3 ms·

https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics#effects https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics#effe... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S

https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics#effects https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics#effe... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide#As_an_air_pollutant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide#As_an_air_pollu... """Sulfur dioxide is a major air pollutant and has significant impacts upon human health.[34] In addition, the concentration of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere can influence the habitat suitability for plant communities, as well as animal life.[35] Sulfur dioxide emissions are a precursor to acid rain and atmospheric particulates.""" So acid rain etc isn't really significant to you?

mikeash 10y ago
My question was specifically about global warming. Thus the quote of the thing saying "global warming."
- WhatIsDukkha 10y ago
  But that's quibbling over the poster's word choices and narrowing and distorting the understanding of people reading these posts. Why would you insist on that?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    How is it "quibbling" to point out that these emissions are not, in fact, particularly important to global warming? Are you saying that I should just treat all pollution equally regardless of its effects and ignore the details? I don't get it. This is not some meaningless detail. If 15 ships emit more greenhouse gases than all the cars in the world put together, that implies that everyone working towards sustainable cars is putting their effort in the wrong place and that climate change activists who don't talk about big ships are idiots at best, and scammers at worst. If, however, 15 ships emit more pollution of some other kind, that's quite different. Especially when the pollution in question tends to have relatively local consequences, and is mostly emitted in the middle of the ocean.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    I'm pretty sure using the phrase "worse for global warming than carbon dioxide" for something that actually causes acid rain instead is the thing that narrows and distorts understanding.
    - WhatIsDukkha 10y ago
      The author and editor of the economist made a technical error in saying that. Having a strawman argument about sulfur dioxide about that without pointing out why the rest of reality doesn't like sulfur dioxide is the essence of bad faith argumentation. Everyone reading the strawman argument is worse off. Instead - "Sulfur dioxide isn't as much a global warming issue as just a serious pollutant and we care because X"
      - mikeash 10y ago
        "Bad faith," seriously? I have to mention the bad aspects of anything that doesn't contribute to global warming if someone says it does? What's next, someone says mercury emitted by coal plants contributes to global warming, and I have to be careful to say "it's still a serious pollutant" if I point out that it doesn't?
        WhatIsDukkha 10y ago
        Yes. Especially in an area like this that is already full of noise and confusion. Why don't you step up and improve peoples understanding instead of baiting a low information comment? I guess the answer is you are inclined to not take pollution seriously and this is more fun?
        mikeash 10y ago
        Fuck me for asking for clarification and stating my understanding of the topic, I guess? You want to know what "bad faith argumentation" looks like? It's seeing someone post "Do you have a source on that? My understanding was that they are short lived and block heat rather than retain it." and responding with "So acid rain etc isn't really significant to you?" If you think some additional context would help people's understanding, then maybe you should provide it, instead of making idiotic assumptions about people's views and sarcastically criticizing them for it.

mikeash 10y ago

My question was specifically about global warming. Thus the quote of the thing saying "global warming."

WhatIsDukkha 10y ago
But that's quibbling over the poster's word choices and narrowing and distorting the understanding of people reading these posts. Why would you insist on that?
- mikeash 10y ago
  How is it "quibbling" to point out that these emissions are not, in fact, particularly important to global warming? Are you saying that I should just treat all pollution equally regardless of its effects and ignore the details? I don't get it. This is not some meaningless detail. If 15 ships emit more greenhouse gases than all the cars in the world put together, that implies that everyone working towards sustainable cars is putting their effort in the wrong place and that climate change activists who don't talk about big ships are idiots at best, and scammers at worst. If, however, 15 ships emit more pollution of some other kind, that's quite different. Especially when the pollution in question tends to have relatively local consequences, and is mostly emitted in the middle of the ocean.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure using the phrase "worse for global warming than carbon dioxide" for something that actually causes acid rain instead is the thing that narrows and distorts understanding.
  - WhatIsDukkha 10y ago
    The author and editor of the economist made a technical error in saying that. Having a strawman argument about sulfur dioxide about that without pointing out why the rest of reality doesn't like sulfur dioxide is the essence of bad faith argumentation. Everyone reading the strawman argument is worse off. Instead - "Sulfur dioxide isn't as much a global warming issue as just a serious pollutant and we care because X"
    - mikeash 10y ago
      "Bad faith," seriously? I have to mention the bad aspects of anything that doesn't contribute to global warming if someone says it does? What's next, someone says mercury emitted by coal plants contributes to global warming, and I have to be careful to say "it's still a serious pollutant" if I point out that it doesn't?
      - WhatIsDukkha 10y ago
        Yes. Especially in an area like this that is already full of noise and confusion. Why don't you step up and improve peoples understanding instead of baiting a low information comment? I guess the answer is you are inclined to not take pollution seriously and this is more fun?
        mikeash 10y ago
        Fuck me for asking for clarification and stating my understanding of the topic, I guess? You want to know what "bad faith argumentation" looks like? It's seeing someone post "Do you have a source on that? My understanding was that they are short lived and block heat rather than retain it." and responding with "So acid rain etc isn't really significant to you?" If you think some additional context would help people's understanding, then maybe you should provide it, instead of making idiotic assumptions about people's views and sarcastically criticizing them for it.