[Pants-of-dog]

@Hong Wu

Do you understand that carbon also moves through the Earth in a cycle, and will eventually be put back into the air by volcanoes and other geological events?

[Crantag]

What were the super long run consequences of not burning fossil fuels through all of recorded, human, and geological history, during the entire history of the world pre-industrial revolution?

If climate change is all a hoax, at the bearest of minimums, we are experiencing widespread air pollution (and indeed water, ground, and other types of pollution) from burning fossil fuels.

They weren't burning much fossil fuels through all of human history, save for the past couple hundred years or so. So yeah, we have the record of what would happen.

This is the stupidest thread I've seen in a while. Hong Wu outdid himself with this.

[Atlantis]

So yeah, we have the record of what would happen.

Exactly, life emerged on a barren rock in the universe. The climate change deniers want to reverse that life-creating process by a death-producing process. Death not in a positive sense as a source for new life, but in a negative sense of destroying life for good. We literally live on the detritus of innumerable dead animals and plants that have accumulated since the beginning of organic life on this planet. Nothing can live on the toxic detritus of industrial society.

[Truth To Power]

CO2 is toxic to animals.

Not in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

So an atmosphere high in CO2 would actually have little animal life even if it had more plant life.

Only if by "high" you mean at least an order of magnitude more than the current level.

The current increase in CO2 is happening at the same time as massive deforestation, so even this benefit is being nullified by human impact.

A lot of the forest is being cut for fuel. If people had better access to fossil fuels, they would cut down fewer trees. The increase in forested area in North America and Russia over the last century is largely attributable to the abandonment of wood as a fuel source in favor of fossil fuels.

Also, sheer mass is not the best way to look at the health of a biosphere. You would want to look at biodiversity and other factors.

But sheer mass is a good first approximation.

Exactly, life emerged on a barren rock in the universe.

Life emerged on a planet with a high-CO2 atmosphere.

The climate change deniers want to reverse that life-creating process by a death-producing process.

You have it backwards. Life has been sequestering carbon, and if it proceeds much further, there won't be enough carbon in the atmosphere to sustain life.

Nothing can live on the toxic detritus of industrial society.

Clearly false. Lots of animals thrive on the detritus of industrial society.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

Only if by "high" you mean at least an order of magnitude more than the current level.

A lot of the forest is being cut for fuel. If people had better access to fossil fuels, they would cut down fewer trees. The increase in forested area in North America and Russia over the last century is largely attributable to the abandonment of wood as a fuel source in favor of fossil fuels.

But sheer mass is a good first approximation.

Life emerged on a planet with a high-CO2 atmosphere.

You have it backwards. Life has been sequestering carbon, and if it proceeds much further, there won't be enough carbon in the atmosphere to sustain life.

Clearly false. Lots of animals thrive on the detritus of industrial society.

Do you have an actual argument?

[Truth To Power]

Dear god, science education is truly shitty these days, and the Dunning-Kruger effect means all these people without a sodding clue think they know enough to opine about science on the internet.

Ahem:

In the very long term, the carbon cycle for the earth includes carbon deposited on the sea floor as organic matter or carbonate rocks, subsumed at plate boundaries under the earth's crust, and eventually expelled in volcanic eruptions (this is the mechanism proposed to have ended the "Snowball Earth").

The release of sequestered carbon by tectonic processes is far less than 100%. Much is deposited in stable formations far from plate boundaries that cannot be expected to be released over geological time spans. As a consequence, the pre-industrial level of atmospheric CO2 was approaching the minimum needed to sustain life.

[KS mod edit: Rule 2]

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

As far as I can tell, you have no argument.

You have a few unsupported criticisms, and you have not shown how they relate to the original claim.

[Sivad]

The earth contains something like 100,000,000 gigatons of carbon and the biosphere comprises a tiny fraction of that at only a few thousand gigatons, so it's doubtful that the size of the biosphere is determined by quantity of available carbon.

[Rancid]

This settles it. We should burn as much fossil fuels as possible.

[Palmyrene]

This settles it. We should burn as much fossil fuels as possible.

I agree. I've got bones in the attic. You know what to do.

[SolarCross]

The earth contains something like 100,000,000 gigatons of carbon and the biosphere comprises a tiny fraction of that at only a few thousand gigatons, so it's doubtful that the size of the biosphere is determined by quantity of available carbon.

It is not available to the biosphere if it is buried in the earth.

[Julian658]

@Truth To Power

As far as I can tell, you have no argument.

You have a few unsupported criticisms, and you have not shown how they relate to the original claim.

A 3rd grader knows that the planet is greener since due to the burning of fossil fuels.

[Pants-of-dog]

A 3rd grader knows that the planet is greener since due to the burning of fossil fuels.

3rd graders also know Santa Claus exists.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that the Earth is now greener due to all the pollution?

[Julian658]

Do you have any evidence for your claim that the Earth is now greener due to all the pollution?

As a lefty you are supposed to be an expert in climate change. This is painful to watch.
Why do you always ask for citations for things that are so obvious? This is something that I learned in the 3rd grade.
Next you are going to ask for a citation to prove the Earth is spherical?

[Palmyrene]

As a lefty you are supposed to be an expert in climate change. This is painful to watch.
Why do you always ask for citations for things that are so obvious? This is something that I learned in the 3rd grade.
Next you are going to ask for a citation to prove the Earth is spherical?

Oh my god you're so basic.

He was making fun of you. What he said was basically you're claims with the stupid speech patterns removed.

[Julian658]

Oh my god you're so basic.

He was making fun of you. What he said was basically you're claims with the stupid speech patterns removed.

Let me ask you: Do you know why the earth is greener?

[Palmyrene]

Let me ask you: Do you know why the earth is greener?

Do you know how to take a joke?

[Pants-of-dog]

Let me ask you: Do you know why the earth is greener?

The Earth is actually not greener.

[Julian658]

The Earth is actually not greener.

Ignorance is bliss:
Human Activity in China and India Dominates the Greening of Earth, NASA Study Shows

Now POD will say that NASA is KKK or Neo NAZI
Is POD a BOT?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Julian658

Your source says that the Earth is greener than it was twenty years ago, and that this is due to forestation projects and agriculture.

It does not say that the Earth is greener since we have started burning fossil fuels and that this use of fossil fuels is the cause of the rise in foliage.