That's quite a strawman you've created in your mind. Does your imaginary alarmist have imaginary arguments with Greenpeace in your head?
Cowspiracy: The Astonishing Hypocrisy of Climate Alarmists
- Thread starter Eugene Shubert
- Start date
forQUOTE="iceaura, post: 3426045, member: 27090"]And you missed the replies, including mine in #176.
Again: what's your point?
Are you trying to argue that the current CO2 started and driven warming doesn't exist and will not continue because some past warmings started in other ways?[/QUOTE]
I guess my 'point' is that since there are likely 'other ways' (as you promulgate above) for warming in the past (last 420,000 years, or so) that do NOT involve man-generated (or dinosaur-generated) CO2 sources, it is logical to infer that CO2 increases were (sic, logically) in response to atmospheric temperature. Logically (sic, scientifically): Cause-->Effect . . . . . (like before-->after) . . . . . Temperature rise-->CO2 rise . . . .etc. There are likely other (ref. multiple-working hypotheses?) causes for atmospheric temperature increases (also for CO2 increases).
Again: what's your point?
Are you trying to argue that the current CO2 started and driven warming doesn't exist and will not continue because some past warmings started in other ways?[/QUOTE]
I guess my 'point' is that since there are likely 'other ways' (as you promulgate above) for warming in the past (last 420,000 years, or so) that do NOT involve man-generated (or dinosaur-generated) CO2 sources, it is logical to infer that CO2 increases were (sic, logically) in response to atmospheric temperature. Logically (sic, scientifically): Cause-->Effect . . . . . (like before-->after) . . . . . Temperature rise-->CO2 rise . . . .etc. There are likely other (ref. multiple-working hypotheses?) causes for atmospheric temperature increases (also for CO2 increases).
That would make sense if we saw temperature increases followed by CO2 increases, which we have seen in the past.
However, this time we saw the opposite - CO2 increases followed by temperature increases. Therefore, logically (i.e. scientifically) cause --> effect; CO2 is the cause and warming is the effect.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
The Cowspiracy documentary is real. The only fantasies about it are in the minds of those that refuse to see it. The second documentary does an excellent job exposing Al Gore's hypocrisy.
I believe you "misread" the Vostok ice core excerpt: ." the Vostok data shows us that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years"
Correct. More recently (past 1000 years or so) the CO2 increases PRECEDE the temperature increases. Therefore, logically (i.e. scientifically) cause --> effect; CO2 is the cause and warming is the effect.
Can you provide reliable documentation sources/references for this comment and stated logical conclusions? Thanks!
All of the past warmings did seem to have "involved" the CO2 boost, however - they just appear to have started without it, and likely contributed to it in a feedback cycle.
CO2 boosting is going to trap heat and cause warming - that's just physics. How the CO2 got into the air in the first place doesn't change that.
The apparent possibility that warming itself in some way boosted atmospheric CO2, in the past, is a warning to us - there's a possibility of a positive feedback loop which will amplify our fossil fuel CO2 boost via the warming it causes, and amplify the damage while making remediation even more difficult.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I have not asserted that. My assertion was, I believe, clear. Here it is again:
"In my casual, undocumented reading of climate alarmists I have found that most, possibly all, have been equally critical of our intensive farming methods, meat eating and cattle rearing. Hence, no hypocrisy. Case closed."
You then asked for links that would support that assertion. I provided links to Greenpeace, the IPCC report and Friends of the Earth that supported my assertion. I repeat, case closed, unless you can find something other than bombastic rhetoric to support your case.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
You live a very sheltered existence. Cowspiracy is justifiably critical of Greenpeace and other environmental organizations and the second documentary MEAT The TRUTH is extremely critical of Al Gore.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? I ask this not as a veiled insult, but out of genuine puzzlement.
1. I was not referencing Cowspiracy's attitude to Greenpeace, I was providing evidence that supported my assertion that various environmental organisations recognise the impact of our current agricultural practices.
2. Just as a reminder, you claim they do not recognise the issues. I have demonstrated that they do. You seem incapable of recognising this.
3. I have made no mention of Al Gore. For what it's worth I can also criticise Al Gore. It doesn't alter my original assertion one whit.
Now, as I said before, do you have anything other than bombastic rhetoric?
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
And this thread concerns their "Astonishing Hypocrisy."
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Which you have failed to demonstrate. You implicitly asserted they do not acknowledge the environmental impact of cattle rearing. I have demonstrated they do.
I strongly recommend you drop your pretentious outrage, engage whatever may remain of your critical thinking and stop being a prat. This probably won't make you loved, but it could eliminate much of the laughter.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
No. I assert that I agree with Cowspiracy and MEAT The TRUTH and that the environmental organizations they expose are minimally sentient and astonishingly hypocritical.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
There's nothing surprising about the minimally sentient not being able to recognize their hypocrisy.
Please provide reliable/factual documentation/sources for the "CO2 boost" mechanism that you speculate causes warming - otherwise it (CO2 boosting) is nothing more than fanciful, factless speculation - certainly not deserving of serious scientific consideration.
What is with you and your crush on Al Gore? Why do you care so much about what he says? Do you obsess over what Kanye West, Bill O'Reilly or Howard Stern says as well?
You mean all the organizations that advocate for responsible farming and less meat consumption?
You are remarkably ignorant, even for an Internet troll.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
Any organization can build a pretty website and have it acknowledge everything you want to hear. The issue is that of priorities and honestly identifying the concern that should be most prominent, front and center.
Sure.
1) CO2 is a climate change gas. This is trivial to prove; you can do it yourself with high school lab instruments. If you want a source, check out http://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm for a good overview; it also links to some ~60 other sources if you want to delve further.
2) We are increasing the levels of CO2. This comes originally from Keeling's work. Keeling both calculated the amount of CO2 we were releasing, and set up a measurement site atop Mauna Loa to validate his calculations. Overview here: http://history.aip.org/climate/Kfunds.htm
3) Temperatures are increasing at a rate we would expect due to the increased forcing of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane.) In other words, scientists estimated how fast we'd warm, and then waited. We've been doing this ever since 1990, and our estimates have come quite close to reality, even factoring in the usual uncertainties (volcanic eruptions, ENSO changes etc.) Here's a good overview of the estimates and the actual matching of the climate through about 2012: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...t/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate (since then we have gotten much warmer, of course; 2016 will be another record-breaking year.)