I failed to mention a couple other effects:

- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence

I added the new post because I saw you were online, and you might not have seen it otherwise.

- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering

A burgeoning human population of 7 billion plus people is ever more dependent on technology and future technology to properly survive, and have quality of life. If we destroy our ecosystem services, and continue with high extinction rates, it is analogous to bleeding like crazy.

If we destroy all the information that resides within biodiversity, the ultimate end is a vastly simplified planet, like a desert of sand. There's so much less information to tap in such a world. Our real wealth currently exists untapped in the rich complex state of life.

And I haven't even discussed all the other ecosystem services.

Now, regarding GDP. It's a poor measure of much of anything, and economists are beginning to realize that. GDP includes cleanup services, maintenance services, etc. These are not improvements in well being. An economy that spends increasingly large amounts of money on cleanup, correction, maintenance, etc. is not improving, but its GDP is increasing.

So, I'd encourage you to study modern economics, steady state economics, ecology, island biogeography, climate science, trophic cascades, EPA successes, etc., etc., etc.

Of course, you're free to continue to pontificate, and one day while doing so, perhaps not within the comfort of a forum like this where all your peers generally don't educate themselves on such matters, you might find yourself looking like a fool.

Good day, sir.

You mean like the endless set of libertarian think tanks which publish things like the Oregon Petition and Environment and Climate News and people like Frederick Seitz and Richard Lindzen all of whom are heavily funded by Exxon/Mobil?

It at least doesn't seem an unreasonable question.

Are you even remotely aware of what classes of damage I am referring to?

Do you have scientific studies showing all this damage that will occur to billions if we take action? Are you aware of the damage that is occurring right now by doing nothing?

Look at the boldfaced statement above. Now, we know you have libertarian views. Fine. How do these work together? You're suggesting that we wait, and wait, and wait, until it's all settled. But perhaps, it's exactly because of your libertarian views, is the reason you want to argue against what others believe to be already settled.

It has now been predicted that the arctic will be ice free in the summers within 20 years. We broke yet another record this year regarding arctic ice melt. Now, factor in ice albedo feedback loops. Google "ice albedo feedback loop". It's not good. And you want to wait.

Read it again. We were discussing pollutants. With regard to pollutants, which can be naturally occurring, or caused by humanity, the question is: are we putting out enough pollutants to cause global warming?

This question is not difficult to understand. But since you can't actually or don't want to discuss climate science, you instead want to find hidden subtle twists within such a simple statement. That's definitely a sign that you don't have much to contribute.

If you wish, for your convenience, we can agree to assume the absolute worst about my statement, and actually have a discussion about the science of climate change. I've offered you that opportunity, but you admit that you're not up to it.

I was hoping to have a discussion with you about climate change, but it's becoming apparent that you can't. Anyway, where was that circular logic you were talking about? And where did I mention reverting society to the stone age? You have all these funny assumptions, and they're quite cliched, and frankly, worthless.

Did you notice that the idiots providing commentary acted like they knew how to solve the problem yet never actually offered a solution? If the idiots providing commentary did have a solution, you know they would have volunteered it in the commentary. Did you also notice the idiots providing commentary made fun of the guys standing around watching while they themselves stood around and watched?

You believe AGW is happening or not?

Try again. My words are quoted right there. Specifically point out the circular logic.


In other words, you're not qualified to render an opinion on the subject matter here. Try again.

Bitcoinbitcoin113,

I asked you the above question earlier.

You guys can't even get straight what I say. Sad. I didn't tell anyone here to stop polluting. I told all the libertarians here to stop using fringe websites for their education about climate science. But if you insist I was doing something else, then I don't really mind being in the company of the likes of Warren Buffett. He understands that if he personally pays more in taxes, it won't matter. He knows that a unified effort of paying more taxes by the rich is what amounts to something.


Are you laughing smugly at what you believe is your own cleverness? I don't see any cleverness here. What I see is a kneejerk reaction by a libertarian who doesn't know that much about the topic at hand.


Please share what you know about climate science. I'm waiting.

I believe you are attaching way to much significance to your suspicions, likely because it fits what you wish for. Just like you, I can't claim to be familiar with even a tiny fraction of all the published articles, findings, data or discoveries one would find in Nature or it's sister publications, but instead of clinging to the idea that the science must be bad, I actually prefer the process of educating myself on the general aspects of climate science by following it to a fair degree of specificity and the ramifications of it.

I can tell that you instead like to ignore the forest and instead look for an anomaly in a tree, in hopes that it will yield something that you find significant to bolster your preconceived idea that climate science is bunk. How you could believe such a process of investigation could be taken seriously given a complete lack of desire in taking a look at many other trees in our metaphorical forest and a general overview of the forest itself and many of the mechanisms within it is beyond me.

How much do you really know about climate science given your belief in the failure of science and climate science in particular?

The science behind AGW does not purport to recognize anything but humanity driven pollution as the cause of AGW. Granted, one can call attention to the notion that there is not enough humanity driven pollution to cause global warming, but that's all. The question really boils down to whether there is enough humanity driven pollution to make AGW a reality.

I will make a guess as to what you know scientifically about climate change. I believe you think you know a fair amount, and I believe most of what you know is bogus material that you have absorbed through fringe websites which are politically motivated to smear climate science. That's my prediction. I'm challenging you right now, Mr "I have a scientific background." Show us. I will address what you share.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:


It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Really weak, in more ways than one. Elaborate.

I'm up for a good argument if you can provide one. What you're saying now is pretty weak.

No, there isn't one thing I can do. There are many things I can do. One of them is to point out the propaganda and lies and ignorance among the crowd who use sites like Atlas Shrugs or the Heartland Institute or who knows what to get their 'facts' on climate change.

Oh, and it's already been explained what pollutants are. It's not just my belief. Stop reading the fringe sites to get your scientific knowledge.

Your critical eye was obviously on vacation the day you cited Richard Lindzen's mutterings. I was the one who did the scrutinizing to show you the garbage that exists out there. And I have to continue to do it in these forums.