EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_Tobin]

Does the sunspot cycle affect the radiation output from the sun?

It blocks solar plasma so that should decrease the amount of radiation coming from that region. However, the Sun's radiation output each day can wildly and dramatically change without sunspots, so I don't think that is helpful either.

[_Res Ipsa]

Basing statements on personal incredulity doesn't make you a skeptic. It makes a person who uses fallacious reasoning. A real skeptic follows the evidence; when evidence contradicts his personal incredulity, he goes with the evidence. Did you look at any of the studies discussed in the article?

What real evidence am I supposedly ignoring? All I've said is that I don't see a big deal about continuing to live as we are and increasing the CO2 concentration of the planet and its temperature.

That's another good example of your fallacious reasoning on this topic. You beg the question that is at issue: can we continue to live as we are under various scenarios of CO2 emission into the future. You've shown no indications in your posts on this topic that you've paid any attention to the scientific evidence on that subject. Instead, you rely on your own, uninformed opinion on what is "likely." When you ask "what evidence have I ignored," the answer is, as far as I can tell, almost all of it. The best example of that your rejection of what science tells us about the effect of doubling CO2 on temperature in favor of your own personal incredulity that a changes in a gas that makes up a small percentage of the atmosphere can have any meaningful effect.

I think the problem you have with someone like me that realistically understands the situation and what is likely to happen is that you desperately believe we need to do something about this. It is your religious belief that you are right. And like all religious zealots, you feel your beliefs are superior to what is most likely the reality here.

That really illustrates the core problem: you imagine what the world is like (including what I am like) and treat your imaginings as truth. Your postings exhibit no evidence at all that you "realistically understand the situation." When asked to substantiate your positions, you rely on statements like "it's likely that," apparently making no effort at all to see whether there is any actual evidence on the subject.

Here's something that has me puzzled. You said up thread something to the effect that if humans can't use their smarts and technology to solve whatever problems may result from global warming, they deserve to go extinct. That means every man, woman and child on the earth deserves to die, right? But at the same time you pooh pooh the solutions that we've already used our smarts and technology to develop right now to reduce or avoid those problems in the first place. If we adopt your reasoning, don't humans already deserve to die?

Here's something else that has me puzzled. You've argued something along the lines that we shouldn't do anything to reduce CO2 emissions because "the earth will be fine." What does that mean? Under what conditions will the earth be "fine"?

Billions of years in the future, when sun expands to engulf (or almost engulf) the earth, will it be fine?
If the earth were to lose its atmosphere, would it be fine?
If all the water boiled away, would it be fine?
If all life on earth became extinct, would it be fine?
If all humans became extinct, would it be fine?
If immigrants from other countries took every single job away from every single american, would it be fine?
If Syrian refugees kill every single American, would it be fine?
If Iran developed nuclear weapons, would it be fine?
If we instituted a carbon tax, would it be fine?
If we reduced subsidies for fossil fuels and increased them for non-carbon burning sources of energy, would it be fine?
If every country that is party to the recent Paris agreement reduced CO2 emissions in accordance with their agreement, would it be fine?

[_Res Ipsa]

Does the sunspot cycle affect the radiation output from the sun?

It blocks solar plasma so that should decrease the amount of radiation coming from that region. However, the Sun's radiation output each day can wildly and dramatically change without sunspots, so I don't think that is helpful either.

Did you try to find a source of information, or are you just winging it?

[Guest]

Increasing the CO2 level can be good for plants if they are CO2 limited. Our food crops aren't. Just because plants need water, for example, doesn't mean that continually increasing water will result in ever increasing crop yields. Also, for our food crops, any marginal benefits from increased CO2 are rapidly overcome by the other effects of global warming: increased heat and changes in precipitation patterns. Even now we are starting to see detrimental effects on crop yields.

That is irrelevant. Optimal areas for growing crops will likely change as I've already stated.

What does that mean? The question is, what will the effect be on global food production. Do you have any evidence that it is possible to replace decreased food production with crop production in new areas? And what will be the cost of moving farming infrastructure?

The United States is Already balking at taking in a handful of refugees. What makes you think we'll be willing to take on hundreds of thousands to millions of climate refugees. And, as our food production dwindles, what makes you think Canada is going to take on millions of Americans who were too stupid too recognize and act on the warnings for decades. And we tend to play nice.

People play nice till it is something they really need. Then they take, usually by force. So I really don't see Canada doing much to stop the US if they decide they need Canada's land.

On what evidence do you base your claim that Canada would not try to defend itself against another country? Does Canada have allies? Would they defend Canada against this kind of naked aggression?

How about Russia? Who is going to take on all those bangladeshis who will be displaced by sea level rise? India? Pakistan? Facile hand waving doesn't cut it.

Russia has already suffered large out migrations of people and depopulation. And of course, it would be up the Russians to decide the best policy for how people enter their country. But I highly doubt they'd completely turn their noses up to the thought of bringing in capable immigrants to work considering the current state of their country.

There it is again, that "I'd highly doubt." Do you have any evidence?

You keep clinging to the CO2 levels in the Jurassic and ignoring the fact that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. You can look this stuff up, but it takes a little effort.

I'm highlighting it because it one of the figures the religious nuts concerned about global warming constantly go into alarm mode about. I think I've made it pretty clear that I really don't see any problem with tripling that number. The world won't end if we do.

So, your response to what you think is a bad argument made by someone else is to make another bad argument? The world won't end if we reduce CO2 emission, either.

[_Gunnar]

And so Tobin continues to show that he is an incorrigible troll. He said up thread that he would be glad to look at the evidence if provided, yet when when provided, he simply refuses to look at it, or he dismisses it out of hand. Still, though, some of us are learning something useful from this discussion, even if Tobin refuses to. I know that I am!

[_Tobin]

That's another good example of your fallacious reasoning on this topic. You beg the question that is at issue: can we continue to live as we are under various scenarios of CO2 emission into the future. You've shown no indications in your posts on this topic that you've paid any attention to the scientific evidence on that subject. Instead, you rely on your own, uninformed opinion on what is "likely." When you ask "what evidence have I ignored," the answer is, as far as I can tell, almost all of it. The best example of that your rejection of what science tells us about the effect of doubling CO2 on temperature in favor of your own personal incredulity that a changes in a gas that makes up a small percentage of the atmosphere can have any meaningful effect.

What scientific evidence? You have had every opportunity to present it and failed to so far. What are you waiting for?

That really illustrates the core problem: you imagine what the world is like (including what I am like) and treat your imaginings as truth. Your postings exhibit no evidence at all that you "realistically understand the situation." When asked to substantiate your positions, you rely on statements like "it's likely that," apparently making no effort at all to see whether there is any actual evidence on the subject.

I imagine that we have a world economy built on using fossil fuels and that we'll continue to use them because that is simply the facts. The fact you can't acknowledge reality and need evidence of it shows how deluded your religious mind really is.

Here's something that has me puzzled. You said up thread something to the effect that if humans can't use their smarts and technology to solve whatever problems may result from global warming, they deserve to go extinct. That means every man, woman and child on the earth deserves to die, right? But at the same time you pooh pooh the solutions that we've already used our smarts and technology to develop right now to reduce or avoid those problems in the first place. If we adopt your reasoning, don't humans already deserve to die?

Because you are trying to solve a problem that is economically unimportant. We have plentiful supplies of fossil fuels and the infrastructure to utilize them. They are the least expensive source of energy available at this time and human-beings should take full advantage of that. If at some point in the future, most likely 100 years or more, that it is no longer the case that fossil fuels are the cheapest plentiful energy source available, then the market will naturally switch to less expensive alternatives.

Here's something else that has me puzzled. You've argued something along the lines that we shouldn't do anything to reduce CO2 emissions because "the earth will be fine." What does that mean? Under what conditions will the earth be "fine"?

It means that if we continue to burn fossil fuels, human-beings will continue to be able to live on this planet. There isn't likely to be any cases of mass starvation as a result of that decision or be impoverished as a result. In fact, by continuing to use fossil fuels, millions in nations like india will be lifted out of poverty because the money can go to improving the infrastructure around them and not to some expensive alternative energy instead.

[_Tobin]

Did you try to find a source of information, or are you just winging it?

You asked the question. I answered with what I know about it. And yes, I did some reading up on the topic.

[Guest]

That is irrelevant. Optimal areas for growing crops will likely change as I've already stated.

What does that mean? The question is, what will the effect be on global food production. Do you have any evidence that it is possible to replace decreased food production with crop production in new areas? And what will be the cost of moving farming infrastructure?

Yes. Much of the world's most productive farmland has been developed over the past 300 years. And it won't cost any more than it does now. Modern farm infrastructure doesn't last hundreds of years. So it will be replaced anyway.

People play nice till it is something they really need. Then they take, usually by force. So I really don't see Canada doing much to stop the US if they decide they need Canada's land.

On what evidence do you base your claim that Canada would not try to defend itself against another country? Does Canada have allies? Would they defend Canada against this kind of naked aggression?

Canada vs the US. If push came to shove, that fight would be over quickly. The US has all the advantages and Canada couldn't stop them. And sure Canada has allies. They are also US allies that are dependent on the US for logistics. What that means is these other nations that Canada could call on can't really move their troops without US help because they've so underinvested in their own militaries and hollowed them out.

Russia has already suffered large out migrations of people and depopulation. And of course, it would be up the Russians to decide the best policy for how people enter their country. But I highly doubt they'd completely turn their noses up to the thought of bringing in capable immigrants to work considering the current state of their country.

There it is again, that "I'd highly doubt." Do you have any evidence?

How am I suppose to provide evidence of what Russia might do in several centuries? What is wrong with you? I've provided my best guess. Live with it.

I'm highlighting it because it one of the figures the religious nuts concerned about global warming constantly go into alarm mode about. I think I've made it pretty clear that I really don't see any problem with tripling that number. The world won't end if we do.

So, your response to what you think is a bad argument made by someone else is to make another bad argument? The world won't end if we reduce CO2 emission, either.

No, but millions upon millions of human-beings will suffer in poverty because they are forced to use expensive alternative energy sources. Your plan sucks because it is brutal and economically repressive.

[_MeDotOrg]

Because you are trying to solve a problem that is economically unimportant. We have plentiful supplies of fossil fuels and the infrastructure to utilize them. They are the least expensive source of energy available at this time and human-beings should take full advantage of that. If at some point in the future, most likely 100 years or more, that it is no longer the case that fossil fuels are the cheapest plentiful energy source available, then the market will naturally switch to less expensive alternatives.

It might be economically unimportant, but if you want to take full advantage of the ability to breathe without wearing a mask it could be medically important. I'd like to work toward a future where children can breathe without wearing masks, grow up without the associated increased rates of respiratory illness.

[_Tobin]

It might be economically unimportant, but if you want to take full advantage of the ability to breathe without wearing a mask it could be medically important. I'd like to work toward a future where children can breathe without wearing masks, grow up without the associated increased rates of respiratory illness.

CO2 isn't why they are wearing masks so increasing it won't cause Americans to start wear masks. Just more garbage from the lunatic global warming religious nuts. And despite the pollution levels in China, the country is far better off because of cheap fossil fuels than they would be without them.