How sustainable are you?

This is not the case here.

Whoa! Lets clarify some things then: polluting is putting naughty poisonous stuff in the environment, stuff like heavy metals for example. This should be punished as it is doing things which are affecting others in a bad way, something others clearly wouldn't want to be done to themselves.

Exhaling CO2 or farting methane is natural* and healthy, not polluting.

* by both mine and Gorzo's definition

So, if its a gas it's ok and not dangerous to our health?

Obviously not true: releasing mustard gas into atmosphere is punishable. Do I need to provide logic?

However, CO2 is a gas which is not harmful but beneficial to the planet. I believe it was NASA who released data on Earth's biomass over the years, and biomass is significantly statistically correlated and logically linked to levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Basically, the more CO2 the more biomass, starting with green sea plankton ending on the top of feeding pyramid, which is humans. Methane is beneficial because it have climate warming effect, thus further accelerating biomass growth. Both of these beneficial gases are punishable by Carbon Credits, which is illegal under iMtG Law.

Quote from: KangaRod on May 21, 2013, 11:23:31 AM

So, if its a gas it's ok and not dangerous to our health?

You are taking our claims and claiming that they are something they are not.  He said that CO2 and methane were not harmful. You stretched it to the ends of the Earth and said that we said all gasses are not harmful. There are harmful gasses.

You can either stop saying we are saying things that we are not or you can .shut up.

Well this is probably true, can you prove it somehow, demand punishment officially and stuff, next time it is done to someone, please?

In this case KangaRod can respond along the lines of: 'no, I simply asked a question. If left unanswered, this question is like cat in a poisonous box' and that would be good enough.

So, you're claiming that some scientists would put forward a case that polluting the planet doesn't have an effect on the climate of the planet, or is even good for it?

 Even if some scientists are not sure if climate change is affected by us polluting the environment, which ones are saying that pollution is good for it?

 You're so frustrated by me making connections based on things you're saying, but I'm trying to illustrate that even if 90% of the worlds scientists are absolutely 100% wrong, the opposing side of the 10% is so ridiculous that it doesn't even warrant mention.

PLEASE provide your statistical references. As I see, abou 90% of worldwide scientists don't even talk about global warming or whatsoever through research. But let's assume you considered only the ones who do talk. I would make a wild guess that about 50% say that it is not provable, some 20% would deny it strongly and about 30%, of which about 80% is HIRED by companies which benefit economically from their opinions, argument strongly in favor of the existence of human-induced bad global warming.

I will go further and add that releasing whatever you want to the atmosphere isn't bad for the planet. It may or may not be prejudicial to humans or many other living beings, but not for the planet, and not for Life in a general sense. That is because Life adapts. If we had a sudden increase in CO2 on the atmosphere of about 1500%, which isn't even CLOSE to what even the most pessimist scientist says is happening, Life would go on. Anaerobic bacterias, algae and parasitic beings would populate the earth in a few hundred years. Animals would die, as would humans. What is hundreds, or even thousands of years, compared to earth's age?

What you said about carbon credits being free market is simply outright ignorant. The basic presumption of free market is that it is free. What is the freedom in being forced to buy something? It is a monopoly with enforced consumption. It basically gets the 2 worse things for free market and puts them together. And by the way, I think patent fights such as the CFC, HFC or HCFC are even worse than carbon credits

Saying that plastic bags and such is bad for the planet is ignorance as well. If they take so much as 500 years to decompose, what difference does it make to a planet 4,500,000,000 years old? It only is bad for the animals who get trapped in them, eat them, or whatever. Which IS A GOOD REASON NOT TO THROW THEM ON THE NATURE. I am not saying I don't care with the poor animals, just that it definitely won't destroy the biosphere.

To finish my long post, I will say that I DO NOT like polluting, but that I don't think it has any reasonable effect to Earth's temperature nor that it has any chance of destroying the planet or the biosphere. Last, but not the least, I will say that Piotr is wrong about CO2 emissions being healthy and encouraging bio growth. It only favors photosynthesizing organisms, like plants, and there are usually too few on the cities where they are produced in mass by humans. Our body can only handle certain amounts of the gas, and when it gets accumulate somewhere where humans live it is prejudicial to our health and has usually little trees to use it, meaning local climate changes (no, I am not contradicting myself, local climate is WAY different than global climate, and humans indeed can create heat focuses with buildings, gases and destroying forests. It is strictly local, though) which in some cases make the place inhospitable for humans.

If you have any questions, please do not assume I said anything I did not. Just state your question about my thoughts and I shall explain them. If you have info or different thoughts which put my thoughts in check, please speak up. I do not get angry or anything because you disagree with me.

PS: thoughts directed towards my person are not acceptable to put my thoughts in check. If you are just angry about me, feel free to -1 me, maybe even stalk me for a few days so I get low karma. Just do not presume to win a discussion by talking about the debater instead of the discussed topic. And I WILL use my rights on the forum, defined by the Law, to ask for rightful punishment if you defame me.

(...)

I call a lie on that one: 'If we had a sudden increase in CO2 on the atmosphere of about 1500%, which isn't even CLOSE to what even the most pessimist scientist says is happening, Life would go on. Anaerobic bacterias, algae and parasitic beings would populate the earth in a few hundred years. Animals would die, as would humans.'

And on this one: 'Piotr is wrong about CO2 emissions being healthy and encouraging bio growth. It only favors photosynthesizing organisms, like plants, and there are usually too few on the cities where they are produced in mass by humans. Our body can only handle certain amounts of the gas, and when it gets accumulate somewhere where humans live it is prejudicial to our health and has usually little trees to use it, meaning local climate changes (no, I am not contradicting myself, local climate is WAY different than global climate, and humans indeed can create heat focuses with buildings, gases and destroying forests. It is strictly local, though) which in some cases make the place inhospitable for humans.'

CO2 is not toxic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity but it is deadly at 7+% nevertheless, follow the link to read why.

Current concentration of CO2 in atmosphere is around 0.039% which if raised by 1500% becomes a rather non deadly 0.585%.

Nobody needs to die

I agree with the general agenda of your post with the exception of 'we can put anything in the atmosphere and life will go on'.

1500% was a randomly tossed number, but 0.39% is at 30km altitude (and CO2 is heavier than air, so it should be more concentrated where we breath it). In any case, I will search for actual numbers on that. Some cities reportedly have problems because of pollution (stillborn children, anencephalic babies, higher cancer rates, breathing problems), but i am not sure which were the . Constant exposure to levels higher than 2% isn't considered safe, according to your own link (the 7 - 10% is a suffocation issue, and is dangerous even if you breath it for little time).

My "Life would go on" comment was refering to Life as a whole, not human Life. Bacterias and other extremely resilient beings would survive any conditions humans could impose to the whole atmosphere, unless we "import" more toxic material from other planets, likemore sulphur. Using only Earth's resources, though, there would always be beings resilient enough to cope with it, unless we somehow managed to heat Earth extremely (Sun's surface kind of heat). Or to actually eliminate atmosphere, maybe through extreme heat mentioned above and then intense cold, which i don't believe humans would be able to do... Unless given information otherwise, i will keep to my thoughts on this.

If you agree that being wasteful in any form is bad for our home

I don't, I have proven that increased CO2 and methane levels, which I assume you mean, are leading to increased biomass, defined as the total weight of living organisms. That is beneficial for humans, if only because we can have more steaks.

Look, if we can all agree that being overly wasteful is not good for the planet, what the hell are you guys arguing about?

The first lines of the Wikipedia article on global warming are

Quote

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation

That is cited 4 times. It's not something that is being made up. And, even if as I said - the opposite side to what I am saying ("pollution is bad for the environment/planet/biosphere/animals/humans) is so ridiculous a notion that I don't even understand what your point is saying that carbon dioxide is not heating up the planet and its just magically getting warmer.

 If you agree that being wasteful in any form is bad for our home, what point are you trying to make by saying that certain kinds of waste are good for the planet?

1- Wikipedia is not an acceptable font. It is written by biased points of view, and we can't use it as a font unless you are giving actual facts. scientists are 90% sure doesn't give any statistical info, except that someone thought scientists are almost sure about it.

2- I indeed believe in the 'ridiculous notion', about the part of the biosphere and the planet. Please be more thoughtful before simply rejecting other points of view because you can't understand them. In discarding them before you even consider them, you could be blocking it inconsciously. I agree with you about humans and animals though

3- I am not saying anything is good for the planet, i am saying it is not bad. Huge difference here.

4- magicaly getting warmer? We have evidence of the eearth going through much more intense climate changes in much less time than global warmers advertise in ages before humans existed. It is not magically getting warmer, it is being influenced by glaciers, oceans and water in the atmosphere, CO2, O2, vegetal concentration, animal concentration, Sun cycles, orbital interferences, and pretty much everything that happens. I believe human influence in this is not significant, the other factors are much stronger. Magic is not one of the other factors, but I could show you that overall Earth has gone through an average cooling over the last million years, and oceans (the great temperature retainers on earth) are still cooling.

5- As explained, i am not making a point on "good wasting". I am, though, making a point that most of the big Global Warming advertisers are doing it in bad faith and/or lead by others doing it in bad faith, with the intent of making money over people's consciouness and limiting undevelopped companies behind in competitivity.

Then you misunderstand the meaning of the word waste.

Quote

Waste

verb (used with object)
to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.

 By definition it's impossible for waste to be good, as then it's not waste anymore. That's why companies call them 'bi product' because that implies that it's not bad anymore.

 If, as you suggest, even though 90% of the words scientists disagree with you in that excess carbon dioxide heats up the planet because it encourages plant growth, are you opposed to the massive deforestation taking place around the world, because that's pretty destructive to plant growth.

The scientists agree with me that CO2 is correlated with heating up the planet, so you misunderstood. I do not believe there's something wrong with that and we need to tax people to fix it.

Harvest is pretty destructive to plant growth but is pretty constructive for human growth, I prefer human growth.

Are you that asinine that you think I am arguing bacteria will not continue to exist if we keep polluting the planet, or that we will all die from carbon dioxide toxicity?

 C'mon man.

that is the type of comment i said as being directed o my person, instead of the discussed topic. Again, please refrain from it. And, if you talk about Planet and Biosphere being possibly destroyed by humans, yes, you ARE arguing about bacteria. I did make it clear in my comments that i believe wasting is bad for humans, just not to Earth or Life as a whole. And we won't die by carbon toxicity, as Piotr made clear, we may die from carbon suffocation though, or by other means of pollution. We may also simply deplete our food sources, or have some similar destiny. If you are arguing about Humans only, though, I'll tell you: Global warming won't kill us. We would survive, AND have food, even if the planet heate up some 10 degrees Celsius in average, and the pessimist scientists talk about 1 degree Celsius in 100 years. Also, i ain't sure if you meant insane or some other kind of 'compliment'. Please explain what that word means, as I like to know what people say that i am. And in future discussion, please try to keep your words to what you mean to say (humans, not biosphere)

Even if you don't believe that the planet heating up is bad, if you're wrong the results are catastrophic and if you're right, well then nothing changes, so why take the chance?

 Because someone has to pay a little more tax? Get your head out man, we can always make more money, we can't make a new planet.

I call the statement of catastrophic results a falsehood

Quote from: KangaRod on May 21, 2013, 06:16:41 PM

Even if you don't believe that the planet heating up is bad, if you're wrong the results are catastrophic and if you're right, well then nothing changes, so why take the chance?

 Because someone has to pay a little more tax? Get your head out man, we can always make more money, we can't make a new planet.

I call the statement of catastrophic results a falsehood

In formal calling out a lie (or falsehood as you seem to prefer), it is customary to provide logical proof, if only in a form of restating your previous statement or providing a link to it.

Listen to what I am saying

I agree, maybe you are right, and maybe carbon dioxide isn't bad for the environment... But if you are wrong (and most empirical evidence suggests that you are) the results would be so catastrophic that its not a chance we should take.

 I am not currently saying that it will be catastrophic (even though most scientists think it will be)  but I am saying you need to do risk assessment and realize that what you are proposing (of apparently not caring how much CO2 goes into the atmosphere) is not worth the risk.

That is interesting take on assessing risks. May I bring your attention to a rather good book: rcm.amazon.c.....FF&f=ifr

You can read the Prologue for free, it is eye opening.

@Piotr
I already had stated the falsehood in the catastrophic results, but i will give a link o the ISPCC, which is the main organization supporting global warming, HERE. Please check the 2001 graphs on impacts, adaptation and visibility, and you will see why I call catastrophic results a falsehood. I do not call it a lie, because to lie you need to tell something untrue while knowing the truth, and I believe he thought the truth his group of scientists believe in are indeed of catastrophical results. But here is the proof that it isn't.
Also, on risk assessment, managing companies and personal life is different from having a risk being, even of a very little chance, destroying the whole humanity. Saying that most scientists think it is catastrophic, though, is a falsehood as explained above.


@KangaRod
I will call a falsehood on "most empirical evidence tell you [me and Piotr] are [wrong]" as well. Present them, and i may agree with you. Most of what global warmers say, though, is theoretical and based on simulations (which admittedly may contain mistakes due to not taking into account all variables). I have geological analysis using proxy temperature tests which can say that there were much worse temperature fluctuations in ages past. But, in recent times, here is a nice graph for you to analyze, and look at the fluctuations we have today and what we had before. We have had a 2ºC fluctuation in 150 years, and that is after the second industrial revolution. Here is the IPCC analysis where it is explicitly written that the trend is of 0.04ºC per century. Which is 1/25 of what i said was the "worst case scenario". Assuming Earth is currently in a natural heating cycle (it will go back to cooling, then heating again, it just does that. As I explained, it is not magic, but related to many facctors such as biomass, geology, atmosphere and sun radiation), and that the Human Being makes it heat up much faster, 0.04ºC per century is very little to be concerning, as it is natural heating + human heating


About calling me asinine - I really expect you to refrain from calling people things. This is a discussion about global warming, pollution and sustainability, + incorporated. This IS NOT a discussion on my intelligence, or anyone else's. I haven't spoken of your person, so do not presume to defame me. I asked it once, VERY clearly, asked it again, and am asking for the third time.
You are rightwhen you say i should have looked for it, though. I did a quick google translate only, and it had yelded nothing. I did search for an english meaning though, and I now know. I would call a lie on that as well, as it is not foolish to have your beliefs, specially when you can, as it is my case, defend it with facts and reference them to you. I am not foolish, nor resemble an ass, so you should be careful with what you say.[/me]