10 ms·

This is idiocy. You basically have to believe tens of thousands of scientist are liars to accept the first statement. Not merely they're mistaken, not merely th

by cmurf 9y ago

This is idiocy. You basically have to believe tens of thousands of scientist are liars to accept the first statement. Not merely they're mistaken, not merely they have imperfect data, but intentionally deceiving with malice. That's how many scientists and how much data there is contravening your first statement, not least of which is Exxon - that liberal bastion of environmental preservation.

topspin 9y ago
"You basically have to believe tens of thousands of scientist are liars to accept the first statement" The first statement, that human industry is not "the main cause of co2 release," is undisputed fact. This is what the DOE says [1]: "Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere." and "Carbon dioxide comes from both natural and anthropogenic sources; natural sources are predominant." Your misunderstanding is apparently common enough that the last assertion is offered in the context of dispelling a myth. [1] https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2 https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon...
- cmurf 9y ago
  That page says: Myth: Carbon dioxide comes only from anthropogenic sources, especially from the burning of fossil fuels. Jesus is a myth. The above statement is not something any thinking person has ever considered. You'd have to be a moron to think CO2 only comes from human source. Of course CO2 predates mankind, as well as mandkind's activities. Positioning something that no one is claiming as if it's something someone is claiming and then knocking it down, is known as a strawman, it is not a myth. But this is what you'd expect from a DOE run by an oilman and climate change denier. The concern is not the source or reason for historic CO2 levels, it's the source and reason for increases above historic CO2 levels. Treating people as if they're too stupid to see through such transparent attempts at distraction should be a violation of the code of conduct, before name calling those who try to get away with shit like this.
  - topspin 9y ago
    "But this is what you'd expect from a DOE run by an oilman and climate change denier." I assume you refer to Rick Perry. In point of fact the myth/reality portion of the page has been unchanged since at least September of 2015 [1], at which time Obama appointee Ernest Moniz was Secretary of Energy. Dr. Moniz has never denied the fact that the climate is changing, as far as I'm aware. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150912221729/https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2 https://web.archive.org/web/20150912221729/https://www.netl....
- lutorm 9y ago
  Sure, if you don't include the word "net". Natural processes account for the majority of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere. They also account for the majority of the CO2 removed from the atmosphere, because there's an equilibrium flow. The important part is that anthropogenic sources are a significant contribution to the net imbalance of those flows, because it's all in one direction. It's like arguing that your spending, because is a small fraction of the amount of money you move between your checkings and savings accounts, won't make you run out of money...

by cmurf 9y ago

topspin 9y ago

"You basically have to believe tens of thousands of scientist are liars to accept the first statement" The first statement, that human industry is not "the main cause of co2 release," is undisputed fact. This is what the DOE says [1]: "Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere." and "Carbon dioxide comes from both natural and anthropogenic sources; natural sources are predominant." Your misunderstanding is apparently common enough that the last assertion is offered in the context of dispelling a myth. [1] https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2 https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon...

cmurf 9y ago
That page says: Myth: Carbon dioxide comes only from anthropogenic sources, especially from the burning of fossil fuels. Jesus is a myth. The above statement is not something any thinking person has ever considered. You'd have to be a moron to think CO2 only comes from human source. Of course CO2 predates mankind, as well as mandkind's activities. Positioning something that no one is claiming as if it's something someone is claiming and then knocking it down, is known as a strawman, it is not a myth. But this is what you'd expect from a DOE run by an oilman and climate change denier. The concern is not the source or reason for historic CO2 levels, it's the source and reason for increases above historic CO2 levels. Treating people as if they're too stupid to see through such transparent attempts at distraction should be a violation of the code of conduct, before name calling those who try to get away with shit like this.
- topspin 9y ago
  "But this is what you'd expect from a DOE run by an oilman and climate change denier." I assume you refer to Rick Perry. In point of fact the myth/reality portion of the page has been unchanged since at least September of 2015 [1], at which time Obama appointee Ernest Moniz was Secretary of Energy. Dr. Moniz has never denied the fact that the climate is changing, as far as I'm aware. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150912221729/https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2 https://web.archive.org/web/20150912221729/https://www.netl....
lutorm 9y ago
Sure, if you don't include the word "net". Natural processes account for the majority of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere. They also account for the majority of the CO2 removed from the atmosphere, because there's an equilibrium flow. The important part is that anthropogenic sources are a significant contribution to the net imbalance of those flows, because it's all in one direction. It's like arguing that your spending, because is a small fraction of the amount of money you move between your checkings and savings accounts, won't make you run out of money...