EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_Tobin]

So, the answer to my question is "no."

by the way, we aren't talking about whether "life" in some form will do fine. We're talking about people.

Yes, we are. People with machines, technology, medicine, and all the advantages of modern civilization. Dinosaurs had none of that and lived just fine during the Jurassic. If we can't make it with all those advantages, we deserve to go extinct.

[_Tobin]

That's because you aren't taking into account the brightening of the sun. How much brighter do astronomers say the sun is today than it was in the Jurassic?

Not much. A billion years ago, the sun was 90% as bright as it is today. So 200 million years ago, maybe 98% as bright. That is not significant.

[_Quasimodo]

So, the answer to my question is "no."

by the way, we aren't talking about whether "life" in some form will do fine. We're talking about people.

Yes, we are. People with machines, technology, medicine, and all the advantages of modern civilization. Dinosaurs had none of that and lived just fine during the Jurassic. If we can't make it with all those advantages, we deserve to go extinct.

Many species of dinosaurs went extinct during the Jurassic period. Others took their place. It must have been the total lack of urgent care facilities.

[_Res Ipsa]

That's the problem, Tobin. Everything with you on this topic boils down to "I just can't believe it; therefore, I won't take it seriously. It's one big argument from incredulity.

I'll ask again: how much time have you spent looking at the scientific literature on this? I'm not making an argument that earth's vegetation will become like the vegetation in the Jurassic. I'm saying that your "what, me worry" argument based on the Jurassic is a bad one.

All of the questions you are asking have been investigated in the scientific literature. Why don't you take a look before staking out these kinds of strident positions?

I think if you can rationally and reasonably state why increasing CO2 concentrations to 1500 ppm is dangerous and have facts to back that up, I'm more than willing to listen. However, as I've pointed out repeatedly, it will take us centuries to reach that level and we'll exhaust our fossil fuel reserves to do it. It just isn't something that will happen tomorrow.

Now, the arguments I've seen against it are:

1) Plants and pollinators won't survive or will be greatly diminished. This will lead to mass starvation of human-beings. However, I've yet to have anyone state a good reason why that would be true in the least. If anything, increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere will be good for plants as will increasing the average temperature.

2) Human beings won't be able to adapt. Again, that seems baseless. Human-beings already live in a variety of climates and if it gets too hot somewhere for us to live, we can move.

I just don't see anything credible that is dangerous about increasing global CO2 concentrations. But I'd be happy to be informed differently.

You aren't seeing anything because you aren't trying to look. If you are determined to keep yourself ignorant, I can't do anything about that.

Increasing the CO2 level can be good for plants if they are CO2 limited. Our food crops aren't. Just because plants need water, for example, doesn't mean that continually increasing water will result in ever increasing crop yields. Also, for our food crops, any marginal benefits from increased CO2 are rapidly overcome by the other effects of global warming: increased heat and changes in precipitation patterns. Even now we are starting to see detrimental effects on crop yields.

The United States is Already balking at taking in a handful of refugees. What makes you think we'll be willing to take on hundreds of thousands to millions of climate refugees. And, as our food production dwindles, what makes you think Cansda is going to take on millions of Americans who were too stupid too recognize and act on the warnings for decades. And we tend to play nice. How about Russia? Who is going to take on all those bangladeshis who will be displaced by sea level rise? India? Pakistan? Facile hand waving doesn't cut it.

You keep clinging to the CO2 levels in the Jurassic and ignoring the fact that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. You can look this stuff up, but it takes a little effort.

[_Res Ipsa]

So, the answer to my question is "no."

by the way, we aren't talking about whether "life" in some form will do fine. We're talking about people.

Yes, we are. People with machines, technology, medicine, and all the advantages of modern civilization. Dinosaurs had none of that and lived just fine during the Jurassic. If we can't make it with all those advantages, we deserve to go extinct.

I'd say that if we are too stupid to avoid causing global warming in the first place, then we deserve to go extinct.

[_Res Ipsa]

That's because you aren't taking into account the brightening of the sun. How much brighter do astronomers say the sun is today than it was in the Jurassic?

Not much. A billion years ago, the sun was 90% as bright as it is today. So 200 million years ago, maybe 98% as bright. That is not significant.

Do you think the sunspot cycle affects global temperatures?

[_Gadianton]

Plants were pollinated just fine during the Jurassic period. Yet another unwarranted and silly claim.

Flowering plants and pollinator species that co-evolved with them didn't even exist in the Jurassic period. Further, the pollinator/angiosperm radiation occurred in the late Cretaceous. So, way to fail hard on that one.

LOL! omg. Tobin, you should really just ask questions instead of try to know something. These are nice guys, they'll help you out.

[_Tobin]

Plants were pollinated just fine during the Jurassic period. Yet another unwarranted and silly claim.

Flowering plants and pollinator species that co-evolved with them didn't even exist in the Jurassic period. Further, the pollinator/angiosperm radiation occurred in the late Cretaceous. So, way to fail hard on that one.

LOL! omg. Tobin, you should really just ask questions instead of try to know something. These are nice guys, they'll help you out.

I'd be happy to be helped out. First though, explain what I said that was factually inaccurate? Second, explain what would prevent flowering plants and pollinators from surviving under similar circumstances?

[_Res Ipsa]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -supplies/

[_Gunnar]

I just want to say at this point, I love the way the tone of the conversation in this thread has changed for the better. Even Tobin himself has been complicit in that. I am favorably impressed.