• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere just hit its highest level in 800,000 years

I fear you'll be waiting a very very long time.

Ultimately, people like him don't accept the authority of any source that says anything except what they want to hear. When you're ready to write off hundreds of thousands of scientists as corrupted by Grant money or some shit into forging countless data points, you're beyond any reasonable doubt and with it reasonable discussion is no longer possible.

I've seen him dismiss data in favor of human caused climate change because of the possibility it may represent an agenda on one day, then on another day present and accept evidence of climate denialism by geoscientists seemingly both completely unaware of and completely uncaring of the fact the geo science is the science largely employed by oil companies for locating oil deposits.

With that in might it couldn't be more clear to me that he is not interested in trying to be objective or rational discussion and only in finding evidence that supports his existing conclusion. In light of that, I don't think his position is worth whatever small legitimacy it might gain from pretending to take it seriously.

The time for giving a benefit of the doubt is long over. Every denialist argument has been debunked and redebunked over and over. I say let him delude himself in his laughable belief that it's "ironic" or somehow unscientific to exercise intelligent time management in ignoring people like him. Because of his mistaken interpretation of scientific falsifiability that in his mind means every stupid idea must be considered and restudied and retested over and over forever never acting on anything. Convenient that once again that interpretation results in no action taken. The desired result.

Which is why I now just mock it and try to move on to a more worthwhile discussion. But hey, it's your time to use however you like. But soon as you decide to be done with it you'll certainly have my support.
 
Last edited:
Grimez, want to address any of my points from my last post?

Look on most topics I'm like, okay, believe what you want and let's discuss even if we disagree, and even if it's frustrating. I just feel like this particular issue is the most important one we're facing and every single person with their head in the sand just allows the powers that be to keep pillaging the planet. If we don't do something this process will continue. Already 75% of the bulk of flying insects is gone, pollinators are becoming much more scarce, the coral reefs are dying off, the density of marine life is shrinking dramatically... the list goes on. This isn't the sort of issue to pussyfoot around and accept other theories. If you don't believe our emissions are hurting the planet and changing the ecosystem, you're not paying attention and your ideas are dangerous. This even goes beyond climate change, climate change is one aspect of ecosystem destruction. Put aside climate change for a minute (though as carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas it would be extremely difficult to deny that dumping billions of tons of it into the air every year has no effect on the amount of heat the atmosphere retains)... don't you agree that our emissions are pollution, and that pollution hurts the environment? Quit being an apologist for this shit continuing.
 
Umm. While I entirely believe in climate change and have little more than contempt for most who don't. Strictly speaking CO2 is NOT pollution. It's a greenhouse gas and it's causing climate change yeah, but calling it pollution doesn't really make much sense. That's pretty much the same as calling O2 plant pollution.

Semantics yes, but more misunderstanding is certainly not gonna help anything.
 
No, it's not. Calling it pollution suggests we need to be rid of it. That would be most unwise. It also suggests purely negative effects which isn't entirely true either. Being such a complex system, such simplifications, especially ones this dubiously worded, aren't helpful. Introducing or propagating ignorance isn't a great way to fight a problem caused by ignorance.
 
At the very least it's misleading. The "official" definition is irrelivent is most people don't appreciate the differences and subtleties.

When people talk about carbon pollution, i'm pretty sure most people leave with a mistaken understanding of the effects and properties of carbon dioxide. I still don't think it's a wise choice of words.
 
People don't seem to really grasp the serious nature of excess carbon dioxide in the environment. After all, we do exhale it. Perhaps the finer semantic point is of less value than the overarching premise that we should try and curb emissions.
 
I think both perspectives are valid regarding carbon dioxide.

On the one hand, most people are uninformed about the basics of climate change and it's difficult to explain to them even if they want to know. Most people either don't care or don't want to take the time to understand what is happening because they don't feel empowered to change things that are impacting the environment on a global scale.

The hatred the Trump administration has for science, the withdrawal of the US from the Kyoto Protocol, and Trump's broad efforts to rescind regulations that protect the environment have also had a negative impact on the worldwide momentum to tackle climate change. The US government is abandoning climate change policies and touting denialism as opposed to making every effort to educate people and making climate change an urgent priority.

Overall, these things stifle understanding of and engagement with the issue of climate change. So in that sense carbon dioxide is definitely in the 'advanced' category.

On the other hand, it's important to explain the phenomenon of climate change accurately when an opportunity arises. Particularly because those opportunities are few and far between.

I can understand why carbon dioxide can be regarded as a pollutant, although that is an even more 'advanced' position on climate change. It reminds me of the lesson that many things can be a 'poison' to the human body, including water.

It's all about your audience.

An educational discussion about climate change also (hopefully) includes practical ways that people can reduce emissions themselves or to promote a larger effort (e.g. a petition, call your political representatives). Everyone can do something, and people need to know at least that much.
 
Last edited:
JessFR said:
I still don't think it's a wise choice of words.
Click to expand...

It is, i.e. why sound pollution is also real. It's something that also needs to be limited, not eliminated.

Just because something doesn't seem that way to you doesn't mean it isn't.

This is what the excess CO2 is going to do to the beings living in the ocean by 2100. This is one of its many deleterious effects as a pollutant.

Pterapod_shell_dissolved_in_seawater_adjusted_to_an_ocean_chemistry_projected_for_the_year_2100.jpg


All the coral in the oceans today won't be there in the future if we keep going the way we do.
 
Having read the counter arguments having thought about it more, I'm ready to back down and say I was wrong. Co2 definitely meets the generally accepted definition of a pollutant. So the only question to me now is if I'm still right to be concerned about how the use of that term might mislead people. And the more I think about it the more I'm thinking that the reverse (that CO2 is definitely not a pollutant) is even more misleading.

So yeah, I'm gonna withdraw my objection here. Cause I'm now almost completely convinced my argument was almost entirely wrong. I'm human, it happens.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for taking the time to do the reading. The environment as it is today, is really important. Without it, 7 billion human beings likely can't all exist as we are now. The population is already going to balloon likely to 80 billion before plateauing. We're already suffering from depleted fish in the ocean, etc. Many people rely on fish as their source of protein.

Most people stick their head in the sand. I appreciate you look into science and facts and form opinions.
 
JessFR said:
Having read the counter arguments having thought about it more, I'm ready to back down and say I was wrong. Co2 definitely meets the generally accepted definition of a pollutant. So the only question to me now is if I'm still right to be concerned about how the use of that term might mislead people. And the more I think about it the more I'm thinking that the reverse (that CO2 is definitely not a pollutant) is even more misleading.

So yeah, I'm gonna withdraw my objection here. Cause I'm now almost completely convinced my argument was almost entirely wrong. I'm human, it happens.
Click to expand...

I really admire this <3
 
I wonder if that would give the moon an atmosphere of carbon dioxide over time, or if its gravity is too weak to hold it for enough time to accumulate? Either way if we could get there, it would be a good idea... we don't live on the moon and it seems far more likely that we could colonize Mars.
 
Xorkoth said:
I wonder if that would give the moon an atmosphere of carbon dioxide over time, or if its gravity is too weak to hold it for enough time to accumulate? Either way if we could get there, it would be a good idea... we don't live on the moon and it seems far more likely that we could colonize Mars.
Click to expand...

Ideally we need ways to scrub large amounts of co2 from the atmosphere. And energy generation that won't cause as much damage.

For the latter issue, if it were up to me, I'd probably increase investment in nuclear fusion technology. It'd be great if we could get that working. In the long term anyway.

In the short term, I'd wanna see increased reliance on wind, solar, and where appropriate, nuclear fission.

Nuclear fission gets such a bad rap. But it's extremely safe these days, there's no legitimate safety concerns. And as for environmental concerns, it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than simply continuing to pump out co2 with existing power generating technology. It's not ideal, but the planet probably can't afford for us to wait for an ideal replacement to fossil fuels. Nuclear fission could serve as an excellent stopgap. With solar and wind making up as much of our power needs as they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top