Climate Change - A Tragedy of the Commons

[What Would Jesus Do?]

LINK

KATHARINE HAYHOE:

Well, when we hear people saying things like these quotes that you just played, it’s natural to assume, "Oh, they have a problem with the science. So what we need to do is we need to explain the science more clearly.

But here’s the thing. What the social science tells us is they don’t really object to the science. What they really object to—and if you listen carefully to Jeb Bush, he alluded to this—what they really object to are the solutions, because, by definition, climate change is a tragedy of the commons.

That means that we don’t, as individuals, have enough incentive to solve it ourselves. We require—it requires some type of large-scale action, like putting a price on carbon, which in turn requires government intervention.

But you can’t really say, politically, "Oh, sure it’s a real problem. Of course it is. But I don’t want to do anything about it." That’s very politically unacceptable. It’s a lot easier to say it isn’t a real problem than to say, "It is, but I don’t like any of the solutions that have been proposed."

 

[HallofFame]

 

[IMCC965]

LINK

KATHARINE HAYHOE:

Well, when we hear people saying things like these quotes that you just played, it’s natural to assume, "Oh, they have a problem with the science. So what we need to do is we need to explain the science more clearly.

But here’s the thing. What the social science tells us is they don’t really object to the science. What they really object to—and if you listen carefully to Jeb Bush, he alluded to this—what they really object to are the solutions, because, by definition, climate change is a tragedy of the commons.

That means that we don’t, as individuals, have enough incentive to solve it ourselves. We require—it requires some type of large-scale action, like putting a price on carbon, which in turn requires government intervention.

But you can’t really say, politically, "Oh, sure it’s a real problem. Of course it is. But I don’t want to do anything about it." That’s very politically unacceptable. It’s a lot easier to say it isn’t a real problem than to say, "It is, but I don’t like any of the solutions that have been proposed."

Three things: Jeb Bush is a total idiot and doesn't deserve any attention of any kind. No one denies climate change, its been changing for millions of years. And CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's an essential gas that supports life on earth. Always has, always will. And anybody that believes it is a pollutant belongs in the same category as Jeb Bush and Barack Obama.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Please reassure me that you posted that to show how idiotic deniers can be.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Three things: Jeb Bush is a total idiot and doesn't deserve any attention of any kind. No one denies climate change, its been changing for millions of years. And CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's an essential gas that supports life on earth. Always has, always will. And anybody that believes it is a pollutant belongs in the same category as Jeb Bush and Barack Obama.

Yet you call Jeb Bush an idiot?

 

[IMCC965]

Polar bears seem to be doing fine as well.


http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/20/media-misleads-on-polar-bear-numbers/

 

[IMCC965]

Yet you call Jeb Bush an idiot?

And what exactly did I say that would classify me as an idiot?

By the way, this is typical liberal retort: call somebody a name when you lose an argument or don't know what you're talking about?

 

[IMCC965]

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=370&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Pollution MythsOf all the myths quoted, calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is the worst - it simply is not true!
Myth: CO2 is a pollutant.
Fact: Totally false. We challenge you to prove otherwise. CO2 is in our every breath, in the carbonated sodas and waters that we drink and in the dry ice that helps us keep our food cold and safe. We breathe in 400 parts per million and then exhale 40,000 parts per million with no ill effects.
We breathe the 40,000 ppm into victims needing CPR and it does not cause them to die!
The monitoring systems in U.S. submarines do not provide an alert until CO2 levels reach 8,000 ppm which is higher that natural CO2 levels have been on Earth in the last 540 million years.
CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional plant growth and causes plants to need less water. Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of over 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees.
There is not a single instance of CO2 being a pollutant. Ask any chemistry professor. The only thing being polluted is your mind or the minds of your children.

 

[IMCC965]

Tell me something climatron.....why isn't water vapor classified as a pollutant? It's far worse than CO2 and traps a lot more heat that CO2 does?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

And what exactly did I say that would classify me as an idiot?

By the way, this is typical liberal retort: call somebody a name when you lose an argument or don't know what you're talking about?

Well, to start with, you pretend that the climate change that has been happening for millions of years is the same thing that people are talking about when we debate climate change today.

Then you quibble about the definition of "pollutant" and completely fail to discuss whether CO2 is a gas that is causing problems and needs to be controlled.

As for your last comment, you started out by calling Bush an idiot. Do you see the problem?

 

[ihawk in FWB]

And what exactly did I say that would classify me as an idiot?

LOL! This isn't the first thread you have posted. You have a long history that classifies you.

 

[IMCC965]

LOL! This isn't the first thread you have posted. You have a long history that classifies you.

Yes, yes. I'm sure you've posted nothing but Einstein-worthy discussions on here. No need to insult, as you liberals ALWAYS do because we've all started a fart thread or two over the years. MAN-MADE climate change is a hoax. Plain and simple. The science isn't settled and never will be. It's a giant wealth redistribution scheme thought up by the limousine liberals to get wealthy and control the population.

Now, answer why water vapor isn't controlled because it's far worse than CO2.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=370&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Pollution MythsOf all the myths quoted, calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is the worst - it simply is not true!
Myth: CO2 is a pollutant.
Fact: Totally false. We challenge you to prove otherwise. CO2 is in our every breath, in the carbonated sodas and waters that we drink and in the dry ice that helps us keep our food cold and safe. We breathe in 400 parts per million and then exhale 40,000 parts per million with no ill effects.
We breathe the 40,000 ppm into victims needing CPR and it does not cause them to die!
The monitoring systems in U.S. submarines do not provide an alert until CO2 levels reach 8,000 ppm which is higher that natural CO2 levels have been on Earth in the last 540 million years.
CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional plant growth and causes plants to need less water. Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of over 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees.
There is not a single instance of CO2 being a pollutant. Ask any chemistry professor. The only thing being polluted is your mind or the minds of your children.

Now that we've been treated to the blowhard denier view, take a look at what reasonable people (and US law) have to say:


Is CO2 a pollutant?

Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

What is an Air Pollutant?

The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g) defines an air pollutant:
The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.
Clearly this is a very broad definition. More importantly, its Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:
"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"

In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases.

Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that
"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."

Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare.

Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."

Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare. And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly."

[see the link for a lot more discussion and graphs]

CO2 is a Pollutant

When considering the legal definition of "air pollutants" and body of scientific evidence, it becomes clear that CO2 meets the definition and poses a significant threat to public health and welfare.

 

[Lone Clone]

Please reassure me that you posted that to show how idiotic deniers can be.

I think he posted it to show how wrong Gore was.

By the way, the official word from the warmista camp right now seems to be that the flooding in Texas is a result of AGW.....guess they don't know the difference between weather and climate, either.

 

[IMCC965]

Now that we've been treated to the blowhard denier view, take a look at what reasonable people (and US law) have to say:


Is CO2 a pollutant?

Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

What is an Air Pollutant?

The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g) defines an air pollutant:
The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.
Clearly this is a very broad definition. More importantly, its Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:
"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"

In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases.

Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that
"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."

Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare.

Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."

Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare. And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly."

[see the link for a lot more discussion and graphs]

CO2 is a Pollutant

When considering the legal definition of "air pollutants" and body of scientific evidence, it becomes clear that CO2 meets the definition and poses a significant threat to public health and welfare.

Ahhhh yes. The fox is in charge of the henhouse. The EXCESSIVELY partisan EPA chief that backs whatever Obama tells him/her to do (2009) has the "authority" to classify whatever they feel is a pollutant. What do you expect? Plus all three agencies are funded by climate change redistributioners and United Nations-supporting agencies.

This is a fraud from top to bottom.




Clearly this is a very broad definition. More importantly, its Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:
"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that
"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."

 

[IMCC965]

More evidence that your argument is crap.


http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...st-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming


A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for the Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels.
"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.
Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.
Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.
In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Ahhhh yes. The fox is in charge of the henhouse. The EXCESSIVELY partisan EPA chief that backs whatever Obama tells him/her to do (2009) has the "authority" to classify whatever they feel is a pollutant. What do you expect? Plus all three agencies are funded by climate change redistributioners and United Nations-supporting agencies.

This is a fraud from top to bottom.




Clearly this is a very broad definition. More importantly, its Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:
"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that
"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."

So, in other words you've got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute the rational view.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

More evidence that your argument is crap.


http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...st-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming


A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for the Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels.
"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.
Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.
Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.
In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.

Jesus, give me strength! More uncritically-presented stupidity.

PAY ATTENTION. WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT CO2 TOXICITY.

Here are some touchstones for you:

400 ppm (where we are now) will cause some dangerous climate change.

8000 ppm (your Navy sub comment) is around when CO2 begins to significantly affect human function (drowsiness, mistakes, possible unconsciousness) often with prolonged impairment.

60000 ppm is around where life is endangered.

These are interesting things to be aware of, but we are talking about climate change, not Navy subs or suffocating people with CO2.

 

[waterboy4582]

So, in other words you've got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute the rational view.

Why am I not surprised?

Maybe this has been posted before but how are you tied in with climate change? You are a scientist or somehow make your living based on acceptance of man made climate change?

 

[mstp1992]

Polar bears seem to be doing fine as well.


http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/20/media-misleads-on-polar-bear-numbers/

That's a myth that has repeatedly been refuted. While some populations of polar bears appear to have increased much of that was due to quotas on hunting in Canada, Alaska, and Scandanavia starting in the late 60s & early 70s. But any "increase" is questionable. Much of the data suggesting an increase in polar bear population is based on erroneous population numbers reported in the late 50s by Russian scientists. Those numbers were never verified nor accepted by the Arctic science community.

polarbearsinternational.org

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Maybe this has been posted before but how are you tied in with climate change? You are a scientist or somehow make your living based on acceptance of man made climate change?

I am a retired person with a reasonable level of intelligence who has read up on the subject enough to realize that anybody who makes a modest investment in learning about this stuff will not make denier mistakes.

I recommend that people get their information from reasonable sources and just explore. There are books, TV shows, lecture series, and more. Take your choice. It's interesting stuff and it makes sense. At some point the chemistry or the statistics may get beyond you, but you will probably know enough by then to have a good sense of it - and a good bullshit detector. You may not be able to figure out whether the ill effects will happen in 20 years or 200, but you won't be claiming nonsense like "climate has always changed over the millennia, so there's nothing to worry about." Or the other denier silliness.

 

[waterboy4582]

I am a retired person with a reasonable level of intelligence who has read up on the subject enough to realize that anybody who makes a modest investment in learning about this stuff will not make denier mistakes.

I recommend that people get their information from reasonable sources and just explore. There are books, TV shows, lecture series, and more. Take your choice. It's interesting stuff and it makes sense. At some point the chemistry or the statistics may get beyond you, but you will probably know enough by then to have a good sense of it - and a good bullshit detector. You may not be able to figure out whether the ill effects will happen in 20 years or 200, but you won't be claiming nonsense like "climate has always changed over the millennia, so there's nothing to worry about." Or the other denier silliness.

Ok. Thanks. You seem to be very passionate about the subject so I thought maybe you were in the scientific field.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.

You idiot is an idiot. C3 plants grown in high CO2 levels are less nutritious...incorporating less zinc and iron and creating less protein. Since C3 plants include wheat and rice - staples for much of the world - that's somewhat problematic,

As for the remainder...holy crap, that's just unbelievably moronic.