrifices!" as though you were addressing the embodied avatar of Exxon-Mobil, or maybe Thanos.

I've called you on this, and I'm glad you find it funny. So do I. Hilarious, actually!

So do you have any real suggestions for the real people you're talking to, or do you just want to continue posturing?
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, in the real world:
And after a decade of cross-party consensus on tackling the climate crisis, experts fear that Sunak has identified green policies as a new wedge issue that could help reverse his party’s sagging fortunes.
Sunak said Monday he wants to “max out” oil and gas developments in Britain’s North Sea, announcing an expansion in drilling for the fossil fuels that environmental groups have condemned.
The move followed a proclamation from Sunak to Britain’s drivers, in the Telegraph newspaper, that he was “on their side,” as he ordered a review of “anti-motorist” low-traffic neighborhoods created to improve urban air quality.
The UK once vowed to be a global climate leader. Now Rishi Sunak is stoking a culture war on green policies (CNN, Aug 1, 2023)
 
The consensus was, we're screwed (Big time!) because:


Interestingly, this was a break room conversation with seven or eight people with another eight or ten passing through. It was a multi-racial, multi-ethnic group, of a wide age range -- nineteen or twenty up to sixty -- a mix of blue-collar and white-collar employees.

I was actually surprised how uniformly pessimistic everyone was. One gentleman, an operations manager, listened for a few minutes while heating his lunch in a microwave and then, unprompted, commented:


Look no further than the dialog in this thread for justification for the pessimism.

Or try this variation:

"It's terrible, what's happening to the climate! We have to do something!"

"Well, how about you start by not using an 1800-Watt hair dryer fifteen minutes a day, just to dry hair that will dry by itself by the time you finish breakfast?"

"But that won't make a big enough difference! What we really need is for corporations to stop being greedy, politicians to stop being self-interested and short-sighted, rich[er] people [than me] to stop being wasteful, gullible commoners to stop being gullible, and human nature in general to change completely in accordance with my utopian ideology."

"Is that by any chance just a way of saying you'd rather do nothing and justify holding on to whatever comforts you already have for as long as you can?"

"What? I can't hear you, the hair dryer's too loud."

Times five hundred million.*


*The approximate number of people in the world with at least the approximate income level to be able to casually afford the use of an electric hair dryer, which likely includes everyone or nearly everyone reading this board.
 
Last edited:
The consensus was, we're screwed (Big time!) because:


a. The long lead time -- estimated at thirty years -- before CO2 in the upper atmosphere begins to decrease after we begin pumping less CO2 into the atmosphere.

b. Even now, we have not begun to reduce the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere. NOAA reports average global carbon dioxide emissions reached a new record high in 2022.

c. It's not just an American problem or a Western problem. We need an international effort and that may be hard to achieve.

d. We may not get the kind of broad international consensus on the need to address the greenhouse gas issue until it's too late in the game to make much difference (especially given the decades long period before the atmosphere begins to clean out enough to make a significant difference).

a. Pumping less CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't do the trick. It will only make the continual deterioration of the atmosphere go a little slower. It's not as if the CO2 will find somewhere else to go if more of it is added to the atmosphere but at a slower rate.

b. True, and yet ... There's a big difference in the group of 'we'. Some countries have actually begun to lower their CO2 emissions. Others have raised theirs. And it still doesn't do anything about the CO2 that is already there: The ice is still melting, the thawing tundras will continue to release more methane, and the heating oceans will release CO2, too.

c. Yes, indeed, but it may be the prelude to Trump's argument: 'If we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, China will use it as an opportunity to emit even more.' Even though China's contribution to the problem per capita is one third of USA's (and yet still too high). False: The Concept of Global Warming Was Created by and for the Chinese in Order to Make U.S. Manufacturing Non-Competitive (Euro FactCheck)

d. The USA should really consider this on a national level before blaming the rest of the world. It seems to be an argument for, 'So we might as well continue to make sure that Earth will become inhabitable for our descendants; maybe even for the ones already born.'
The USA has emitted most to date: more than a quarter of all historical CO2: twice that of China which is the second largest contributor. In contrast, most countries across Africa have been responsible for less than 0.01% of all emissions over the last 266 years.
How has each country’s share of global cumulative CO2 emissions changed over time? (Our World in Data)
A real world leader!

Interestingly, this was a break room conversation with seven or eight people with another eight or ten passing through. It was a multi-racial, multi-ethnic group, of a wide age range -- nineteen or twenty up to sixty -- a mix of blue-collar and white-collar employees.

I was actually surprised how uniformly pessimistic everyone was.


You can see the same outcome of pessimistic and optimistic attitudes:
'It's bad for the economy, and for the next election, so there's nothing we can do about it. We're screwed no matter what so we might as well continue.' (See the other climate thread!)
'There's nothing to worry about, so we might as well continue. A little heat doesn't hurt anyone. The most heat resistant of us will learn to adapt. It's evolution.' (Any similarity with pandemic arguments is a coincidence.)
 
Last edited:
I trust you'll be putting a stop to Sunak's plan forthwith, using the same secret methods you're recommending to everyone else.


There's nothing secret about it.
While you are busy persuading yourself that cold showers will help ameliorate what Sunak's doing.
 
More comedy brought to you by Myriad:

"What? I can't hear you, the hair dryer's too loud."


I haven't used a hairdryer for the past 25 years or so, and I don't own one, but if I did own one now and used it (on a day with enough wind; see Hans' post 390), it wouldn't matter because the power wouldn't come from fossil fuels.
What a drag! Now I can't even refer to not using a hairdryer to feel proud about myself for my personal contribution to zero CO2 emission!
How can I virtue signal in difficult conditions like these?!
 
Last edited:
The UK PM seems to be pinning his hopes for net-zero on this wonderful CCS technology.
Is there anyone on this board who has more google-fu and access to better literature than me can provide a number for how many CCS schemes are active as of now and how much Co2 they have managed to capture and store?

For a planet-saving technology 'they' appear to have hidden these results quite deep.
 
A slim majority in the senate is insufficient. At the bare minimum, a president would need 60/40 to avoid fillibuster. More like 62/38 what with Manchin and Sinema.

The only alternative is presidential orders. They're limited in scope, and they tend to get overturned either by the courts or the next republican POTUS.

Yes, this. In another thread we keep getting into arguments on how left/right the democratic party is and if only they'd nominate a truly progressive president... they'd... what exactly? Magically get legislation past the Senate? Not have executive action overturned by the SCOTUS :confused:
 
The UK PM seems to be pinning his hopes for net-zero on this wonderful CCS technology.
Is there anyone on this board who has more google-fu and access to better literature than me can provide a number for how many CCS schemes are active as of now and how much Co2 they have managed to capture and store?

For a planet-saving technology 'they' appear to have hidden these results quite deep.


"Could one day be" doesn't make it sound as if it's something that's right around the corner, unfortunately:
With Carbon Capture, Concrete Could One Day Be a Carbon Sink (NRDC, May 13, 2021)
 
My bad if I mistook you for an anthill. :rolleyes:
I can't take this level of argumentation seriously.
Help me out with this tricky question that I stumbled upon...
Which of following tactics is counter-productive for combatting global warming?
(A) Reduce your carbon footprint
(B) Deride people on social media who advocate that people reduce their carbon footprint​
It's confounding!
 
Yes, this. In another thread we keep getting into arguments on how left/right the democratic party is and if only they'd nominate a truly progressive president... they'd... what exactly? Magically get legislation past the Senate? Not have executive action overturned by the SCOTUS :confused:


Politicians are not exactly the best and the brightest. More like The Marching Morons. A lot of them have recently been listening to reports about aliens in flying saucers, and some of them still prefer to believe that their agents in Havana were the victims of brain-zapping microwave guns.

If Big Oil tells (and pays) them to ignore their own experts they are more than willing to do so.
The Long-Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate (.pdf, April 1979) Also here: The JASON Report, The Long Term Impact Of Carbon Dioxide On Climate (1979) (ClilmateState, July 10, 2019)
Climate Change - Evidence and Causes: Update 2020 (The National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society)
 
Help me out with this tricky question that I stumbled upon...
Which of following tactics is counter-productive for combatting global warming?
(A) Reduce your carbon footprint
(B) Deride people on social media who advocate that people reduce their carbon footprint​
It's confounding!


No, it's not confounding at all.

The answer is obviously A. It's very obvious. Pretending that it's up to individuals to 'reduce their carbon footprint' taking cold showers and biking is counter-productive because it's a bloody lie. Some people have attempted to 'live sustainably' for decades because they believe that it somehow contributes to pouring less CO2 into the atmosphere while ignoring the industry and politicians responsible for the damage.

Whereas B is a strawman.

I hope that made it less confounding for you.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom