Often, we see on contrarian sites that submariners are exposed to relatively high levels of CO2 and levels of 3000ppm are quoted.

With the most severe IPCC prediction of 1000 ppm CO2 by 2100, there has been a great deal of study on the extreme secondary effects on terrestrial biota, increased salinity of aquifers, decreasing marine calcification etc. 

At the same time, very little work has been done on continuous exposure to 1000ppm. We read that levels of 600ppm CO2 result in the air being stuffy, and there are  guidelines  for indoor air quality, HVAC system design etc. 

While Anthony (Wattsupwiththat) takes great offense from the implication that submariners may be stupid, he doesn't account for the fact that their exposure to these levels is sporadic. Apart from that, in any study, we need to consider the full cycle of human life. How many pregnant submariners are there? What about the aging population? babies? 

http://tnweb.jlab.org/tn/2008/08-008.pdf

Hey muso we don't really know exactly how much of the Co2 increase is manmade and how much is natural.

If the majority of the CO2 increase is natural there isn't much we can do about, if its manmade there still isn't much we can do about, unless you want to go and live in caves.

That's no more internet, power at your finger tips, warmth, air conditioning etc etc.

Would you be prepared to live in such a world.....???????

Below from the link you provided, look like we can live in a CO2 world with 5000ppm (0.5%).


Quote:

Carbon Dioxide Hazard Characterization: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is naturally present in the atmosphere at levels of approximately 0.035% (350ppm). CO2 is classified as an asphyxiant – a substance that, in sufficient concentrations – will interfere with respiration. It is dangerous when inhaled in high concentrations (greater than 5% by volume, or 50,000 ppm). The current threshold limit value (ACGIH TLV) or maximum level that is considered safe for healthy adults for an eighthour work day is 0.5% (5,000 ppm). A person's exhaled breath is approximately 4.5% carbon dioxide by volume. Short-term exposure to CO2 at levels below 2% (20,000 parts per million or ppm) has not been reported to cause harmful effects. Higher concentrations can affect respiratory function and cause excitation followed by depression of the central nervous system. High concentrations of CO2 can displace oxygen in the air, resulting in lower oxygen concentrations for breathing. Therefore, effects of oxygen deficiency may be combined with effects of CO2 toxicity. Volunteers exposed to 3.3% or 5.4% CO2 for 15 minutes experienced increased depth of breathing. At 7.5%, a feeling of an inability to breathe (dyspnea), increased pulse rate, headache, dizziness, sweating, restlessness, disorientation, and visual distortion developed. Twenty-minute exposures to 6.5 or 7.5% decreased mental performance. Irritability and discomfort were reported with exposure to 6.5% for approximately 70 minutes. Exposure to 6% for several minutes, or 30% for 20-30 seconds, has affected the heart, as evidenced by altered electrocardiograms. CO2 Exposure Limits: Of the several industrial hygiene standards-setting groups in this country, the most important and/or most quoted are the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) but these are recommended standards, not laws. Standards promulgated by OSHA (called Permissible Exposure Limits or PELs) have the force of law. The other standards are advisory. However OSHA claims the power to force compliance with NIOSH "Recommended Standards" if it chooses to do so. (The main advantage of ACGIH Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) is that they are reviewed and updated annually; neither NIOSH nor OSHA updates its standards with any regular frequency.) Carbon dioxide is regulated for diverse purposes but not as a toxic substance. The U.S. EPA CO2 exposure limits: The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure. ASHRAE standard 62-1989 recommends an indoor air ventilation standard of 20 cfm per person of outdoor air or a CO2 level which is below 1000ppm. NIOSH CO2 exposure limits: NIOSH recommends a maximum concentration of carbon dioxide of 10,000 ppm or 1% (for the workplace, for a 10-hr work shift with a ceiling of 3.0% or 30,000 ppm for any 10-minute period). These are the highest threshold limit value (TLV) and permissible exposure limit (PEL) assigned to any material. OSHA CO2 exposure limits: OSHA recommends a lowest oxygen concentration of 19.5% in the work place for a full work-shift exposure. As we calculated above, for the indoor workplace oxygen level to reach 19.5% (down from its normal 20.9% oxygen level in outdoor air) by displacement of oxygen by CO2, that is, to reduce the oxygen level by about 6%, the CO2 or carbon dioxide level would have to increase to about 1.4% 14,000 ppm. In summary, OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% CO2 (5,000 ppm) averaged over a 40 hour week, 3% (3,000 ppm) average for a short-term (15 minute) exposure, and 4% (40,000 ppm) as the maximum instantaneous limit considered immediately dangerous to life and health. All three of these exposure limit conditions must be satisfied, always and together.

As with all contrary data put forward by global warming hysterics it consists of some obscure report that we should listen to instead of the hundreds of reports that say the opposite ... its a minority report  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:

As with all contrary data put forward by global warming hysterics it consists of some obscure report that we should listen to instead of the hundreds of reports that say the opposite ... its a minority report  ;D

list those 100s of reports, or be gone with your putrid carcass weasel of Hades

Ajax wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

Hey muso we don't really know exactly how much of the Co2 increase is manmade and how much is natural.

Ah, but the CO2 released via the combustion of fossil fuels leaves a radio isotope of Carbon as a signature

I am sure that you knew that basic scientific fact.

---

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:

... hundreds of reports that say the opposite ...

You have no hope of substantiating that factoid.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:37pm: As with all contrary data put forward by global warming hysterics it consists of some obscure report that we should listen to instead of the hundreds of reports that say the opposite ... its a minority report  ;D list those 100s of reports, or be gone with your putrid carcass weasel of Hades

The funny thing is that you would even read one of them if I did  ;D

That's  good point Muso* I too have wondered what long term exposure to a certain level of c02 would do to humans and other organism. Everything is short term like, giving someone mouth to mouth, I don't know how they can gauge the effects long term of a high c02 level without having someone actually.....be effected by increased c02 long term. I don't know anyone that would participate in that study lol.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:

That's  good point Muso* I too have wondered what long term exposure to a certain level of c02 would do to humans and other organism. Everything is short term like, giving someone mouth to mouth, I don't know how they can gauge the effects long term of a high c02 level without having someone actually.....be effected by increased c02 long term. I don't know anyone that would participate in that study lol.

CO2 concentrations in the earths atmosphere are in trace level amounts. When you consider living in industrial regions where particulates and other contaminants are in far greater concentrations than CO2, humans tend to be very adaptive and resilient. Life has to be, although I would imagine there would be a critical CO2 concentration which would cause problems. What level that is, who knows?

And as you say who would want to be a guinea pig in such as world wide experiment.

this situation reminds me of the Nuclear power and weapons industry since the end of WW2. Radiation risk models are based upon the fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and essentially limited to external exposure to radiation and radioactive contaminants.

Internal exposure to radiation via the inhalation or skin absorption radionuclides presents far more serious health issues and yet the IAEA effectively ignores the numerous studies that demonstrate that their Radiation Risk model is highly inadequate.

It has been known for some time that the risk of cancer and mutations etc from radiation exposure has no lower threshold limit. That is, there is NO safe level of exposure to radiation and that the risk is cumulative over time.

It does however seem that CO2 levels can vary quite markedly when breathing (up to 5% which is about 50,000 ppm). In fact it is the presence of CO2 that compels or triggers our reflex to exhale (it was previously thought that a lack of O2 triggered the breathing response)

---

...I can see why the 1000 ppm CO2 limit is recommended, symptoms seem to start at about this level of CO2

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Main_symptoms_of_carbon_dioxide_toxicity.svg

Ajax wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

Hey muso we don't really know exactly how much of the Co2 increase is manmade and how much is natural.

Yes we do. I've provided that figure more than once with references. Once again:


Quote:

346 gigatonnes since industrialisation to 2008 plus an additional ~ 140 Gigatonnes since 2008 (conservative figure). That doesn't include land use changes. Divide by 3.67 for carbon. (Calculated from file global.1751_2008.csv  from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:02pm:

It has been known for some time that the risk of cancer and mutations etc from radiation exposure has no lower threshold limit. That is, there is NO safe level of exposure to radiation and that the risk is cumulative over time.

We can discuss that in another thread, but basically that implies that "natural" alpha, beta and gamma radiation is somehow benign whereas the slightest trace of synthetic radiation, even at 1/1000 of natural levels starts to become carcinogenic, even though the radiation itself is identical and the compounds are no more toxic. 

I can't understand how any person capable of comprehending advanced concepts could buy into that.
 

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:

That's  good point Muso* I too have wondered what long term exposure to a certain level of c02 would do to humans and other organism. Everything is short term like, giving someone mouth to mouth, I don't know how they can gauge the effects long term of a high c02 level without having someone actually.....be effected by increased c02 long term. I don't know anyone that would participate in that study lol.

There is also the Healthy Worker Effect  to consider.

Ajax wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

Hey muso we don't really know exactly how much of the Co2 increase is manmade and how much is natural. If the majority of the CO2 increase is natural there isn't much we can do about, if its manmade there still isn't much we can do about, unless you want to go and live in caves. That's no more internet, power at your finger tips, warmth, air conditioning etc etc. Would you be prepared to live in such a world.....??????? Below from the link you provided, look like we can live in a CO2 world with 5000ppm (0.5%).

Short term exposures, Ajax. For a healthy worker 40 hours a week.

Pregnant women are more susceptible to CO2, and the indications are that long term exposures at 1000 ppm can lead to decalcification in bones and calcification in body organs with resulting serious health effects up to shutting down of the renal system.   

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:

That's  good point Muso* I too have wondered what long term exposure to a certain level of c02 would do to humans and other organism. Everything is short term like, giving someone mouth to mouth, I don't know how they can gauge the effects long term of a high c02 level without having someone actually.....be effected by increased c02 long term. I don't know anyone that would participate in that study lol.

Astronauts.

muso wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 4:56pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:51am: Hey muso we don't really know exactly how much of the Co2 increase is manmade and how much is natural. If the majority of the CO2 increase is natural there isn't much we can do about, if its manmade there still isn't much we can do about, unless you want to go and live in caves. That's no more internet, power at your finger tips, warmth, air conditioning etc etc. Would you be prepared to live in such a world.....??????? Below from the link you provided, look like we can live in a CO2 world with 5000ppm (0.5%). Short term exposures, Ajax. For a healthy worker 40 hours a week. Pregnant women are more susceptible to CO2, and the indications are that long term exposures at 1000 ppm can lead to decalcification in bones and calcification in body organs with resulting serious health effects up to shutting down of the renal system.

Where are you getting this information from..............?????

Didn't you read the link I gave you?

Quote:

In summary, OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% CO2 (5,000 ppm) averaged over a 40 hour week, 3% (3,000 ppm)

Also Google the Healthy Worker Effect.

They quote a 1000ppm limit for HVAC systems and the US EPA limit.

Just about any reference for HVAC systems will quote 1000ppm.  Air starts to get stuffy at 600 ppm.

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:06am:

muso wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 4:56pm: [quote author=Ajax link=1380921713/1#1 date=1380930675]  Where are you getting this information from..............?????

Lol

muso wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:02pm: It has been known for some time that the risk of cancer and mutations etc from radiation exposure has no lower threshold limit. That is, there is NO safe level of exposure to radiation and that the risk is cumulative over time. We can discuss that in another thread, but basically that implies that "natural" alpha, beta and gamma radiation is somehow benign whereas the slightest trace of synthetic radiation, even at 1/1000 of natural levels starts to become carcinogenic, even though the radiation itself is identical and the compounds are no more toxic.  I can't understand how any person capable of comprehending advanced concepts could buy into that.

Natural exposure to radiation is not benign

There is a zero threshold for safe exposure to radiation. Internal and external. Irrespective of the source. We are talking about particles possessing a certain amount of energy and entering the body whereby they can do cell or DNA damage etc. then we have radionuclides that can lodge in various organs in the body and irradiate local tissue with extremely high doses. Atoms such as uranium can also attach to the DNA strands or create single and double strand splits. (Known since the 1960s)

That's why people who take long flights, or work in the aviation industry have a higher cumulative health risk to radiation exposure. And workers who work in nuclear power plants. As well as children who live near nuclear power plants. Have you read the KIKK study done in Germany on childhood cancer rates near nuclear power plants?

Anyway, you're right, this serious stuff belongs somewhere else.

Uh oh  ;D


We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer, here


http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

Uh oh  ;D We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer, here http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42

The healthy worker effect.  Why don't they allow pregnant women in submarines ? (The CO2 induces labour)

Renal Calcification is a recognised occupational illness resulting from working in submarines.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/41351

Of course Wattsupmybum thinks it's all a conspiracy... from papers written in 1979. Hmmm.


Quote:

Given what I’ve learned about the Navy exposure, I think this is just another scare tactic to make CO2 look like an invisible boogeyman.

Quote:

Stupid is as stupid does.

(Forrest Gump)

Another inconvenient truth that you don't like  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

Uh oh  ;D We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer, here http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42

So you will be content with a 8000 ppm CO2 concentration in the earths atmosphere based upon a US senate comment ?

interesting way of planning the future

This is why sceptics are sceptics, for every scientific report you can wheel out about climate change I can wheel out another thats says the opposite, the difference with global warming hysterics is they just choose to ignore any other inconvenient truths that don't fit their beliefs, or they descend into total idiocy and claim its all an oil company conspiracy LOL, sceptics look at all the available information, thats why being a sceptic is the only one true path when it comes to climate change debate.  ;)

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

This is why sceptics are sceptics, for every scientific report you can wheel out about climate change I can wheel out another thats says the opposite, the difference with global warming hysterics is they just choose to ignore any other inconvenient truths that don't fit their beliefs, or they descend into total idiocy and claim its all an oil company conspiracy LOL, sceptics look at all the available information, thats why being a sceptic is the only one true path when it comes to climate change debate.  ;)

You talk about IPCC Reports, but you've never read one. You also say things like:


Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 3:37pm:

Quote:

Ha ha I told you "skepticalscience" would rot yer brains

You don't look at all available information, therefore you are not a sceptic.  You are a denier.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

So you will be content with a 8000 ppm CO2 concentration in the earths atmosphere based upon a US senate comment ? interesting way of planning the future

That's not a typical value, that's a ceiling value. Any higher than that even short term, and the submariners have severe symptoms. Typically, you're looking at 3000ppm for a month at a time.  Typical symptoms of CO2 poisoning include the effects of decalcification of the bones and increased calcium in the bloodstream resulting in the calcification of body organs.  This has also been noted in studies of laboratory animals at levels of 1000- 3000 ppm.

Of course, it's fully reversible as long as you have low CO2 air to breath.

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:01pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 2:09pm: This is why sceptics are sceptics, for every scientific report you can wheel out about climate change I can wheel out another thats says the opposite, the difference with global warming hysterics is they just choose to ignore any other inconvenient truths that don't fit their beliefs, or they descend into total idiocy and claim its all an oil company conspiracy LOL, sceptics look at all the available information, thats why being a sceptic is the only one true path when it comes to climate change debate.  ;) You talk about IPCC Reports, but you've never read one. You also say things like: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 3:37pm: Quote: Ha ha I told you "skepticalscience" would rot yer brains You don't look at all available information, therefore you are not a sceptic.  You are a denier.

You just don't get it do you?, I don't need to read anything to know there are two sides to the debate and therefore the logical position is the sceptical one.
I have read an IPCC report and I've had a look at "scepticalcranks" , there are thousands of well respected scientists that are sceptics, until they are convinced and we have a real consensus instead of a sceptical cranks manufactured consenus I think it would be prudent and logical to keep an open mind on the subject.

Life flourished on earth when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere........???????

The only thing that can kill the AGW religion is time................enough time so they can hand themselves.............!!!!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Life flourished on earth when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere........??????? The only thing that can kill the AGW religion is time................enough time so they can hand themselves.............!!!!!!!!

....so you are placing all your eggs in the "CO2 is not a by product of fossil fuel combustion and its not a Greenhouse gas" basket

Good luck with disproving the AGW fact

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:

As with all contrary data put forward by global warming hysterics it consists of some obscure report that we should listen to instead of the hundreds of reports that say the opposite ... its a minority report  ;D

WAR IS CONDUCTED IN THE ECONOMIC SPHERE  :-? :-?

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Life flourished on earth when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere........??????? The only thing that can kill the AGW religion is time................enough time so they can hand themselves.............!!!!!!!!

WHAT SORT OF LIFE???????????????  :o :o

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:31pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:37pm: As with all contrary data put forward by global warming hysterics it consists of some obscure report that we should listen to instead of the hundreds of reports that say the opposite ... its a minority report  ;D list those 100s of reports, or be gone with your putrid carcass weasel of Hades The funny thing is that you would even read one of them if I did  ;D

THE FUNNY THING IS YOU WOULDN'T EVEN CARE IF YOUR KIDS HATED YOU!!  :D :D

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:

That's  good point Muso* I too have wondered what long term exposure to a certain level of c02 would do to humans and other organism. Everything is short term like, giving someone mouth to mouth, I don't know how they can gauge the effects long term of a high c02 level without having someone actually.....be effected by increased c02 long term. I don't know anyone that would participate in that study lol.

WOW, vuk11 is questioning how scientific method created the world he lives in  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  8-)

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Another inconvenient truth that you don't like  ;D

Innocent just got pwned and doesn't like it!

Scientific method made the world around you bro and you can't take the heat!

Have fun hating your kids won't you... oh, and have fun hating mine and all your friends at the same time won't you: I hear red wine goes well with those thoughts!!


  :D :D :D :D :D

P.s. your mates seriously love you behind your back for hating their kids btw  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

This is why sceptics are sceptics, for every scientific report you can wheel out about climate change I can wheel out another thats says the opposite, the difference with global warming hysterics is they just choose to ignore any other inconvenient truths that don't fit their beliefs, or they descend into total idiocy and claim its all an oil company conspiracy LOL, sceptics look at all the available information, thats why being a sceptic is the only one true path when it comes to climate change debate.  ;)

LET'S NOT MENTION VESTED INTERESTS BUT..................  :D :D I MEAN THE STOCK MARKET DOESN'T EXIST TO KEEP THE RICH FROM WORKING DOES IT NOW?!!!?


  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

muso wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 3:01pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 2:09pm: This is why sceptics are sceptics, for every scientific report you can wheel out about climate change I can wheel out another thats says the opposite, the difference with global warming hysterics is they just choose to ignore any other inconvenient truths that don't fit their beliefs, or they descend into total idiocy and claim its all an oil company conspiracy LOL, sceptics look at all the available information, thats why being a sceptic is the only one true path when it comes to climate change debate.  ;) You talk about IPCC Reports, but you've never read one. You also say things like: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 3:37pm: Quote: Ha ha I told you "skepticalscience" would rot yer brains You don't look at all available information, therefore you are not a sceptic.  You are a denier. You just don't get it do you?, I don't need to read anything to know there are two sides to the debate and therefore the logical position is the sceptical one. I have read an IPCC report and I've had a look at "scepticalcranks" , there are thousands of well respected scientists that are sceptics, until they are convinced and we have a real consensus instead of a sceptical cranks manufactured consenus I think it would be prudent and logical to keep an open mind on the subject.

::) ::) <<<===================== NICE COMMENT  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 5:51pm: Life flourished on earth when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere........??????? The only thing that can kill the AGW religion is time................enough time so they can hand themselves.............!!!!!!!! ....so you are placing all your eggs in the "CO2 is not a by product of fossil fuel combustion and its not a Greenhouse gas" basket Good luck with disproving the AGW fact

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn204/Pulse_Warrior/Random/boomtish.gif

You escape again?

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:10pm:

You escape again?

ARE YOU BORED OF THE CRACK YET??

LIFE IS SO BORING WHEN DADDYKINS GIVE YOU A HOUSE TO SMOKE CRACK IN...  ;D ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

muso wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 3:01pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 2:09pm: This is why sceptics are sceptics, for every scientific report you can wheel out about climate change I can wheel out another thats says the opposite, the difference with global warming hysterics is they just choose to ignore any other inconvenient truths that don't fit their beliefs, or they descend into total idiocy and claim its all an oil company conspiracy LOL, sceptics look at all the available information, thats why being a sceptic is the only one true path when it comes to climate change debate.  ;) You talk about IPCC Reports, but you've never read one. You also say things like: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 3:37pm: Quote: Ha ha I told you "skepticalscience" would rot yer brains You don't look at all available information, therefore you are not a sceptic.  You are a denier. You just don't get it do you?, I don't need to read anything to know there are two sides to the debate and therefore the logical position is the sceptical one. I have read an IPCC report and I've had a look at "scepticalcranks" , there are thousands of well respected scientists that are sceptics, until they are convinced and we have a real consensus instead of a sceptical cranks manufactured consenus I think it would be prudent and logical to keep an open mind on the subject.

what debate?

you mean the debate on the internet and in the corporately owned Mass Media?

Where is the controversy in the scientific community with respect to AGW and climate change?

AGW is one of the most uncontroversial FACTS in modern science

We are not talking about String Theory here, which has ZERO supporting evidence and makes ZERO predictions (essentially making it a mathematical philosophy rather than a scientific discipline or scientific theory)

YOu need to stop attending your DENIALIST church and having confessions with the priests.

good luck!

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

You just don't get it do you?, I don't need to read anything to know there are two sides to the debate and therefore the logical position is the sceptical one. I have read an IPCC report and I've had a look at "scepticalcranks" , there are thousands of well respected scientists that are sceptics, until they are convinced and we have a real consensus instead of a sceptical cranks manufactured consenus I think it would be prudent and logical to keep an open mind on the subject.

I'd love to see where you got that "IPCC Report" from.

Quote:

Your search - skeptics, cranks site:www.ipcc.ch - did not match any documents.

Quote:

Your search - "skeptical cranks" site:www.ipcc.ch - did not match any documents.

I did find some mention of skeptics though:

AR5 Scoping Meeting
Venice, Italy, 13-17 July 2009

AR5-SCOP/INF. 1, p.29


Quote:

II/7 Uncertainties and counter-arguments . The IPCC WG-I could deal with the arguments and views expressed by the so-called climate skeptics to some extent, if those views are scientifically well based. In this way the Panel could decrease the frequency and harmful effects of the parallel treatment and equal weighting of the scientific and the sceptic information by the media. Correct arguments could assist the better understanding of readers/users of the IPCC products. In other words, exact, scientific and referred answers are needed to the repeatedly occurring sceptic argumentation. In some cases, such divergent views could prompt a need for some further research.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 7:10pm: You escape again? ARE YOU BORED OF THE CRACK YET?? LIFE IS SO BORING WHEN DADDYKINS GIVE YOU A HOUSE TO SMOKE CRACK IN...  ;D ;D

I did warn you.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 5:51pm: Life flourished on earth when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere........??????? The only thing that can kill the AGW religion is time................enough time so they can hand themselves.............!!!!!!!! WHAT SORT OF LIFE???????????????  :o :o

The first mammals appeared about 225 million years ago, since then we have had CO2 levels that have come close to 3000ppm, and mammals thrived.

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 6:54pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 5:51pm: Life flourished on earth when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere........??????? The only thing that can kill the AGW religion is time................enough time so they can hand themselves.............!!!!!!!! WHAT SORT OF LIFE???????????????  :o :o The first mammals appeared about 225 million years ago, since then we have had CO2 levels that have come close to 3000ppm, and mammals thrived.

What sort of mammals?

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:09pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 3:20pm: I have read an IPCC report I'd love to see where you got that "IPCC Report" from.

From the IPCC Gumby, where the hell else would I get it from?  ;D , but you just keep on doing what global warming hysterics do best, plant your fingers firmly in your ears and go lalalalala when any contradicting evidence on AGW theory comes your way  ;D  ;D  ;D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 10:09pm:

The first mammals appeared about 225 million years ago, since then we have had CO2 levels that have come close to 3000ppm, and mammals thrived.

What sort of mammals?
[/quote]


Yeah what mammals, that just can't be possible, everyone knows that the early 1900's co2 level was the perfect level for all life ever and no other level can be accepted, at least thats what some global warming cranks told me anyway  ;D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 10:09pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 8:49pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 6:54pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 5:51pm: Life flourished on earth when we had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere........??????? The only thing that can kill the AGW religion is time................enough time so they can hand themselves.............!!!!!!!! WHAT SORT OF LIFE???????????????  :o :o The first mammals appeared about 225 million years ago, since then we have had CO2 levels that have come close to 3000ppm, and mammals thrived. What sort of mammals?

Google it.............you have hands don't you.........!!!!!