jump to navigation

CO2 is NOT green. July 14, 2010

Posted by Jamie Friedland in Climate Change, Coal, Media, Politics.
Tags: , , , , ,

I just stumbled across this news tidbit that warrants a brief post all to itself.

Apparently big industry polluters think a climate bill actually has a decent chance in the Senate.   A relatively new and truly despicable “advocacy group” calling itself “CO2 Is Green” has launched the latest salvo in the broader lobbying effort to sabotage responsible energy policy in this country.

I don’t know how these people sleep at night. I, for one, would feel disgusted with myself if I ran an organization designed solely to lie and propagandize.

Funded by oil and coal money, CO2 Is Green purchased a half-page ad in today’s Washington Post and is running TV ads in swing states.  These ads present unconscionably false claims such as “There is no scientific evidence that CO2 is a pollutant.”  This “organization” also has an “educational” operation called “Plants Need CO2.”  Please forgive the excessive quotes, I had no choice.

This is propaganda in the first degree. Climate-skeptics look down upon climate scientists who refuse to “debate” their industry-funded champions.  This is why such debates rarely occur: scientists work with facts.  Skeptics work with baseless propaganda.  How can you possibly debate someone who is not constrained by factual reality?

*I would like to thank my new friend Roger for making this point for me in the comments section of this post.*

***If anyone reading this does not understand how CO2, while directly necessary to support plant life and indirectly necessary to support human life, is a climate pollutant and that the resulting warming will NOT benefit life on this planet, please, PLEASE, comment so that I can respond or contact me so that I can explain.  My email address is jdf15@duke.edu.***

After checking out their deplorable website, which I refuse to link, I did a google search to learn more about CO2 Is Green (because their “About Us” page is just more propaganda and contains no information about them).  That’s how I found the source I linked in the second paragraph.

That source is a 2009 article from the Washington Post.  The title was “New Groups Revive the Debate Over Causes of Climate Change”.  I am seething.  The existence of these groups does absolutely NOTHING to challenge the scientific facts regarding climate change; everyone who reads this title is instantly misinformed about the issue at hand.

Journalism’s new, overzealous pursuit of balance instead of ACCURACY has had deplorable effects on our media. The existence of two opposing opinions does not automatically confer equivalency to those viewpoints. When such lopsided credibility exists, as is the case for climate scientists vs. industry-funded skeptics, to cover the story with artificial 50-50 balance is its own form of bias.

This was the subject of my honors thesis, which is summarized in my final column for the The Chronicle at Duke University.  I can expound upon it if asked.



1. rogerthesurf - July 14, 2010

CO2 = Pollutant?

This is the biggest piece of MISINFORMATION we hear.

1. CO2 is an essential gas for life, should it fall below about 150 ppmv plants would stop growing and all life on earth would die out.

2. Humans are comfortable in a concentration of 1000 ppmv of CO2, plants grow very very well at this concentration. (Ask any greenhouse operator)

3. Although CO2 is blamed for the current warming of the planet (and that assertion is debatable) there is no empirical link between Anthropogenic CO2 and the many observations we are constantly deluged with every day. In fact the unproven hypothesis “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” is just that, unproven hypothesis, and the lack of a causal link is ignored by the alarmists of today.

4. The world has been warmer than the present, in historical times, and before there was any anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, this disproves the premise that there is causiality between CO2 and Global Warming.

5. There have been both Global Warming Scares and Global Cooling Scares since the beginning of the 20th Century.Whats different about this one.




PS. This comment is also published under your title and url at http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com

Jamie Friedland - July 14, 2010

Ok, Roger, I’m going to refute your points in the same order that you presented them. The first phrase of each paragraph explains the way in which you are wrong. The following paragraph explains how you are wrong in more detail. Try to keep up. Here we go:

1. Straw man argument. CO2 is indeed directly necessary for plant life and indirectly necessary to keep our planet habitable via the greenhouse effect. Nobody is talking about completely eliminating it from the atmosphere, that is both impossible and silly. We are talking about simply having too much of it. Ever heard of too much of a good thing? CO2 isn’t even a good thing. It can kill people as surely as any other toxin. Check out Lake Nyos – thousands of people dead on account of CO2. Water is necessary for life too; try breathing in the 100% water environment of your full bathtub.

2. Straw man argument. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 does not represent a direct threat to human habitation. It represents an indirect threat through its greenhouse impacts on climate. Not because it makes the ambient air temperature hotter than what humans can physically withstand, but because it triggers climatic changes that alter the planet in ways that would cause catastrophic damage to our current societal structure in ways such as, but not at all limited to, rising sea levels.

3. Unsubstantiated and false claim. The “assertion” that anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2 is blamed for the current warming is NOT debatable. It is clearly established. You called it an “unproven hypothesis.” This is the part in your argument where deniers like yourself normally also misuse another scientific term and call global warming “just a theory.” You know, same way gravity is “just a theory.” The graph below was compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2000 of the world’s leading climate scientists from 130 countries. Sorry the graph is too large, but the important part is showing.

These are what climate scientists in their professional capacities have determined are exerting heating or cooling impacts on our climate. Check out the greenhouse gases on the left. That’s right – the biggest factor. Show me some credentialed scientific work to the contrary. Just saying something is wrong doesn’t make it wrong. You claim on your blog to “only deal in referenced facts.” …um, walk the walk?

4. Improper inference. True, the world has been both warmer and colder than today, before anthropogenic effects took hold. That does not at all disprove the causality of anthropogenic warming. It doesn’t speak to that at all. An analogous argument would be “Today I hit my head and gave myself a black eye. Because I caused my own black eye today, last week when I had a black eye nobody could possibly have punched me in the face.”

5. This isn’t even logic. The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a children’s story, not a scientific principle. And it’s not even applicable. You may be interested to learn that global warming can actually cause an ice age. It has before. As luck would have it, I have written a post explaining this phenomenon. Also, plenty of other people have taken the time to refute this tired denier talking point, so I don’t have to.

PS. I have not published this exchange anywhere else. Your baseless denialism is not the slightest bit remarkable or new.

-Jamie Friedland

rogerthesurf - July 15, 2010

Since you have immediately started calling me names which incidently illustrates some desperation on your part, I will deliberately and without desperation call YOU an alarmist.

Let me take your points one by one.

CO2 is a pollutant because you can have too much of it.
Quite true you can have too much of it but you need more than 10,000 ppmv before it has any noticeable effect.

Now consider H2O, we can have too much of that too, as some swimmers who have ventured beyond their swimming ability in a lake or river have found to their cost. So under the same reasoning lets call for the limitation of water shall we. How about lakes and rivers must be no more than 100mm deep and be equiped with handrails in case anyone trips.
Absurd yes, but this is illustrating your reasoning.
Of course CO2 is no more a pollutant than water, the vapour of which, as you know, is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. If the argument you put forth above was in your honours thesis I would give you a D minus.

Ah yes. The “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. This is the hypothesis upon which all alamists such as yourself rely on whether they are aware of it or not.
There are many observations that the climate appears to be warming, although some debate that. There are observations of increasing long wave radiation, melting glaciers and whatever. All very interesting but where is the empirically tested link to Anthropogenic CO2? Yes in a laboratory one can show that there is a greenhouse effect from CO2, but thats like testing a drug on a rat and then expecting the same drug to work on a human. For a drug to be proven effective for humans may take 10 or 20 years subsequent testing and development.
In the absence of any empirical testing thorough or otherwise we can therefore only describe the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis as an un proven theory.
I might add here that many alarmists such as yourself say “Well perhaps we should cut our anthropogenic CO2 emissions to 40% below 1990 levels – JUST IN CASE”
My answer to that is the cost is too high. You probably have never thought of the cost, but its a little greater than saving a bit of electricity by using eco bulbs in your house.
If the western world actually manages to cut emissions to the 57% from today’s levels, in spite of hopes for alternative technology, it is most likely you and your family, community and country will generally face extreme poverty and you may see people around you and your children starve.
This is why it is important to be very very sure of the as yet unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 Causes Global Warming” hypothesis before we ruin our economies.
Why dont you discuss this with an economics major at your university and see what he thinks?

3) Well I have appeared to have covered 3 already. However I would point out that gravity and its effects are easily proven empirically.

4)Oh I am afraid that the fact that the world has been warmer than now, and cooled off and warmed again does disprove the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. In order to show it is a different sort of warming this time, one would need to know intimately what caused the previous warmings and cooling and show that those factors are absent this time. Even that wouldn’t prove the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis, but it might remove one disproving factor.
About the only thing we know about these previous warmings at the moment is that CO2 was not a factor, because 1 it appears to have been relatively low, 2 there was no anthropogenic CO2.
On your analogy of hitting yourself in the eye, I would give you another D minus.

Well I agree the fact that there have been scares before does not prove anything scientific. It just shows that humans are easily scared and may possibly even enjoy the experience.

I know I haven’t offered any references to support these statements, but I do sincerely invite you to visit my blog where there are penty of links to scientific papers etc which not only support what I am talking about but are of great scientific interest in themselves.



Jamie Friedland - July 15, 2010

Roger, that is annoyance you sense, not desperation. And I am guilty of condescension, not name-calling. What names did I call you, “denier?” That is descriptive, not vitriolic. I personally don’t consider it the slightest bit flattering, but that is beside the point. If you’re overly sensitive to that then perhaps the charge hits close to home. Re: “alarmist,”…touche? You may call me whatever you like.

You say that you have references to support all your statements on your blog. I looked. You appear to cite papers there, but everything is a mess. You cannot expect me to research the support for all your claims; you’re the one making them, that’s your job. If you say you have all the information to backup your claims, marshall your facts and do so. That will be the theme of this response. If you don’t the time to support your claims, then don’t waste my time and please take your baseless rants elsewhere.

1. More baseless claims. I cannot “argue” with you if you are just making things up. According to whom is the threshold CO2 level for “noticeable” greenhouse warming 10,000 ppm? Back up your claims.

…or are you referring to the CO2 concentration necessary to have a direct negative impact on immediate human health? Because if you are, you have completely missed the point.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt (which is assuming you simply didn’t back up a claim), the climate record shows a remarkable correlation between temperature and atmospheric GHG levels going back hundreds of thousands of years. It is highly “noticeable.” So are the noticeably rising temperatures and their correspondence with the noticeably rising CO2 concentration on account of fossil fuel combustion that is occurring as we speak.

Click the picture if it cuts off.

Also, obviously water and CO2 are different. I am not arguing that water is a pollutant or that CO2 is a pollutant merely because it can exist in excess. I used water as an example to counter the fallacious argument that just because something is necessary for life means it cannot have negative effects – because you presented that very argument. That was your Point 1, remember? I refuted it.

2. Yet more baseless claims. SOURCES, SIR. I am conveying the established position of an entire scientific field. You are attempting to refute that science. You must do so with facts. You cannot expect us just to take your word for it.

3. You have addressed neither 2 nor 3. I presented empirical data from the IPCC. You merely responded that no data exist and started talking about rats.

4. Again, you have simply called me wrong and used your proclamation as proof of its own veracity. Not compelling or even a response. We know that natural forces such as solar variance can influence climate. We also know that artificial forces such as increased CO2 levels can influence climate. The two are not mutually exclusive.

We do not “know that CO2 was not a factor in previous warmings.” In fact, the opposite is true. See the graph above.

How we know this warming is different, you ask? Aside from a basic understanding of chemistry and the greenhouse effect, we are experiencing the hottest year on record DESPITE being at the deepest solar minimum in a century.

5. So you concede this point. Super.

2. CCS: An Energy Wild Goose Chase, Not Silver Bullet « The Political Climate - July 15, 2010

[…] is necessary to sustain life on this planet.  That does not mean that more is better. For the “CO2 Is Green” crowd, I present this paragraph from the CRS […]

3. Christine - July 15, 2010

I see rogerthespammer has surfaced here, spreading his wild pro-C02 propaganda. Ed Darrell, who blogs at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, put it this way:
As P. Z. Myers noted, saying CO2 is “natural” is akin to noting feces are natural — doesn’t mean it’s good for you, or that you’d want it on your dinner table, or that it shouldn’t be controlled.

Can’t say it better myself!

4. rogerthesurf - July 15, 2010


You have either not understood my point or are simply refusing to consider it.
You are also too arrogant to read the links on my blog, (Thats the list on the right hand side),but I do understand you may find the truths there somewhat painful to your beliefs.

The graph you supply is entirely irrelevant to the point I am trying to explain to you because as I have already said, Correlation does not prove Causiality. I suggest after you finish your honours year that you take Stats 101, where the first thing you will be told is Correlation does not prove Causiality.

Your graph is interesting though because it clearly shows that temperature is consistantly leading CO2 probably by some hundreds of years, which while it proves nothing, does disprove that CO2 is causing the warming. This suggests the premise that the CO2 is caused by the warming because CO2 is released from the oceans as well as biological activity as the temperature rose.

Good luck with the Stats 101.

Perhaps then you will stop thinking that observations constitute proof.


Jamie Friedland - July 15, 2010

How can I be pained by “truths” that I am too arrogant to read? That just doesn’t make any sense. I find it difficult to respect you while you attempt to misinform the people reading this post. You came to me and picked this fight. I will treat you with respect when demonstrate you deserve it or you stop disrespecting me. You could start by not insisting that I research your arguments for you.

I have again gone back to your blog. I have looked more closely at the links on the side. I was not able to easily locate support for the various claims you have made here. Nor, to repeat myself, should I have to – YOU are responsible for backing up YOUR arguments. It doesn’t matter where else the information is. If you have it, show it. If you refuse to do so, you lose this argument. It’s that simple. “I have the information elsewhere, go find it” is not factual support.

I understand that that graph alone does not prove the correlation between CO2 and temperature. Basic chemistry does that. I am aware that correlation does not equal causation. But correlation does not disprove causation either. Correlation/causation would be a valid response IF we didn’t know that CO2 causes warming. But it unquestionably does. So you are argument is moot.

Since you love my analogies so much, let me break this down for you:

We know that a gunshot to the head causes death. So, when we find a dead guy with a gunshot wound to the head, it is fair to assume that the gunshot contributed to that guy’s death.

Now, this is an imperfect analogy because CSI has taught me that this guy could have been shot after he was killed another way to cover it up, but the principle stands. “Correlation does not equal causation” would not, on its own, be a passable argument that the gunshot was not a cause of death because it is clearly established that getting shot in the head is lethal.

Because we understand the very simple chemical mechanism by which GHGs like CO2 cause warming in our atmosphere (the greenhouse effect), the scientific community has justifiably concluded that some of that observable warming has in fact been caused by observable increases in CO2. In fact, they have even quantified how much of the current warming can be attributed to CO2 (as my first graph showed). This is not difficult. I included that second graph because the correlation is astounding. And, when combined with a basic understanding of simple chemistry, it refutes your claim that CO2 has no noticeable effect on climate.

I assume, since you are lecturing me about statistics, that you are familiar with the concept of statistical significance. Please see this 2004 peer-reviewed article from the journal Earth and Environmental Science that finds the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and the temperature record to be “robust.” That means, as I’m sure you well know, that the correlation in fact may well be the product of causation. Indeed, that is what these authors concluded.

I took Stats 101 four years ago and did just fine. I am not in school, Roger. I graduated. And we don’t have an “honours year” here.

You are 100% incorrect in concluding that rising CO2 levels cannot cause rising temperatures just because, at times in the historical record, rising temperatures have preceded rising CO2 levels instead of following. Again, Roger, we fully understand the warming mechanism at work here.

CO2 is not just released from the combustion of fossil fuels, it also has natural sources. It is a fact that warming temperatures can cause CO2 to be released from those natural sources. There are a number of positive feedback loops in the climate system that, once warming begins, emit vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And once in the atmosphere, that CO2 causes even more warming through the exceedingly simple greenhouse effect.

This phenomenon easily explain why, at times in the past, rising temperatures (even if that initial warming was caused by another factor like solar variation) could have caused more CO2 to be released and thus caused more warming. It’s simple science. As luck would have it again, I have recently written a post explaining these processes too (fully cited with reputable sources, of course).

Please recall that you started this whole exchange by attempting to counter my post with 5 points. I refuted them. You have now abandoned them all. Unless you demonstrate otherwise, WITH SOURCES, I will conclude that your silence about them is a tacit admission that you were wrong.

5. rogerthesurf - July 15, 2010


“More baseless claims. I cannot “argue” with you if you are just making things up. According to whom is the threshold CO2 level for “noticeable” greenhouse warming 10,000 ppm? Back up your claims.”

As there is no evidence that CO2 causes global warming, my comment was related to any actual harmful and beneficial effects
the increasing concentration of CO2 might have.

I didnt bother to supply references because a quick google will give you, amongst many others, the following links.

“optimal commercial greenhouse carbon dioxide enrichment” http://www.hydrofarm.com/articles/co2_enrichment.php

“safe levels of carbon dioxide”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide.

PS IPCC publication contain very little if anything in the way of proof, and you may note that they are at pains to not actually use that word.
They simply rely on observations and correlations with climate modeling, the latter unfortunately invariable assume the validity of the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming”, which is why so many eminent scientists in the world express their criticism with the IPCC publications.






Jamie Friedland - July 15, 2010

Ah. I see I was in fact mistaken in giving you the benefit of the doubt and you were actually still rambling about CO2’s direct toxicity to humans. CO2 is a CLIMATE pollutant, Roger. Similar to noise pollution or light pollution etc. but far more serious. An environmental pollutant. Its direct toxicity to humans is not the point or even considered in its classification as a pollutant (which, as you will recall, is the point you originally set out to contest).

Yes, CO2 is only directly harmful to humans in concentrations high enough to displace oxygen. Woohoo. That is entirely irrelevant.

If I’d recognized and corrected you on this point in the beginning, I could have saved us the trouble of this back and forth. But we’re here now, and it would be rude for me to ignore you.

Yes, Roger, plants grow slightly better in higher concentrations of CO2. Only with deliberate tunnel vision can one then infer that higher atmospheric concentrations would be a net benefit to society. When one takes into account all the health/human impacts of climate change – rising sea levels, displaced populations, more extreme weather, both droughts and floods (I know, deniers have a hard time wrapping their head around this one), shifting ranges for disease-transmitting organisms…when you stop squinting and look at the whole picture, a warmer planet is decidedly undesirable.

“There is no evidence that CO2 causes global warming”? That is ridiculous. In your first point of your original comment, you yourself explained that CO2 was necessary for life on this planet. You were correct – without the greenhouse effect, this planet would be uninhabitable. The same basic chemical mechanism that makes this planet warm enough to support life also makes it heat up more when additional CO2 is added. You cannot refute this point. It is elementarily basic chemistry. You will not find a single credible expert who disputes the greenhouse effect. You may have intended to dispute just the effects of ANTHROPOGENIC, human-emitted CO2, and plenty of deniers do that, but that is just as dumb; it’s all the same gas. It’s like creationists admitting that an individual species can evolve (microevolution) but maintaining that macroevolutionary speciation (the process by which one species splits into another) is impossible.

“The IPCC publication [sic] contain very little if anything in the way of proof”. Thanks for the links for your tangential, irrelevant first point, but this is a sweeping and unsupported claim. IPCC assessments are summaries of the world’s climate science. They are full of “proof.” Your comment about them not using the word ‘proof’ betrays your general ignorance of science as a whole. There is no concrete certainty in science. That word is never used. That being said, confidence that an explanation explains the current data is accepted as tantamount to fact – unless, contradictory data emerge in the future. Scientists don’t deal in absolute truths; they just determine that a current theory fits the data better than any other. That is as true of anthropogenic climate change as it is of gravity.

As for your petitions of so-called criticism, I will deal with your final example as a fair proxy for all other projects like it. This “Oregon Petition” has been thoroughly debunked. It appears to have the support of numerous scientists, yes, but only a handful of those are climate professionals talking about THEIR FIELD. In reality, 0.1% of its signatories have a background in climatology.

The rest, the vast majority of those signatories on that “petition” who are actually real people and real degreed scientists (which is a much smaller subset of the total), are presenting baseless beliefs about a topic on which they have no expertise whatsoever. That’s about as useful as a dentist weighing in on astrophysics.

Please understand and then explain to your fellow deniers that TV meteorologists are not climate scientists. The former reports the weather. The latter studies climate. There is a significant difference. Weather is a snapshot in time. Climate is much broader, long-term trends. A skilled still photographer is not automatically an expert in videography. The qualifications, subject matter, and training for meteorology and climate science are very, very different.

6. rogerthesurf - July 15, 2010

Jamie here is the point.

“…. IF we didn’t know that CO2 causes warming. But it unquestionably does. ”

Once again you have made that sweeping statement, which does indeed underpin all Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming based studies, but correct me if I am wrong because I dont see any references as to the truth of that fact except for your sweeping statement.

Simply put we do NOT know this and I am waiting to see if you have any evidence.

Don’t be worried too much if you cant find any because this is the basic hole in the alarmist’s beliefs, but on the otherhand, I would welcome seeing some proof, because believe it or not, my mind is open on this subject.

“You will not find a single credible expert who disputes the greenhouse effect”
Well above I gave you some links which listed many tens of thousands of scientists who do not think anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming. Isnt that good enough for you? You see you don’t need to be a climate scientist to see the holes in the AGW logic, all you need is a reasonable brain.

” When one takes into account all the health/human impacts of climate change – rising sea levels, displaced populations, more extreme weather, both droughts and floods”

My gosh you have swallowed the propaganda badly, You will see on my blog, at least one account showing the Maldives has not had any sea level change, but the local government would not let it be released because that would cost them in relief funds.
History shows that humans do better when the climate warms as agriculture is more productive and there is more precipitation. If you think correlation is a proof, try correlating warm periods with the rise of civilisations, and the cold periods with population decline. Strangely enough extreme weather is historically associated with cold periods, Witness the disappearence of the settlements in Greenland for instance.
What I am suggesting is that you stop drinking in this propoganda and use your head.

“Scientists don’t deal in absolute truths; they just determine that a current theory fits the data better than any other. That is as true of anthropogenic climate change as it is of gravity.”

Do we have to go through this again? Gravity is easily empirically tested, You select an object of a certain mass and you can check the gravitational pull by using a wonderful machine called a pair of scales.
Take the object off the scales and it shoots back to zero, put two f them on and see the scales read double etc. This is empirical proof. Now lets go and see who has done the same with the climate shall we?
I concede it is not an easy task.
Check out this video, nothing to do with climate change but everything to do with failing to properly prove a hypothesis in a life threatening stituation.

Do not be too proud to watch the video.


Jamie Friedland - July 16, 2010

Wow. That must be your most blatant lie yet! You actually just claimed that your “mind is open on this subject.” That’s bold. You troll around the internet posting denier comments on climate change blog posts. That’s how we met. Then you repost and catalogue that denial on a website you have built to show off all your comments about how climate change isn’t real to other deniers. Open mind indeed.

For the last time:
You have again misunderstood. Read what I wrote. I said that no scientist will refute THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT: the warming caused by solar radiation trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases such as CO2. That is basic chemistry. It’s in every natural sciences textbook around the world at every level. It’s a fact that even children understand. There is zero controversy about the greenhouse effect.

It is also an undeniable and quantifiable fact that activities that humans are currently conducting, such as burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests, release larger quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

You cannot possibly argue against either of those facts. It’s impossible. Now, add them up: releasing more – of a gas that causes warming – causes more warming. 1+1=2. I cannot spell this out any more clearly. This is not propaganda or a belief. It just is.

That is the SCIENCE that “underpins” anthropogenic global warming. That is the evidence. I have repeated it again and again, but you refuse to understand.

This is my final response to you. I have countered all the assertions you raised in your original comment. You have abandoned all but one that you have just attempted to resurrect, but I have addressed it too.

Now you have us on a tour of all the other tired denier talking points. Allowing this to continue any longer would be pointless; we are not going to convince each other of anything. I have presented that “proof” you claim to be seeking over and over again. You ignore it. You are clearly a lost cause.

We are done here. Go waste someone else’s time.

7. rogerthesurf - July 16, 2010

“…. IF we didn’t know that CO2 causes warming. But it unquestionably does. ”

All my questions have been to see if you can give a reasonable reply that shows definitive proof of the above statement.

Frankly you have failed, although I have asked the question a number of times.

The real truth is, if you cant answer that question reasonably, as the whole the AGW claims rest on that fact being true, YOU are the one helping to spread lies. You are the one who is endangering the well being of the people on this planet.

As you will probably refuse to publish this hard truth, I will publish it on http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com where my readers can observe your erroneous religious zealotry.



Jamie Friedland - July 16, 2010

I don’t need to censor you or your “hard truths,” you are making a fool of yourself. I literally just explained that. Good day, sir.

8. rogerthesurf - July 17, 2010

“the warming caused by solar radiation trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases such as CO2. That is basic chemistry. It’s in every natural sciences textbook around the world at every level. It’s a fact that even children understand. There is zero controversy about the greenhouse effect.” ………” This is not propaganda or a belief. It just is.”

Jamie, I will not be commenting again. Thankyou for your willingness to debate these issues. People such as Christine above simply spam comments they dont like or cannot answer.

However what is very definitely shown by your answers, in particular the phrases of yours which I have quoted above, is that you cannot find any proof for the “Anthropogenic CO2 cause Global Warming” hypothesis,(which is the foundation for all AGW thinking) but you have accepted it on faith.
Faith is all very well if you need to believe in something, but because what we are doing in regard to this AGW thinking is likely to effect the world to a catestrophic degree, it is therefore irresponsible to do any thing except act on verifiable facts.



Jamie Friedland - July 18, 2010

Really? You actually deny the greenhouse effect itself? That’s impressive. I would love to see you attempt to justify that denial. That is off the reservation, even for deniers, and that’s saying something.

The fact that you find your new “proof” in my diction, without regard to meanings of those words or the simple argument they composed, betrays your refusal to allow yourself to understand. It’s sad that a literary critique is all you could take from the most basic explanation of the “proof” of anthropogenic climate change you repeatedly demanded. A closed mind on display.

The “global warming religion” argument is my favorite denier accusation. I am an atheist. I do not deal in faith. Climate change, as science, is the diametrical opposite of faith. It is the product of overwhelming data observed about our world and the application of simple, verifiable processes.

I do not believe in climate change; I understand it. The same way I understand geometry or physics or biology or, yes, even gravity. It is not a matter of belief. It’s there whether or not you comprehend it. Some people would say that of a god, but that is a different matter because we have proof (as I have repeatedly explained).

The conflict between climate denial and understanding climate change is not a difference of opinion. Unlike comparing religions, you have not chosen a contradictory but equivalent outlook on a matter that cannot be tested. Instead, You have chosen demonstrable self-delusion. That is your choice to make.

But then you tried to spread that nonsense on my site. Your disinformation is not welcome here. I refuse to allow anyone to be misinformed about such an important issue on my site, and I will respond forcefully to any such attempts here.

I will not censor you, but I will not give you the last word either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: