Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 31^st, 2012 at 12:32pm:


What would you know of statistical probability?
The average of atmospheric CO2 coexistent with life on this planet is about 5 times what it is now. Your idea of "full" is crap.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 31^st, 2012 at 3:21pm:


Levels consistent with life existing and indeed flourishing and what means "full" in relation to CO2, the atmosphere and that life have nothing to do with rates of change.
So you comment is irrelevant...but sadly consistent and nothing new.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 31^st, 2012 at 3:56pm:


I don't know how you manage to type in that straight-jacket?
But go take your medication and have a little lay down.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2012 at 12:43pm:


Probably a bit more than you, from what I can gather from the quality of your replies.

Quote:


Straw man. No one has said higher CO2 levels can't coexist with life. However, it is highly doubtful that human civilisation as it has evolved (i.e. growing cereal crops in the temperate latitudes) could coexist with the world the dinosaurs lived in. I don't think wheat, for example, does particularly well growing in the tropics, as the Cuban annual wheat harvest will testify.

I think the main problem you have is that you have never bothered to actually understand climate science nor the projections it makes.

If you honestly believe that any one has ever claimed high CO2 can't coexist with life then you are one very confused individual and I'm not at all surprised you think climate science is "alarmist".

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 31^st, 2012 at 5:39pm:


What you wrote yesterday you ignorant, fuktard of a twat. Get an education or at least a bit of paper and a blunt pencil, because you have not the sharpest of minds.

"If you had a fountain that pumped 3% of the total capacity of the reservoir into the air and back into the reservoir, then somebody stuck a hose in that was trickling in at a fraction of the rate of the actual fountain and caused the reservoir to overflow then it wouldn't matter that the hose was only trickling, it's still what caused the overflow."

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2012 at 6:24pm:


It's a metaphor, dude. The point, which is evidently lost on you, is that when you introduce an external source into a closed system then it doesn't matter if it's only a fraction of what's being circulated through the whole system, its' the the component which has been introduced that's "over flowing", i.e. in the same way that water over flowing from a fountain is not being pumped back through the system it's not being circulated through the natural carbon cycle but rather accumulating in the atmosphere.

But even now you've explained what you meant by full the sentence still doesn't make any sense. It's hard to be convinced of the strength of your arguments when you can't form coherent sentences.

Quote:


LOL, that was actually quite a good call. Consider me served

So, while I concede my "highly doubtful" is not based on any kind of statistical evaluation whatsoever, I would still be personally prepared to bet big money that you wouldn't be able to grow wheat in the tropics.

Because the point has never been that climate change will make like uninhabitable for life rather that conditions won't suit the civilisation that our species has come to rely on, the hallmarks of which (like agriculture) all evolved within a narrow window of relative climatic stability.

So, by all means, dismiss all of this with your abuse and your insults, all it does is belie the intellectual shallowness of your ideology.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 31^st, 2012 at 8:38pm:


So it's rates of change that are more important?