Think about how long, how many millions of years, it took to sequester the carbon stores in the earth. Then think about how fast, we as a civilization can pump it out and burn it, effectively blanketing ourselves in carbon every day. Man is so efficient at this that he has completely overwhelmed these natural systems in every sense of the word. We have counquer the earth and made her our .
Natural systems are like pendulums, and they are things that we dont understand. But you know as well as I that we are now able to overcome these sytems with our consumptive habits. Many many systems are suffering as a result of our consumptive habits. And we discover every day just how short sighted our arrogance is, when it comes back to bite us in the ass after we fail to understand the full effects we have on our environment.
I believe that we should act responsibly, and that we never will if profit is the bottome line by which everything will be measured.
And you have already admitted the properties of carbon dioxide, but you repeatedly want to throw it out as a major factor. Makes tons of sense.
We had no computers to model in the seventies. There were still ers claiming the world was flat back then. Try again.
You evidently dont understand the power of taxation to discourage certain behaviors, like smoking, driving gas-guzzlers, and excessive pollution, while encouraging other more desiarable ones, like fiscal prudence, home buying, and development and implementation of newer cleaner tech
See the above. Maybe read the OP. It will give you a clue.
I don't have time to address everything else except for this....
Sure, CO2 is a greenhouse gas... but the crux of the entire argument IS whether or not CO2's concentration is as big of a factor as the AGW crowd makes it out to be... especially when Earth's record shows cyclical fluctuations that render any 50 ppm increase as the smallest of footnotes in a much longer history with higher and lower concentration peaks... in other words, our current concentration would only be abnormal if it fell outside of the bounds of its historical amplitude... unfortunately for those in your camp, it doesn't....
There are even periods where Earth's CO2 concentration was higher, despite the fact that the global temperature was much cooler... that screams volumes about the causal-effect nature of this factor... If it were a dominant factor, temperature and CO2 concentration would always move in relative sync (without exception)... they certainly don't behave this way.
The Sun drives Earth's climate... volcanoes follow suit... way way way down the list is man's measely contribution... yet you all somehow want to turn the list upside down for political reasons moreso than scientific ones.... that's absolutely baffling to me...
The Martian observation of its caps and how they "coincidentally" shrunk at the same time as Earth's by the same proportion is the nail-in-the-coffin argument as far as anthropomorphic climate change is concerned... Mars' distance and CO2 concentration are factors yes (though LOL at your attempt to claim that a three-order magnitude difference in CO2 concentration is even equatable...); nevertheless the outcome was the same... it's ridiculous to try and distort the argument to suggest that the Sun is not the dominant factor it is.
The sun is the dominant factor we cant control. Carbon is the dominant factor that we can.
Just as we have conquered the Earth in every other facet, we can conquer carbon in the atmosphere. That may mean reigning in carbon-based industries profits as well. That might not be a bad thing.
I protect over 200 hectares of Amazonian rainforest...
I don't drink bottled water (simply filter tap water)...
I actively participate in cleaning up the beaches...
I grow some of my own produce for personal consumption...
I contribute to a fund that pays for the salaries of game warden that prevent the unmitigated poaching of many of Africa's endangered wildlife...
I helped develop technologies that are installed on the bottom of certain Japanese fishing vessels to drive away all mammalian sea creatures...
I don't use plastic silverware, styrofoam or any other disposable item that isn't biodegradable...
I use rechargeable batteries, and installed solar panel arrays in my home...
My home has at least one sunlight per room...
etc... etc... etc...
I'm more of a conservationist and environmentalist than many of the people in this forum...
And yet... I believe the government has no business taxing my livelyhood anymore than they already do... carbon credits? geez....
Why would we concern ourselves with the sun or volcano eruptions? We cant affect them.
But why would we claim ignorance and continue to plod down a track of irresponsibility? For profit, pure and simple.
That view is so short-sighted and transparent, it is the true "head-in-the-sand" view if there ever was one.
Even if you dont believe in global warming, you have to admit we are trashing our planet simply to line the pockets of the reigning machine. We can do better and we must. Carbon based energy is incredibly dirty, it is running out, and it is making us sick. If not for climate, then for our own sake.
If you cant get behind any of those reasons, then I dont really understand your motives. Or maybe I do.
Its not a tax to tax wealth, it is meant to steer industry away from dirty tech. If you are as enlightened as you claim, you have to understand that corporations will not voluntarily undertake anything that costs, if there is a cheaper route that will serve the bottom line just as well.
How'd I miss this little gem...?
The fact that we had less powerful computers available back then (we obviously had some) by no means invalidates the fact that we had decent thermometers...
I hate to break it to you but temperature records predate the 70's...
If I have a factory full of antiquated equip, 20 year old equip that will last another 10 years, equip that triples my pollution rate, but my only cost is maintenance, why would I integrate new cleaner technology?
The answer is I wouldnt.
Cap and Trade will make it to costly to NOT transition away from this scenario.
Anyways... I must bid adieu.....
climate models were in the dark ages prior to the application of computing power...we are still working on them, and have only had decent ones for the last couple of decades...
The economies of China and other countries who really don't give a crap about the environment would benefit the most by establishing such a crazy government agency... how can you not see that?
Try the scenario above on for size. I would like to see your take.
ok really... bye... I'll read the thread later (my internet access at home needs to be serviced...)
Freaking storm toppled the satellite....
They are already moving towards clean-coal tech, while the bas s at the helm of our energy industry would keep us in the dark ages because thats where they make the largest profits.
That is because their people cant even walk the streets without ing masks on, and their hair thins because the pollution eats away at their ing hair and scalp. They have no chooice. But much like the auto industry, our business leaders will let them beat us to the punch.
And just like with cars, we wont catch up until we fall flat on our face.
But CEOs could give a at that point...the will have a fat estate already banked.
The government wastes trillions of dollars on bull wars... get the outta Iraq and Afghanistan, start a comprehensive non-partisan program limiting all but extremely necessary federal and state spending, establish a bipartisan timeline for eliminating the national debt no matter how long the debate of "how" must rage; you know, address and answer some of the extremely pertinent issues in a comprehensive manner and then, with a plan in place, if raising taxes is part of the answer, so be it.
Hmm. Let me be a bit more clear.
What I meant was:
The truth of a claim is independent of who makes it.
If you start dismissing the criticism brought up by Darrins source solely because the people who run the website might have a financial stake in their position that is simply cir stantial ad hominem and a logical fallacy.
If it were raining outside, and I was selling umbrellas, my advice that you should buy an umbrella if you didn't want to get wet would still be true.
What can you say about their criticism that addresses their claims on the merits of their case?
then tell us what's wrong with Darrin's graph.
I have been studying Global Warming for years. CO2 is a minor player, and primarily a product of warming. If the ocean has not warmed, the CO2 levels wouldn't have changed much at all with our activity.
You guys are the ardent deniers of truth. We show long term trends, you ask anout the last couple decades. We show short tem trends, you say we don't show long terms.
You guys are total tools for the left.
This is plotted data from climatological records done by NASA/NOAA:
Notice again, this data is from a single location. Antarctica. Even the most dense observer knows you cant determine what is going on with global climate from the data gathered in a single place, a single continent.You guys are the ardent deniers of truth. We show long term trends, you ask anout the last couple decades. We show short tem trends, you say we don't show long terms.
You guys are total tools for the left.
This is plotted data from climatological records done by NASA/NOAA:
That is why this problem requires cooperation between scientists on all the various continents. That work has been done by the IPCC.
Or try your govt out:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ind...ouse-gases.pdf
He was not trying to prove no climate change. That one thing wrong with you alarmists. You do not listen to our words.
We believe anthropogenic warming is very minor compared to natural warming. there is no denial of anthropogenic warming, just the extent.
You guys are the deniers. You deny that natural forces change climate. We have over 400,000 years of climate history that you guys deny.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
