EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[Guest]

Why are you refusing to answer?

Unless you can explain how what happens a billions of years from now is some how relevant to this topic, I'm uninterested in going on your fishing expedition.

[_Res Ipsa]

Why are you refusing to answer?

Unless you can explain how what happens a billions years from now is some how relevant to this topic, I'm uninterested in going on your fishing expedition.

I haven't referred to a billion years from now. You have. If you are unwilling to explain how you are using terms, discussing this subject with you is a waste of time.

[_Tobin]

Unless you can explain how what happens a billions of years from now is some how relevant to this topic, I'm uninterested in going on your fishing expedition.

I haven't referred to a billion years from now. You have. If you are unwilling to explain how you are using terms, discussing this subject with you is a waste of time.

That's a lie. Brad, we've talked about this problem you have with the truth before.

Billions of years in the future, when sun expands to engulf (or almost engulf) the earth, will it be fine?
...

[_Res Ipsa]

My apologies. I forgot I put that one in the list.

Answer the rest, then.

[_Tobin]

If the earth were to lose its atmosphere, would it be fine?

Irrelevant.

If all the water boiled away, would it be fine?

Irrelevant.

If all life on earth became extinct, would it be fine?

Irrelevant.

If all humans became extinct, would it be fine?

Irrelevant.

The reason I stated these questions are irrelevant because we are discussing the impacts of global warming upon human-beings. If we are all dead or there is no atmosphere (LOL), global warming isn't really a concern.

If immigrants from other countries took every single job away from every single american, would it be fine?

Irrelevant.

If Syrian refugees kill every single American, would it be fine?

Irrelevant.

If Iran developed nuclear weapons, would it be fine?

Irrelevant.

The reason I stated these questions are irrelevant because we are discussing the impacts of global warming upon human-beings. These circumstances having nothing to do with global warming.

If we instituted a carbon tax, would it be fine?

Yes. However, it will have negative effects on the poor.

If we reduced subsidies for fossil fuels and increased them for non-carbon burning sources of energy, would it be fine?

Yes. However, it will have negative effects on the poor.

If every country that is party to the recent Paris agreement reduced CO2 emissions in accordance with their agreement, would it be fine?

Yes. However, it will have negative effects on the poor.

As I've already stated, we can do these types of things. However, it is very regressive and hits the poor the hardest since what they spend on energy is a major portion of their paycheck.

[_Res Ipsa]

Is there any action being currently proposed to reduce CO2 emissions that would result, in your opinion, in the world not "being just fine?"

[_Tobin]

Is there any action being currently proposed to reduce CO2 emissions that would result, in your opinion, in the world not "being just fine?"

Of course not. We could decide collectively to all go live in the bushes and human-beings would survive and be just fine. The question is would it be a good idea? Would it increase the quality of life for individuals or worsen it? The big problem with what you are proposing is it is highly regressive and hurts the poor because it would replace relatively inexpensive fossil fuels with much more expensive renewable sources. Since the poor spend the vast majority of their income on food, energy and shelter, it hurts them the most and that is why it is such a terrible idea.

[_Themis]

CO2 is not a lagging indicator. CO2 has a multiplier effect. Slight changes in earth tilt and orbit effect the the Albedo Effect which increase water temperature. Hot water is less dense than cold water so it expands rising sea levels. Sea level rising has already threaten Miami; Florida. Yes people can move. But moving millions of people is expensive, and cities don't move.
SEE http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea- ... feet-19211

I'll repeat, CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming and not a major cause of it.

Actually it is a part of it. It may not have caused the initial warming or cooling in the past million years, but it does magnify it. It is a green house gas and they have figured out approximates of how much it contributes to warming or cooling. They have said no other factor explains the warming we are seeing. People have spent time trying to explain it to you, but it is obvious you do not read what they post or articles they link to. Funny to watch how stuck people can get in certain beliefs, although sad at the same time.

[_Res Ipsa]

CO2 is not a lagging indicator. CO2 has a multiplier effect. Slight changes in earth tilt and orbit effect the the Albedo Effect which increase water temperature. Hot water is less dense than cold water so it expands rising sea levels. Sea level rising has already threaten Miami; Florida. Yes people can move. But moving millions of people is expensive, and cities don't move.
SEE http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea- ... feet-19211

I'll repeat, CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming and not a major cause of it. CO2 is such a tiny part of our atmosphere (less than 1/100th of 1%), it can't do much on its own. The major greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere is water. After the Sun, it is the primary cause of global warming. That is why I get a chuckle out of you global warming nuts. If people found out that you wanted to rein in the SUN and WATER, you'd be laughed out of the room.

And I'll ignore your alarmist propaganda links. It is clear you have no interest in presenting real facts.

This is classic science denial at work. Tobin thinks that by simply repeating the same thing over and over he's actually making a substantive point. Repeating a nonsense claim over and over just means he is repeating nonsense. When humans weren't dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, CO2 rising and falling was caused by changes in the amount of solar irradiance. Today, we are dumping those billions of tons into the atmosphere. If you didn't look at the graph I posted, click on it and look now. Human release of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels is what makes all the difference.

He also claims that CO2 can't do much on it's own because it's such a tiny part of the atmosphere. Note what's missing: evidence. The effect of CO2 on the atmosphere has been studied for over 100 years, and basic physics shows that Tobin is just wrong.

And note his absolute refusal to consider any evidence that he doesn't like. He just claims it's propaganda and refuses to consider it. This is how he keeps himself totally ignorant about the science of climate change.

[_Res Ipsa]

Is there any action being currently proposed to reduce CO2 emissions that would result, in your opinion, in the world not "being just fine?"

Of course not. We could decide collectively to all go live in the bushes and human-beings would survive and be just fine. The question is would it be a good idea? Would it increase the quality of life for individuals or worsen it? The big problem with what you are proposing is it is highly regressive and hurts the poor because it would replace relatively inexpensive fossil fuels with much more expensive renewable sources. Since the poor spend the vast majority of their income on food, energy and shelter, it hurts them the most and that is why it is such a terrible idea.

Good! We have some important points of agreement. We both agree that, if we adopt your concept of what it means for the earth to be fine, nothing that you or I will propose will make the world "not fine." As a result, the issue of whether the earth will be "fine" is absolutely irrelevant to our discussion.

We also agree that the basic question is whether reducing CO2 emissions will be an improvement in terms of quality of life over doing nothing (what is generally labeled BAU, or "business as usual") So, would you agree that the best way to examine this would be to look at the expected costs and benefits of taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions v. the expected costs and benefits of BAU?