Cowspiracy: The Astonishing Hypocrisy of Climate Alarmists

[billvon]

Any organization can build a pretty website and have it acknowledge everything you want to hear. The issue is that of priorities and what is most prominent, front and center.

So now your story has changed again, from "Greenpeace does not advocate for less factory farming" to "OK so they do advocate for it, but they don't make it a high enough priority."

Does anyone take you seriously? What do you do for a living, by the way? I am trying to imagine an occupation where your style of dishonesty, cowardice and rancor are pluses. Do you work for the Trump transition team, by any chance?

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Why do you care so much about what he says?

The two documentaries expose the hypocrisy of many leaders in the environmental movement. My favorites are those that condemn themselves on video by their own words.

 

[billvon]

The two documentaries expose the hypocrisy of many leaders in the environmental movement.

And yet you concentrate on Gore. Have a little man-crush on him?

 

[Eugene Shubert]

"Greenpeace does not advocate for less factory farming"

Cowspiracy and MEAT The TRUTH isn't continually adjusting its message. What is morphing is your attempt at denials as you invent bolder and more slanderous deceit.

 

[billvon]

Cowspiracy and MEAT The TRUTH isn't continually adjusting its message. What is morphing is your attempt at denials as you invent bolder and more slanderous deceit.

I love it! Please, post more videos that "prove your point" and post about your man-crush some more! Then try insulting someone again. This is better than reality TV!

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Please, post more videos that "prove your point"

I respect overly honest confessions by environmentalist leaders that are video recorded. It's very entertaining.

 

[karenmansker]

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.)

Thanks Billvon. . . . however . . . . I DID look at ALL of the references you provided and did word searches on all of them (the referenced documents) for " CO2 boost" and "carbon dioxide boost" None of the searches successfully found either of the word-string terms. I also did a Google Search for the same terms and no links were forthcoming for the word-strings in the context in which we have discussing them. Therefore, I must conclude that you have not yet provided us members the sources I requested that reference "CO2 boost" or "carbon dioxide boost" Please try again . . . . perhaps the CO2 boost terminology is not yet an accepted, or demonstrated, climate change mechanism?

 

[iceaura]

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.

I'm a little puzzled by that:

- are you in doubt of the heat trapping effects of CO2, the straight physics of the situation, as calculated by physicists and measured in laboratories?
- are you in doubt of the existence of the current CO2 boost, in particular the increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 caused by fossil fuel combustion?
- are you in doubt that the CO2 in the air actually behaves as the physics says it should and the field measurements say it does?

or what, exactly, do you find to be "speculation"?

 

[billvon]

Therefore, I must conclude that you have not yet provided us members the sources I requested that reference "CO2 boost" or "carbon dioxide boost" Please try again . . . . perhaps the CO2 boost terminology is not yet an accepted, or demonstrated, climate change mechanism?

The term "CO2 boost" is a trademarked term for a gardening appliance, so it's not going to be used in science very often.

Iceaura was referring to the positive feedback mechanism for warming that involves CO2. If you want some references for that, here's one, by David Frank of the Swiss Federal Research Institute:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/01/28/2802646.htm

 

[karenmansker]

I'm a little puzzled by that:

- are you in doubt of the heat trapping effects of CO2, the straight physics of the situation, as calculated by physicists and measured in laboratories?
- are you in doubt of the existence of the current CO2 boost, in particular the increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 caused by fossil fuel combustion?
- are you in doubt that the CO2 in the air actually behaves as the physics says it should and the field measurements say it does?

or what, exactly, do you find to be "speculation"?

I find the use of terminology that has not yet been accepted by reasonable scientists to be a self-serving attempt to force such usage on the scientific community - and an abomination to same. I am not in doubt of, and do not refute, proven physics mechanisms. However, refutable 'speculations' abound when subjective emotional opinions are presented in lieu of demonstrated objective truths.

 

[karenmansker]

i

The term "CO2 boost" is a trademarked term for a gardening appliance, so it's not going to be used in science very often.

Iceaura was referring to the positive feedback mechanism for warming that involves CO2. If you want some references for that, here's one, by David Frank of the Swiss Federal Research Institute:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/01/28/2802646.htm

Yes . . . that is what I also found when Googling "CO2 boost" - no reference to climate change usage. My point IS: One should refrain from utilizing not-yet-accepted terminology as it gives the appearance of 'making-up' one's own terminology to fit one's preconcieved notions.

If David Frank's hypothesis is correct (i.e., positive feedback - and it very likely is correct), it is really nothing new. Oceanographers, geologists, etc. have well-established and demonstrated a mechanism called "carbonate compensation depth" - or CCD, a mechanism by which carbonate (e.g., critter carbonate exoskeletons) sink (under gravity and circulation) when such critters 'pass-into-the- great-beyond' and their shells sink to ocean bottoms. Since ocean water tends to get colder with depth, and the solubility of CaCO3 (i.e., critter shells) therewith increases, the carbon in carbonate is sequestered (dissolved) in the seawater. If the temperature of that same seawater is subsequently 'raised' - by whatever mechanism (thermal or circulation), the sequestered carbon in the warmed seawater tends to be re-precipitated as carbonate species (ever heard of limestone? - typically deposited in warm, shallow oceanwater environs). Albeit, SOME carbon will be released from warmed seeawater as CO2, all is in thermal, chemical, and barometric equilibrium, and the vast bulk of CO2 from this mechanism will re-combine with Ca and form calcium carbonate (i.e., limestone; plus other carbonates such as CaMgCO3, MgCO3, etc.). Note that when 'CO-2-saturated' seawater transports to shallower environs, both temperature and pressure changes will contribute to the precipitation effects described above, but pressure is a lesser contributor. One should note that precipitation of limestone (for example) is Mother Nature's way of sequestering elevated (and even "boosted") CO2.

The key concept in climate change (and other) discussions - which many fail to consider! - is EQUILIBRIUM. For any chemical reaction that takes place in nature (or in the lab!), there is an equilibrium established between the reactants and the reaction products (i.e., the reaction proceeds in BOTH directions). If CO2 increases by various source reactions, then via equilibrium, CO2 will be decreased by various product reactions. Such reaction 'products' may include : carbonate precipitation (both organic and inorganic), solution in water, and others such as increased plant propogation/growth.

My opinion? . . . . . "Henny Penny, the sky is NOT falling" . . . Mother Nature has established compensatory and equilibrium mechanisms to deal with most contingencies. Albeit, there will be differences in the rates of compensatory mechanism reactions - they WILL occur, regardless. The 'sticky-wicket' is that for most people these compensatory mechanisms often operate over periods that exceed our (limited?) foreseeable futures!.

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_compensation_depth

 

[karenmansker]

BTW: How to sequester CO2? . . . . . the fast way . . . . .! An apropos Science Fair project for you budding young scientists! One might design an apparatus to 'measure' how much CaCO3 (weight of reaction product) is produced from simple personal exhalations . . . . . (tic) and from that data, one could calculate how many 'climate change deniers' should be exterminated to compensate for the "CO2 boost" . . . . . HAHA!

From Wikipedia: ". . . . . . calcium carbonate is prepared from calcium oxide. Water is added to give calcium hydroxide then carbon dioxide is passed through this solution to precipitate the desired calcium carbonate, referred to in the industry as precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC):[7]
CaO + H2O → Ca(OH)2
Ca ( OH ) 2 + CO 2 ⟶ CaCO 3 ↓ + H 2 O "

 

[Ophiolite]

i



Yes . . . that is what I also found when Googling "CO2 boost" - no reference to climate change usage. My point IS: One should refrain from utilizing not-yet-accepted terminology as it gives the appearance of 'making-up' one's own terminology to fit one's preconcieved notions.

If David Frank's hypothesis is correct (i.e., positive feedback - and it very likely is correct), it is really nothing new. Oceanographers, geologists, etc. have well-established and demonstrated a mechanism called "carbonate compensation depth" - or CCD, a mechanism by which carbonate (e.g., critter carbonate exoskeletons) sink (under gravity and circulation) when such critters 'pass-into-the- great-beyond' and their shells sink to ocean bottoms. Since ocean water tends to get colder with depth, and the solubility of CaCO3 (i.e., critter shells) therewith increases, the carbon in carbonate is sequestered (dissolved) in the seawater. If the temperature of that same seawater is subsequently 'raised' - by whatever mechanism (thermal or circulation), the sequestered carbon in the warmed seawater tends to be re-precipitated as carbonate species (ever heard of limestone? - typically deposited in warm, shallow oceanwater environs). Albeit, SOME carbon will be released from warmed seeawater as CO2, all is in thermal, chemical, and barometric equilibrium, and the vast bulk of CO2 from this mechanism will re-combine with Ca and form calcium carbonate (i.e., limestone; plus other carbonates such as CaMgCO3, MgCO3, etc.). Note that when 'CO-2-saturated' seawater transports to shallower environs, both temperature and pressure changes will contribute to the precipitation effects described above, but pressure is a lesser contributor. One should note that precipitation of limestone (for example) is Mother Nature's way of sequestering elevated (and even "boosted") CO2.

The key concept in climate change (and other) discussions - which many fail to consider! - is EQUILIBRIUM. For any chemical reaction that takes place in nature (or in the lab!), there is an equilibrium established between the reactants and the reaction products (i.e., the reaction proceeds in BOTH directions). If CO2 increases by various source reactions, then via equilibrium, CO2 will be decreased by various product reactions. Such reaction 'products' may include : carbonate precipitation (both organic and inorganic), solution in water, and others such as increased plant propogation/growth.

My opinion? . . . . . "Henny Penny, the sky is NOT falling" . . . Mother Nature has established compensatory and equilibrium mechanisms to deal with most contingencies. Albeit, there will be differences in the rates of compensatory mechanism reactions - they WILL occur, regardless. The 'sticky-wicket' is that for most people these compensatory mechanisms often operate over periods that exceed our (limited?) foreseeable futures!.

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_compensation_depth

There is insufficient time in this year to deal with so much misunderstanding posing as objective thinking. Perhaps next year.

 

[iceaura]

I find the use of terminology that has not yet been accepted by reasonable scientists to be a self-serving attempt to force such usage on the scientific community - and an abomination to same. I am not in doubt of, and do not refute, proven physics mechanisms. However, refutable 'speculations' abound when subjective emotional opinions are presented in lieu of demonstrated objective truths.

The question was what, in a list of possible matters you might doubt, were actually matters of doubt for you. You had doubts, remember, about the "CO2 boost mechanism" involved in the current measured warming, and this mechanism has more than one working part.

Here's the list again, numbered for your convenience:
1 - are you in doubt of the heat trapping effects of CO2, the straight physics of the situation, as calculated by physicists and measured in laboratories?
2 - are you in doubt of the existence of the current CO2 boost, in particular the increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 caused by fossil fuel combustion?
3 - are you in doubt that the CO2 in the air actually behaves as the physics says it should and the field measurements say it does?

Which of these do you doubt?

 

[karenmansker]

The question was what, in a list of possible matters you might doubt, were actually matters of doubt for you. You had doubts, remember, about the "CO2 boost mechanism" involved in the current measured warming, and this mechanism has more than one working part.

Here's the list again, numbered for your convenience:
1 - are you in doubt of the heat trapping effects of CO2, the straight physics of the situation, as calculated by physicists and measured in laboratories?
2 - are you in doubt of the existence of the current CO2 boost, in particular the increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 caused by fossil fuel combustion?
3 - are you in doubt that the CO2 in the air actually behaves as the physics says it should and the field measurements say it does?

Which of these do you doubt?

1. I am not in doubt of the heat (IR mostly) trapping capacity (sic, NOT effects) of CO2. I am unsure of what you mean by 'straight physics of the situation' - i.e., "figures don't lie, but liars can figure" (HAHA!). I am more a believer in scientific calculations based on real, in-the-field data, as opposed to 'measurements in the laboratory' - laboratory conditions (and lab synthesized 'models') are not always reliable since they are 'controlled' and often reflect preconceived prejudices of the experimenters' laboratory conditions design.

2. Yes (probably), I am in doubt of the existence of the currrent (?) 'CO2 boost' (Pls see my immediately prior posts). I am also in doubt that your 'boost' in atmospheric CO2 is due to primarily by fossil fuel combustion - there are myriad other probable causes (as evidenced by the field data gathered from geological past field investigations - e.g., Vostok ice core) that are not much considered by climate alarmists - they tend to blame humankind for most of the ills in our natural environment (IMHO) regardless.

3. Physics says nothing - but, physicists (and scientists in general) say a lot based primarily on what they are convinced that their laboratory data is telling them (i.e., professional opinions). Air does act, more or less, as aerodynamic physics predicts (ergo, airplanes can 'fly'). I'm not so convinced that 'CO2 in the air' actually behaves as the physics says it should; probably so however - to the extent that scientists have observed such. Probably NOT so - to the extent that interpretations of such observations often rely on preconceived notions and often on the notable lack of truthful analysis that considers alternative cause and effect scenarios - in other words - we do not yet well understand the dynamics of CO2 effects within the atmosphere. I guess one might resort to dinosaur flatulence or belching of methane to account for higher atmospheric temperatures prior to the advent of humankind (DAMN! . . . .We should never have allowed humans to discover fire (i.e. fossil fuel combustion, I guess - HAHA!)

Do my answers satisfy your inquiry? Thanks, BTW, for numbering your questions for me - how convenient! That makes it much easier for us old-fart, outdated naturalist-like scientists to respond. lol

 

[iceaura]

1. I am not in doubt of the heat (IR mostly) trapping capacity (sic, NOT effects) of CO2.

Box checked.

2. Yes (probably), I am in doubt of the existence of the currrent (?) 'CO2 boost' (Pls see my immediately prior posts). I am also in doubt that your 'boost' in atmospheric CO2 is due to primarily by fossil fuel combustion -

At this point you depart from all standard published measurement, and every scientist in every field who has measured and researched the matter. The recent and continuing increase in the amount of atmospheric CO2, in both absolute and percentage terms, is solid and repeatedly verified fact. So is the isotopically and geographically and economically verified origin of the additional CO2.

I'm not so convinced that 'CO2 in the air' actually behaves as the physics says it should; probably so however - to the extent that scientists have observed such.

That is all the extent necessary. The behavior of CO2 in the air has been observed, and measured, and found to agree with the laboratory measurements and the theoretical calculations. Which is fortunate, because quite a bit of regular physics would have to be thrown out if chemical elements changed their behaviors according to whether or not they were in laboratories.

So apparently your only objection to the basic climate change warning is 2), above - you don't think the CO2 they are worried about (the extra CO2 building up from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes) exists. And in this you are in conflict with your claim to accept the standard, regular, long-established, "proven" physics etc.

 

[iceaura]

Iceaura was referring to the positive feedback mechanism for warming that involves CO2

Actually, I was referring to the simple quantitative and continuing increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere - the physical increase in the physical stuff. So I'll take the warning, and use more elaborate and specific terms in the future.

The "mechanism" etc vocabulary was from other posters.

 

[billvon]

2. Yes (probably), I am in doubt of the existence of the currrent (?) 'CO2 boost' (Pls see my immediately prior posts). I am also in doubt that your 'boost' in atmospheric CO2 is due to primarily by fossil fuel combustion. . . .

Well, we're putting gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere every year; that's easy to calculate. (Just figure out the amount of carbon in the fuel we burn.) The carbon concentration in the atmosphere is going up by about that amount every year. So unless you postulate a scenario where some unknown process is taking all that CO2 out, and then a second unknown process is putting that same amount (but from a different source) back in - then the explanation is fairly simple. The concentration is going up because we're adding carbon.

3. Physics says nothing - but, physicists (and scientists in general) say a lot based primarily on what they are convinced that their laboratory data is telling them (i.e., professional opinions). Air does act, more or less, as aerodynamic physics predicts (ergo, airplanes can 'fly').

More or less, agreed.

I'm not so convinced that 'CO2 in the air' actually behaves as the physics says it should; probably so however - to the extent that scientists have observed such. Probably NOT so - to the extent that interpretations of such observations often rely on preconceived notions and often on the notable lack of truthful analysis that considers alternative cause and effect scenarios - in other words - we do not yet well understand the dynamics of CO2 effects within the atmosphere.

We understand it about as well as we understand aerodynamics. That is to say, pretty well - but airplanes still crash sometimes.

DAMN! . . . .We should never have allowed humans to discover fire (i.e. fossil fuel combustion, I guess - HAHA!

I think it's done quite a bit of good for us. It is foolish, though, to think that just because something is good, that there are no downsides. Examples here would be beer, ice cream and bacon.

 

[iceaura]

We should never have allowed humans to discover fire (i.e. fossil fuel combustion, I guess - HAHA!)

Fire is not fossil fuel combustion.

That makes it much easier for us old-fart, outdated naturalist-like scientists

You haven't learned how to reason scientifically from evidence. Scientist?

there are myriad other probable causes (as evidenced by the field data gathered from geological past field investigations - e.g., Vostok ice core) that are not much considered by climate alarmists

The Vostok ice cores are very much considered - famous and pored over and mentioned very often - by climate alarmists (such as Al Gore, in his slide show that David Guggenheim documented in the movie "Inconvenient Truth".) They also provide very good evidence of the fossil fuel origin of the current CO2 buildup in the atmosphere - or at least, some other origin than that of past CO2 buildups (different isotopes, etc).

Why don't you know such things?

 

[karenmansker]

Whatever . . . . . Methinks you are preaching to the choir . . . .