On September 14, 2019 at 12:22, Anthony said...
first from the get go I said
you are the one that focuses on CO2 and so I reply with it taking center stage.
but to reply to your assertion more directly, as long as conditions don't have a CO2 issue our breathing is not an issue and I don't see it as a pollutant. On the other hand other forms of creation of CO2 for example like burning coal or cars that produce both CO2 especially in densely populated area then I do associate CO2 with the others and call it a pollutant. In a way take it this way three guys enter a bank and steal money at gun point, there is a fourth guy in a car waiting for them to come out and drive them away. That 4th guy is not just a driver, he is a
bank robber as well even if he did not enter the bank.
any amount that messes with stability IMHO.
sorry should have been clearer I was asking why the label is important not the amount of CO2
it might be more recent but you talked about "normal" there were times when CO2 was over 6k ppm and maybe even over 7k, 200M years -150M it was around 2k, when looking superficially at the dat I thought it could be classified as "normal" and what came after it a drought.
Why don't you tell us what you feel is "normal" and a "drought" .
stability.
Taking a step back for a moment, I think one will find it's the IPCC focusing on CO
2 not I. Following the modus operandi of politicians from time immemorial, they are stoking the fears of the unknown as a means of control. We (that’s us in the UK) saw it recently with 'Project Fear' during the run up to the 2016 referendum. How life, the universe and everything would collapse overnight if we voted to leave the EU. We are now seeing the same thing with the prospect of a 'No Deal' Brexit.
The 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development has two imperatives. The primary goal is ending poverty:
"Eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge.". The secondary goal is ending hunger:
"We resolve, between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere." They further state
"All sustainability goals and agendas must be subservient to the two points." How does one address these problems? By, perhaps, using and (in my opinion) abusing science to persuade nations and governments of there being a global climate emergency. One serious enough it would necessitate joint global action and political change on an unprecedented scale? How serendipitous is it then that an atmospheric trace gas is one associated with the Greenhouse Effect (without either of which life on earth would not exist) and the only component of a hugely complex and chaotic climate system which could possibly be controlled - as long as we all pull together of course. And thus, with the aid of some flaky science pointing the finger at said trace gas, how easy would it be to convince the hoi polloi, particularly those with a predilection towards and propensity to believe in doom and gloom scenarios, of the onset of a global climate catastrophe.
You talk of stability, but what is 'stable' in a climate system which, in the UK, can see annual variations of 50°C and, regardless of atmospheric CO
2 content, shows a penchant for multi-decadal change; e.g. the MWP and LIA. And what of the glacials and interglacials illustrated by the Vostok ice cores, those made famous by Gore and his sleight of hand in trying to claim CO
2 was the driver of temperature change, when in fact they show the complete opposite. No amount of CO
2 being pumped into the atmosphere will stop the next glacial when it comes: that will be a climate catastrophe.
