Quote:
Originally Posted by bgilbert
. Carlton, I hear what you are saying and I respect that you are well meaning, but so am I. I will put my cards on the table and mention politics just this one time, I'm a lunatic lefty and ex greenie, so my side of politics hates me. Imagine how torn I feel when I find myself agreeing with Tony Abbot or Donald trump. But the science, the physics, I smelt a rat. Please tell me were I've gone wrong. I'll always be a lefty, but tell me where my physics is wrong, please.
. Example why do I believe that CO2 below 150 ppm will be the end of plant life on earth, we were at 180 ppm before the industrial revolution. If we extrapolate the gradual fall in the CO2 over the last several hundred million years, then in less than a million years life on the planet would be over.
. Why do I believe that 99 percent of CO2 on earth is locked up in rocks made from marine deposits and apart from the occasional volcano will never be released, we are doomed. When the coal and oil run out we will have to cook shale to produce CO2 for the world's plants to survive.
. Can you put me on the right track and correct my crook physics and geology, so my lefty mates will accept me again?
|
Barry, I never questioned the data you presented.. I questioned the manner in which you present it & the fact that you seem to ignore significant portions of data that don't support your theories...
Someone raises temperature recordings... you shoot it down by citing that one time in history when a higher temp was recorded... but, you ignore trending temperature data showing mean temperature rises in the vicinity of 1 degree globally, as predicted by those 'so called climate scientists'.
I'm neither a Lefty or a Righty... I don't give a rats about your politics & funnily enough, neither does the environment...
My point is, that too often.. well meaning (I'm sure) folk on both sides of this discussion rely on isolated data in a very complex issue to present their side of the argument. Sure, all of the data matters but, it's not a game where you play off one bit of data against another to see who wins...
The data is a whole & together, it paints a picture... at present, not a particulary happy one...
One does not look at a dying garden & point to that one plant that is doing okay & say, well.. all good here then.. that one is alive, clearly no problem!
You talk about decline in CO2 levels... but, we are not in decline... we are on the rise...
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide
You cite 150ppm CO2 as being catastrophic & from what I read you are quite correct however, you conversely stay away from the fact that we are currently at a level not seen in the past 800,000 years & showing no signs of slowing down..
It's not what you quote that is flawed, it's what you choose to leave out or ignore...