Can't we just remove carbon dioxide from the air to fix climate change? Not yet

August 4, 2015 by John Shepherd, The Conversation
Trees remove carbon dioxide naturally: can we do better? Credit: Coconino National Forest, CC BY-SA

If we have put too much CO2 into the air, wouldn't it make sense to find ways to remove it again? Well, yes: it would. But sadly it isn't likely to be easy or cheap and, according to new research, it isn't an adequate "solution" to the problems of climate change.

The possible "carbon removal" techniques are very diverse. They include growing trees on land or algae in the sea and capturing and burying some of the carbon they have taken from the atmosphere. There are also engineered solutions that "scrub" CO2 directly from the air, using chemical absorbents, and then recover, purify, compress and liquefy it, so that it can be buried deep underground. That sounds difficult and expensive, and at the moment, it is.

Both the UK Royal Society and the US National Research Council point out that doing it on a large enough scale to make a real difference would be hard. Nevertheless, a joint communiqué from UK learned societies recently argued that to limit global warming to 2℃ we are likely to need CO2 removal (CDR) rates in the latter part of this century that will exceed emissions at that time ("net negative emissions"). That will only be possible if we can deploy CDR technologies.

A new paper in Nature Communications shows just how big the required rates of removal actually are. Even under the IPCC's most optimistic scenario of future CO2 emission levels (RCP2.6), in order to keep temperature rises below 2℃ we would have to remove from the atmosphere at least a few billion tons of carbon per year and maybe ten billion or more – depending on how well conventional mitigation goes.

We currently emit around eight billion tonnes of carbon per year, so the scale of the enterprise is massive: it's comparable to the present global scale of mining and burning fossil fuels.

Carbon removal could potentially help to reduce problems such as ocean acidification. So a second paper in Nature Climate Change is also discouraging because it shows that even massive and sustained carbon removal at rates of five billion tonnes a year or more would not be enough to restore anything like pre-industrial conditions in the oceans, if mitigation efforts were to be relaxed.

Can’t we just remove carbon dioxide from the air to fix climate change? Not yet
‘Negative emission’ technology comes in many forms. Credit: Caldecott et al / SSEE

Don't give up

Does all this mean that carbon removal is a blind alley, and that further research is a waste of time (and money)? Well, no. But it is nothing like a : this latest research should serve to prevent any unrealistic expectations that we could find a "solution" to , or that carbon removal is any sort of alternative to reducing emissions.

Maintaining and increasing our efforts to reduce emissions is still the crucial top priority. But if we can develop removal methods that are safe and affordable, and that can be scaled up to remove a few billion tonnes per year, that would be useful even now, as it could augment those efforts to reduce CO2 emissions (which is not proving to be easy either).

In the longer term, once we have eliminated all the "easily" fixed sources of CO2 emissions, by generating more electricity from renewable sources and capturing carbon from power plants, we shall still be left with several intractable sources, including aviation and agriculture, that are exceedingly hard to abate.

It is then that we shall really need CO2 removal, to take from the air what cannot easily be prevented from reaching it. And beyond that, should we eventually decide that the level of CO2 in the air at which we have stabilised is too high for comfort, and should be reduced, carbon removal will be the only way to achieve that.

Massive scientific challenge

The low-tech biologically based removal methods are all going to be limited in their scale, not least by potential side-effects in the oceans and conflicts over alternative uses for any land required.

Can’t we just remove carbon dioxide from the air to fix climate change? Not yet
Is this the future? This US firm plans to capture carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Credit: Carbon Engineering

However several groups are working on promising methods for direct (physical and/or chemical) capture from the air, trying to reduce the energy, water and materials demands – and of course the costs – to acceptable levels.

In the longer term someone may find a suitable catalyst to accelerate the natural geochemical weathering processes that already remove CO2 from the air (but much too slowly to cope with man-made emissions). That would solve the CO2 disposal problem too, especially if we can avoid mining billions of tons of minerals to use as absorbent. But it's likely to take several decades to get from the lab to industrial-scale deployment – and none of these technologies will be deployed in practice until we have established a price on carbon emissions that makes them commercially worthwhile.

Carbon removal is not a magic bullet, but it is still a vitally important technology that we shall almost certainly need eventually. We should be researching it steadily and seriously, because it is going to take time and a lot of effort to develop methods that are safe and affordable and can be deployed on a massive scale.

So we should continue to research removal, not as a possible quick fix, but as a vital tool for the end game. It's a massive scientific and engineering challenge that really needs the sort of concerted effort that was devoted to going to the moon or building the Large Hadron Collider. And in my opinion it would be far more worthwhile.

John Shepherd is Professorial Research Fellow in Earth System Science at University of Southampton.

Explore further: CO2 removal cannot save the oceans—if we pursue business as usual

Related Stories

Accounting for short-lived forcers in carbon budgets

July 15, 2015

Limiting warming to any level requires CO2 emissions to be kept to within a certain limit known as a carbon budget. Can reducing shorter-lived climate forcers influence the size of this budget? A new IIASA study published ...

Going negative: Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

February 14, 2015

To combat climate change, President Obama has called for an 80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2050. To help achieve this goal, the President has encouraged big investments in wind, solar and other ...

CO2 removal can lower costs of climate protection

April 12, 2013

Directly removing CO2 from the air has the potential to alter the costs of climate change mitigation. It could allow prolonging greenhouse-gas emissions from sectors like transport that are difficult, thus expensive, to turn ...

Recommended for you

Mysterious deep-Earth seismic signature explained

November 22, 2017

New research on oxygen and iron chemistry under the extreme conditions found deep inside the Earth could explain a longstanding seismic mystery called ultralow velocity zones. Published in Nature, the findings could have ...

Scientists dispute missing dryland forests

November 21, 2017

Scientists are disputing the possibility that a significant portion of the world's forests have been missed in an earlier accounting of ecological diversity.

52 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Wadenoth
4.6 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
Has anyone calculated the likely energy cost of implementing this technology on the gigantic scale required to make a significant difference? Seems like a pretty important consideration.
Bill66
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2015
Maybe you should read the article. Second paragraph, last sentence.
antigoracle
3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
Another piece of regurgitated garbage from The Conversation.
Come on Chicken Littles, gobble up.
EyeNStein
4 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
Since the economy is driven by energy consumption, you would think governments would be motivated to invest more heavily in the future of energy??
But where are the major (Manhattan project scale) investments in vehicle/portable/grid-storage batteries; solar installations; cleaner nuclear power and GM algae for bio-diesel?
These technologies which will quite soon be essential to the future of our civilisation have been minimised because they are seen as a threat to vested interests skewed by short term cheap and profitable fossil fuel production.
Longer term and environmental considerations don't get a look in beyond the next 4 year election term.
my2cts
4 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015

Longer term and environmental considerations don't get a look in beyond the next 4 year election term.

I guess you did not hear Obama's speech on the news today.
Wadenoth
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
Maybe you should read the article. Second paragraph, last sentence.


Saying it's difficult and expensive does not sound like a serious analysis of the energy cost.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2015
Since the economy is driven by energy consumption, you would think governments would be motivated to invest more heavily in the future of energy??
But where are the major (Manhattan project scale) ...


Good question.

I've been calling for a massive government funded Manhattan'esque project for fundamental energy research for years,... in particular for safer nuclear fission and fusion, hydrogen, everything,... and allow the market to scale it. It is in part an infrastructure issue.

Government has only made nuclear less likely to be used. It is to the point that one should be suspicious, ....after all if AGW is a catastrophe for mankind.

The only answer I can come up with is that any technology that actually reduces CO2 emissions will have to undermine and compete with the usefulness of AGW as a trojan-horse for implementing far-left ideology,... gov regulation, redistribution of wealth, social engineering, .... and yet clearly AGW is a technological issue.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2015
Noumenon: I actually don't think it's quite so conspiratorial.

Nuclear is great... in theory. When you look at humans running plants, when you look at "lowest bidder" construction practices, when you look at (irrational though it may be) the NIMBY issue of waste storage, when you look at our society's complete inability to fund infrastructure upkeep... it's really difficult to say that it is, for sure, a net good. And I say this as someone who very much wishes it *was* more used, and newer plants were built. It's far more "social" inertia than "government" resistance, I think.

And if you want a "government funded Manhattan-esque" research project, I imagine tons of scientists would totally support it. But politically, it's a non-starter. Science research budgets are being slashed and slashed except for when they're building completely useless failed warplanes for wars that won't be fought.
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
Maybe you should read the article. Second paragraph, last sentence.


Saying it's difficult and expensive does not sound like a serious analysis of the energy cost.

If you are in the business of churning out propaganda and alarmism, then that's all you need.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
What I'd really actually like to see, and I think is somewhat politically feasible to do is a "revenue neutral carbon tax." Put a tax on the carbon needed to produce energy, and the carbon used to produce goods internationally (ie, importing goods in high-carbon-cost countries).

Then use that revenue to, one, create a tax credit for consumers to help offset (but not fully subsidize) their increased energy costs (for their home use, say).

Then with the remaining revenue, fund the "Manhattan-style/Apollo-project" research into new energy production, carbon sequestration, and other mitigation factors.

Plus, maybe some money going to a FEMA trust-fund so that we're internalizing the cost of repairing the damages of climate change. If there are increased disasters, we can help cover the increased costs through money we're raising "now." (ie, if economy is good now because energy is cheap and AGW hasn't "kicked in," now's the time to save for the coming rainy or firey days)
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
We do not need a Manhattan Project to save us, we only need the Deniers to sit down and be quiet while they learn science.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
Nuclear is great... in theory, [...] it's really difficult to say that it is, for sure, a net good.


A Manhattan-esque project for safer nuclear as I called for would address these issues.

And if you want a "government funded Manhattan-esque" research project, I imagine tons of scientists would totally support it. But politically, it's a non-starter. Science research budgets are being slashed and slashed....


Which is why it is suspiciously perplexing,...especially in the context of 'climate change being cataclysmic for mankind'.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories either. That the far-left are using climate change as a foot-in-the-door for their political agenda, is as real as it is that AGW-Cataclysmic-Enthusiasts and AGW-Skeptics fall for the most part on different political sides,... the latter being a natural reaction of the former.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2015
"That the far-left are using climate change as a foot-in-the-door for their political agenda"
-------------------------------

Right-wingers are sure we all have their poor character, and just assume we would lie like they do. Their screams of "WMD!" may have gotten them their war, but they screwed up getting the oil, so we lost $4,000,000,000,000 dollars in those mass killings for nothing.

Now, they do not want to PAY FOR IT!

But we have real evidence for AGW, and they think we are cheaters like they are, so they scream "LIAR!" and nasties in all caps.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2015
What I'd really actually like to see, and I think is somewhat politically feasible to do is a "revenue neutral carbon tax." Put a tax on the carbon needed to produce energy


Economies are delicate things, and oil/coal keeps them alive at present for the most part, so gov button-pushing and dial-turning to coerce investment behavior seems more risky and less direct than just letting the market be the arbiter, while funding basic research.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
But we have real evidence for AGW, and they think we are cheaters like they are, so they scream "LIAR!" and nasties in all caps.


Jeepers creepers guy, CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Do you have a rate of reaction equation handy to tell us how & to what level you want this reduced for optimum propagation of plant life so we can eat? Should 0.03% be the goal? How about 0.02%? Do you even know what happens when surface density of CO2 reaches these levels?

Do you even think about the effects on propagation of plant life when the surface density of CO2 is so low that plant life will be suffocated to to lack of CO2? And since the end of the last ice age how do you even know this is not what the problem has been?
shavera
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2015
[Which is why it is suspiciously perplexing,...especially in the context of 'climate change being cataclysmic for mankind'.


But scientists don't really have much influence on the US political process. The House committee on science, space, and technology is run entirely by very vocally anti-science members of congress.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2015
That the far-left are using climate change as a foot-in-the-door for their political agenda,


I'm going to disagree with you here. There's simply a fundamental difference of what the role of government is. Is the government primarily responsible to prevent harm, or to promote good?

If it's just to prevent harm, then you have to believe, truly, that AGW is an explicit harm before the government must take action. That's been hard to prove.

If you believe it's to promote good, then the government has a responsibility to enact policies that improve the quality of life. Thus, even if AGW isn't a provable harm, the government should be encouraging improvements to our energy infrastructure.

People on the right tend to prefer the "prevent harm" strategy, since they perceive public action as being at the cost of private liberties. People on the left tend to prefer the "promote good" because they believe the costs (to liberty, say) are outweighed by the benefits.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2015
Benni, it is entirely disingenuous to refer to CO2 levels by absolute proportion of presence in the atmosphere. If you don't think 0.04% of something can't cause any effect, I'm sure you won't mind drinking a 0.04% solution of cyanide, right? I mean... it's so little of the whole glass of water, it surely couldn't hurt anything.

It's obvious to even the most casual observer of science that it is the relative amount of CO2 compared to previous times that is going to be the more meritorious measure.

And historically, we see that when the temperature rose, CO2 rose after it. So we know that rising temperatures often lead to positive CO2 feedback. This time, however, we don't see CO2 rise *after* temperature, but *before* it. So obviously this is a previously unseen trend, and we don't fully know (though we have good guesses) how life will respond to this form of CO2->heating->CO2 positive feedback cycle.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2015
[Which is why it is suspiciously perplexing,...especially in the context of 'climate change being cataclysmic for mankind'.


But scientists don't really have much influence on the US political process. The House committee on science, space, and technology is run entirely by very vocally anti-science members of congress.


I don't know of anyone specifically anti-science in congress and if so why them?

What can be agreed upon? Not, doing nothing. But also, not far-left ideological solutions that counter free market forces either. When the USA sent a man to the moon,... they didn't do so because it was made of cheese,... they did it because doing so would produce all manner of technological advancements. A Manhattan-esque project for next gen energy infrastructure and fundamental research (not specific application nor gov choosing the future tech), could be agreed upon by both sides, if presented in a politically inclusive way, imo.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2015
"I don't know of anyone specifically anti-science in congress."
-----------------------------

WHAT???

Inhofe? Conservatives get their science from the Bible, Big Money, and political prejudice.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
The beginning of human agriculture during the current Holocene epoch may have been strongly connected to the atmospheric CO2 increase after the last ice age ended, a fertilization effect raising plant biomass growth and reducing stomatal conductance requirements for CO2 intake, consequently reducing transpiration water losses and increasing water usage efficiency.

OK Shavera, you want to be the next genius on the chemistry of photo-synthesis. Then you be the one to come up with a Rate of Reaction Equation to explain to us what the suffocation point to plant life will be when 0.04% is already so thin that all that needs to happen is for the planet to drop to 0.03% & we get an ice age.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
Will he have to use "differential equations"? If so, I'll get my kid.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
Will he have to use "differential equations"? If so, I'll get my kid.


........for coming up with a Rate of Reaction Equation? Do you even know what you're talking about?
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2015
"Do you even know what you're talking about?"
------------------------------

Yeah, I'm talking about the guy who thinks that is the epitome of intellectual success.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2015
the far-left are using climate change as a foot-in-the-door for their political agenda,....


I'm going to disagree with you here. There's simply a fundamental difference of what the role of government is. Is the government primarily responsible to prevent harm, or to promote good?


I don't think you're disagreeing with me, ... the problem is that the proposed solutions have not been politically inclusive. The far left desire consumption regulation and coercion, wealth redistribution, social engineering, global economic justice. The political right then is obliged to react negatively,... though in a way misguided imo.

The solution is not one of gov button pushing but rather both gov funding of next gen infrastructure and basic research and market place scaling wrt economic forces.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2015
Will he have to use "differential equations"? If so, I'll get my kid.

Hmm... someone with brains in the family. Don't ever do a paternity test on that kid.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
"Do you even know what you're talking about?"

------------------------------

Yeah, I'm talking about the guy who thinks that is the epitome of intellectual success.


I'd be flattered to know you're talking about me. This is exactly how I view myself & it pleases me others recognize that as well.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2015
"I don't know of anyone specifically anti-science in congress."
-----------------------------

WHAT???

Inhofe? Conservatives get their science from the Bible, Big Money, and political prejudice.


I don't believe that a member of the House committee on science, space, and technology of all things, is run by people who don't believe in science. My mind could be changed with evidence though.....
shavera
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
Benni, I do *get* what you're saying about a "rate of reaction" for CO2. I just disagree with your conclusion is that it is sensitive to a variation from 0.04% to 0.03%. That seems like an assertion that isn't supported by data.

This paper: http://onlinelibr...sec-0020 suggests that the response is strongly non-linear. It goes like 1-(intakeConcentration/atmosphericConcentration). It behaves asymptotically. So while you can "suffocate" plants by diminishing Ca, their growth is asymptotically limited as atmospheric concentration rises. Ie, going from 0.04% to 0.03% is wildly different than 0.04% to 0.05%
shavera
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
Noumenon:
Here are quotes by James Inhofe on climate change: https://www.skept...php?s=30

Here's some by member Broun:
http://www.salon....mittee/, most famously: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," Broun said at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman's Banquet recently. "And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
If you saw the video of Broun, you would notice the vast collection of animal trophies on the walls - God's creatures killed by thrill-killers. These folk are just brutal goobers.
shavera
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
Noumenon, I think you have an overly rosy view of the Apollo program. There is no way congress, as it is now, would ever approve landing on the moon. MOST of why NASA in the 60s functioned was because you could get Hawks on board as an anti-USSR Cold War strategy. They didn't vote for it because of technological progress, because of improved economic strategies, it was a military-industrial program.

I don't know of any "free-market" solution to AGW, when you get down to it. The best I can think of is a Carbon Tax, that tries to internalize the costs of burning fossil fuels to make energy. The problem with "free-market" stuff is that actors in the market seem to ignore tragedies of the commons or external costs.

example to be cont.
shavera
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
Suppose you run a coal power plant. You pay for coal, you pay for facilities, infrastructure, and labour. You sell your electricity at some price, and so your profits are driven by revenue of power sale minus the costs you pay directly for.

But let's say I live downwind from your power plant. My property is damaged by the particulate matter from your smoke, mercury and arsenic and other elements present in coal, and so on. So for you to produce power, you must damage my property.

Whose property rights supercede whose? Should I have to sue your power plant to recover damages? What about all my neighbors? Should they all have to go through the legal system, prove that you caused damages, that you intended to or negligently did it, and then hope that your money (as a company) doesn't beat my money (as an individual) to hire lawyers and win in court? (supposing I have the money in the first place, even, to bring suit)
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
Benni, I do *get* what you're saying about a "rate of reaction" for CO2. I just disagree with your conclusion is that it is sensitive to a variation from 0.04% to 0.03%. That seems like an assertion that isn't supported by data.

This paper: http://onlinelibr...sec-0020 suggests that the response is strongly non-linear. It goes like 1-(intakeConcentration/atmosphericConcentration). It behaves asymptotically. So while you can "suffocate" plants by diminishing Ca, their growth is asymptotically limited as atmospheric concentration rises. Ie, going from 0.04% to 0.03% is wildly different than 0.04% to 0.05%


OK, cherrypick your non-linearity of data, mix that up with all the leading/lagging indicators of CO2 that you can devise, then use that for extrapolation of data that can be interpreted for any outcome to which you set your imagination, then label it "settled science".
shavera
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
Or, isn't it better, instead, to pre-empt the system of you doing whatever you please, damaging my property, me having to sue you, and so on by simply saying that your production can't interfere with my property rights (including rights to my own personal health)

If I have coastal property, and rising oceans threaten to damage the property, who do I sue? Can I sue a power plant across the country? Can I sue the shipping industry burning tons of bunker fuel? What use is the money from a lawsuit if my health has suffered, or if I've died? Why do I have to suffer damage first and then fight to recover inadequate damages?

So to me, environmentalism is VERY much about protecting private property rights. It prevents others from forcing the byproduct of their capital and production to damage my property and my rights.

solution con't
shavera
4.9 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2015
So, to me, the best way to handle the damage is to internalize the costs up front. Rather than creating damage and then placing the burden of that damage on society as a whole (say public funding of FEMA, eg), we should take the costs of remediation and charge for it "up front." If you want to buy power, you should have to pay for handling the damage of that power too.

To me, that seems like it should be a taxation on fossil fuel burn. It's proportional to use, which is somewhat more "fair" than just sharing the costs over everyone. (people who create more CO2 pay more for the privilege to do so).

We can then use the revenue to do several things, like saving for remediation, offsetting the increased costs for people who would face disproportionately large changes to quality of life, and funding research into alternatives and remedies.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2015
Benni: Citing a study that shows your argument to be flawed is not "cherrypicking." It's science.

You had a hypothesis (plants will respond better to more CO2). That hypothesis has been tested. Your hypothesis was not supported by the data.

You had two choices at that point, admit you were wrong, or cling to your belief even in the face of contradictory evidence. You chose the latter. Which is fine, I guess, but it means that fundamentally, you're not actually interested in the science of climate change. You're interested in beliefs about how reality should be, rather than how it is.
Wadenoth
1 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
You're interested in beliefs about how reality should be, rather than how it is.


Neither of you know how it is. Anyone who claims to know how such an awesome system behaves is a fool.

A bit more humility might engender more respect in your opinions. As it is, you look like children arguing in the playground.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2015
Mauna Loa must be broken. Are these readings what we are basing worldwide panic on? 7PPM of Co2 decline in 2 days is just not possible with a functioning measurement system.

http://co2now.org...co2.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2015
These folk are just brutal goobers
Psychopaths are the most brutal of human beings because they have no capacity whatsoever for guilt or empathy.

"Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.

"And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools."

-'Fools' - read goobers. The irony is that a psychopaths victims are often far smarter than they are; smart enough to know that their mistakes and shortcomings are their own fault and not the fault of 'goobers'.

Psychopaths are often too stupid to recognize cause and effect.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
A Manhattan-esque project for safer nuclear as I called for would address these issues.
MIGHT address those issues. Frankly I think the issues are well established, the problem is more societal than technical.

Which is why it is suspiciously perplexing,...especially in the context of 'climate change being cataclysmic for mankind'.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories either. That the far-left are using climate change as a foot-in-the-door for their political agenda, is as real as it is that AGW-Cataclysmic-Enthusiasts and AGW-Skeptics fall for the most part on different political sides,... the latter being a natural reaction of the former.
You have just described a conspiracy - so apparently you do, in fact, believe in them.

You do realize that calling for higher government investment and the subsequent control that gives them over the ultimate benefits is socialism right? Do you ever get dizzy from spinning around so much?
Noumenon
not rated yet Aug 04, 2015
You have just described a conspiracy - so apparently you do, in fact, believe in them.


To deny that far-left ideology is a political force involved in proposed action on a global scale which has infiltrated the UN itself, would itself require a conspiracy theory.

Fundamental to that ideology is economic justice and environmental justice, and global inequality. These are facts.

"…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth…" - Edenhofer (IPCC official) 2010

You do realize that calling for higher government investment and the subsequent control that gives them over the ultimate benefits is socialism right?


No. Factually incorrect. Government is responsible for infrastructure. I specifically rejected gov making choices wrt application of basic research above.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
"Psychopaths are often too stupid to recognize cause and effect."
-------------------------------------

That may be true: You do not seem to realize the effect your adolescent fixations on "getting even" have on your credibility. Being controlled by puerile emotion is not rational.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
"Psychopaths are often too stupid to recognize cause and effect."
-------------------------------------

That may be true: You do not seem to realize the effect your adolescent fixations on "getting even" have on your credibility. Being controlled by puerile emotion is not rational.
But you are too stupid to realize that your lies and fabrications are the CAUSE of constant attacks by myself and many others here.

You instead pretend that these are purile attempts to 'get even'.

This primary disconnect indicates just how thoroughly sick you are.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
"But you are too stupid to realize that your lies and fabrications are the CAUSE of constant attacks by myself and many others here."
-------------------------------------

Oh, no, . . I MADE him do it!! Whoever "he" is. "He" already admitted to being phony, playing games.

I think it is time you got over this fixation, otto, you are driving others away with your puerile acts.

Let's talk about removing CO2, instead of your fixation.

Thanks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2015
"But you are too stupid to realize that your lies and fabrications are the CAUSE of constant attacks by myself and many others here."
-------------------------------------

Oh, no, . . I MADE him do it!! Whoever "he" is. "He" already admitted to being phony, playing games.

I think it is time you got over this fixation, otto, you are driving others away with your puerile acts.

Let's talk about removing CO2, instead of your fixation.

Thanks.
I think its time you faced the fact that your lying and fabricating are the reason you continue to have so much trouble here. And why you lost those 20+ jobs during the course of your bankrupt career.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2015
Benni: Citing a study that shows your argument to be flawed is not "cherrypicking." It's science

You had two choices at that point, admit you were wrong, or cling to your belief even in the face of contradictory evidence


Your skills in science are limited to "settled science". You've yet to learn the connotation to "settled science" inhabits only the environs of climate studies.

You chose the latter. Which is fine, I guess, but it means that fundamentally, you're not actually interested in the science of climate change
Because it isn't "settled science" as you hypothesize it to be.

You're interested in beliefs about how reality should be, rather than how it is.
And you believe in "settled (climate) science", never comprehending there is no such thing in the historic annals of any field of science.

You "settled climate science" advocates only care about the ARGUMENT, if you were serious about your SOLUTION you'd turn in your driver's licenses.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2015
To deny that far-left ideology is a political force involved in proposed action on a global scale which has infiltrated the UN itself, would itself require a conspiracy theory.
To think that such is possible requires both a deep misunderstanding of world politics and a deep paranoia. An out of context quote mine from an newspaper interview is not an overarching statement of policy for any organization, political or otherwise, and certainly not any reflection of the policy of an organization set up to review scientific evidence and make recommendations.

I specifically rejected gov making choices wrt application of basic research above.
Of course you think so. A measure of your duplicity and misunderstanding, nothing more.
leetennant
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2015
The only way we'll ever be able to remove CO2 directly without creating a whole host of new environmental problems is by finding a use for the byproduct - something more productive than burying it.
AGreatWhopper
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2015
"a joint communiqué from UK learned societies"

Oh, no, we'd rather hear the opinion of masturbation addicted returners and his sock puppet benni!
freeiam
2 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2015
Wait a little while (in geological terms) and we will be CO2 neutral again.
This article has a very high degree of stupidity, even if you belief in the CO2 of doom scenario anthropogenically forced upon us by the IPCC.

ForFreeMinds
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2015
People on the right tend to prefer the "prevent harm" strategy, since they perceive public action as being at the cost of private liberties. People on the left tend to prefer the "promote good" because they believe the costs (to liberty, say) are outweighed by the benefits.


It's not a "perception" that you lose your liberty when government takes your money from you, just like when a criminal does it. You even lose some of your liberty when that money is taken to deal with criminals.

BTW, it seems to me that the idea of removing CO2 from the atmosphere, via lawsuits regarding the ecological impact on plant growth and the food chain. Why it might reduce the growth of grasses used to feed cattle that provide steaks for climate scientists.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.