Warmest in 400 Years

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

Careful guys, I believe the “large dissenting group” and “large it’s a good thing group” are spin messages. There are certainly groups being sponsored by big energy to show that they are not causing problems.

I don’t know that environmental groups have the same kind of financial backing by business interests. It gives them a bit more credibility since they aren’t acting to preserve anyones financial interests per se.

I’d be really critical of people with ties to big energy making claims about these issues.

82

[quote]vroom wrote:
Careful guys, I believe the “large dissenting group” and “large it’s a good thing group” are spin messages. There are certainly groups being sponsored by big energy to show that they are not causing problems.

I don’t know that environmental groups have the same kind of financial backing by business interests. It gives them a bit more credibility since they aren’t acting to preserve anyones financial interests per se.

I’d be really critical of people with ties to big energy making claims about these issues.[/quote]

Vroom - my point all long has been that this is nothing but fear mongering. It has been made political, and there is no room for truth in politics.

I think the onus is on the enviro-whackos to use real science if they really are convinced of the evil human’s role in GW.

I am not beholden to big oil, or big energy, or big enviro whacko.

I just want real proof. No one can produce any. If the earth is spiraling out of balance like Gore says - where is the evidence?

Until then - look at who it is that is making then claims, and consider the source.

83

again, there’s no hard and fast “proof” of anything other than the temperatures are rising globally, CO2 causes increased heat retention, and we’re dumping more CO2 than ever into the air.

while it’s not proof, I’d say its a fairly strong correlation, and given the potential consequences of drastic global climate change (or even of MINOR global climate change), I’m more than willing to take a “better safe than sorry” approach to the situation.

Like I said. If 7 out of 10 doctors told you that pissing standing up could lead to erectile dysfunction, would you sit down to pee?

The “enviro-whackos” you mention are motivated by good intention, not by business interest, and their political ambitions are a means to an end for them… I believe Al Gore is in the same boat on this one - most of us who believe something should be done about Global Warming have some fear of the consequences of our actions on this planet.

Compliance with they kyoto accord really wouldnt’ cost us much - it’s not like it’d hinder our competetive edge economically, especially since EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH HAS AGREED TO DO IT EXCEPT US. So really, why are all you conservatives making SUCH A BIG FUSS over this?? We have technology that can help reduce the ammt. of CO2 produced, we can make public transit cost effective and efficient, and we can encourage more people to live in city centers as opposed to suburbs by supporting urban redevelopment movements.

We can also save on fuel costs by riding motorcycles, driving smaller more fuel efficient cars, and modifying older vehicles to make them more efficient (by adding EFI, for example), we can also start producing more bio-diesel which burns cleaner and is not petrolium based (it can be made from any lipid). In fact, BP is already selling bio-diesel in many states. Help encourage companies to sell alternatives by BUYING them. If you ahave a diesel truck, buy Bio-Diesel. I’m going to convert my old gas clunker truck into a diesel for just that reason (as soon as I finish fixing my motorcycle).

see, you can be a gearhead and an environmentalist too, ya know. A good friend of mine built a Suburban that got over 30MPG and had more torque and horsepower at ZERO RPM than a stock Suburban and optimal RPMs… in fact, he had to install a LIMITER because he was going through a driveshaft a week on the thing.

Some of these things are harder than others, but the easiest to do can be extremeley effective in helping to reduce our environmental impact. Other things can be harder, but can also be FUN to do.

Yes, I’m a Democrat. Yes, I Recycle. Yes, I compost. Yes, I shop at the co-op and buy organic. Yes, I’m a gearhead and own a Ford Bronco and a Yamaha XS1100. I also realize that it takes more energy to manufacture a vehicle than the vehicle will probably consume in its lifetime. That’s why I fix and use older vehicles.

84

Knewsom, stop being a whacko… :stuck_out_tongue:

Here’s another politically motivated story for you:

Greenland’s Ice Sheet Is Slip-Sliding Away
http://ktla.trb.com/news/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,478196.story?coll=ktla-news-1
[i]
The Greenland ice sheet - two miles thick and broad enough to blanket an area the size of Mexico - shapes the world’s weather, matched in influence by only Antarctica in the Southern Hemisphere.

It glows like milky mother-of-pearl. The sheen of ice blends with drifts of cloud as if snowbanks are taking flight.

In its heartland, snow that fell a quarter of a million years ago is still preserved. Temperatures dip as low as 86 degrees below zero. Ground winds can top 200 mph. Along the ice edge, meltwater rivers thread into fraying brown ropes of glacial outwash, where migrating herds of caribou and musk ox graze.

The ice is so massive that its weight presses the bedrock of Greenland below sea level, so all-concealing that not until recently did scientists discover that Greenland actually might be three islands.

Should all of the ice sheet ever thaw, the meltwater could raise sea level 21 feet and swamp the world’s coastal cities, home to a billion people. It would cause higher tides, generate more powerful storm surges and, by altering ocean currents, drastically disrupt the global climate.

Climate experts have started to worry that the ice cap is disappearing in ways that computer models had not predicted.

By all accounts, the glaciers of Greenland are melting twice as fast as they were five years ago, even as the ice sheets of Antarctica - the world’s largest reservoir of fresh water - also are shrinking, researchers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Kansas reported in February.

Zwally and other researchers have focused their attention on a delicate ribbon - the equilibrium line, which marks the fulcrum of frost and thaw in Greenland’s seasonal balance.

The zone runs around the rim of the ice cap like a drawstring. Summer melting, on average, offsets the annual accumulation of snow.

Across the ice cap, however, the area of seasonal melting was broader last year than in 27 years of record-keeping, University of Colorado climate scientists reported. In early May, temperatures on the ice cap some days were almost 20 degrees above normal, hovering just below freezing.

From cores of ancient Greenland ice extracted by the National Science Foundation, researchers have identified at least 20 sudden climate changes in the last 110,000 years, in which average temperatures fluctuated as much as 15 degrees in a single decade.

The increasingly erratic behavior of the Greenland ice has scientists wondering whether the climate, after thousands of years of relative stability, may again start oscillating.
[/i]
I don’t know about anyone else, but whether it has happened in the past, naturally or not, I suspect it isn’t in our best interests to help things pass a potential “tipping point” when it might not make it on it’s own.

I’d rather not help push things along when there is the possibility it wouldn’t happen at all without us giving it a big push.

Oh well, call me a whacko.

85

Here’s an issue to think about… notice the part I’ve highlighted for your consideration:

Energy consumption could be cut by half if clean technology applied
http://www.physorg.com/news70386548.html
[i]
The IEA report was published ahead of next month’s Saint Petersburg summit of the G8 group of the world’s leading industrial nations, which is expected to focus largely on energy questions.

The mix of technologies the IEA advocated included improved energy efficiency, carbon dioxide capture and storage, renewables and – where acceptable – nuclear energy, said Mandil.

The report said record high oil prices raised concerns about the long-term balance of supply and demand. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have increased by more than 20 percent over the last decade, it noted.

If the future is in line with present trends, CO2 emissions and oil demand will continue to grow rapidly over the next 25 years. Extending this outlook beyond 2030 shows that these worrisome trends are likely to get worse, said the IEA report.

Energy efficiency is essential to mitigate growth in energy demand and CO2 emissions, added the document from the Paris-based IEA, which was created during the 1973-74 oil crisis to advise industrialised countries on energy questions.
[/i]
Well, emissions have been going up at a steady clip haven’t they? I’ll tell you what. I really hope the conservatives are right on this one… because at some point, if they aren’t, we’re going to see first hand what the consequences might be.

I don’t know if that qualifies as fear mongering or not. I do know that I don’t have a horse in the race with respect to financial or political interests though.

I just seems senseless to me to ignore the issue because we haven’t nailed down all those that are involved in climatic changes.

86

[quote]vroom wrote:
I just seems senseless to me to ignore the issue because we haven’t nailed down all those that are involved in climatic changes.[/quote]

Agreed, completely.

I think that one of the big reasons conservatives are reluctant to try to impliment change on this matter is because they’re under the impression that other countries are doing nothing - that China and India are going to be polluting so much that it won’t even matter.

Here’s the thing about that though… China has already taken massive steps to try and clean up its environmental catastrophies. They’ve banned the burning of soft coal for heat in most cities, vechicles have increasingly stringent emmisions standars, and they’re building new nuclear plants and hydroelectric dams to try and reduce their emissions (of both CO2 and particulate matter).

I donno about India, but it seems to me that most governments in the world now recognise the importance of taking care of the environment.

Conservatives may ask for proof, and when we say, “we don’t have proof”, they laugh at us and call us whackos… but to that I say, well, we don’t have proof, but we’ve though long and hard about this… and political interests aside, this is scary shit, and we’d be better off safe than sorry. Then they accuse us of fear-mongering, which is ironic, because truth be told, we’re the ones who are scared. One more thing I dont’ think conservatives realize is this WE DONT WANT TO BE RIGHT ON THIS ONE.

87

[quote]vroom wrote:
Careful guys, I believe the “large dissenting group” and “large it’s a good thing group” are spin messages. There are certainly groups being sponsored by big energy to show that they are not causing problems.

I don’t know that environmental groups have the same kind of financial backing by business interests. It gives them a bit more credibility since they aren’t acting to preserve anyones financial interests per se.

I’d be really critical of people with ties to big energy making claims about these issues.[/quote]

Years ago when a group of scientists signed a document about their support of the theories of global warming, and it’s negative impact, it made big news, and has been quoted repeatedly.

What didn’t make the news was the document signed by many many more scientists who disagreed with these ideas. These were not a contingent of scientists hired by the oil industry.

It is such an over simplistic argument to say that if somebody disagrees with global warming theories, it is only because they have a financial interest in it, though I do admit some are out there.

88

Mage, I don’t think anybody with a non-political bent is arguing that there aren’t dissenters.

However, as has been said many times, the dissenters don’t have proof of anything either. The fact people disagree doesn’t mean you and I can tell which side is right.

Honestly, I truly hope the dissenters, since they continue to be flaunted as if it means anything, are correct. I don’t see how you can raise this garbage as credible criticism.

I want your viewpoint to be right, but you have no proof… and there are risks. Turn your arguments around and see where you end up standing…

89

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You wan’t say why GW is a bad thing[/quote]

I’ve already said it – in fact, explained in extensive detail. I just don’t have the time or the inclination to keep repeating myself. If you are HONESTLY interested in the reasons – rather than just throwing jabs at ghosts – use the search button above.

90

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now, while oversimplifying things a bit, I use the definition that conservative generally wants smaller, less intrusive government, while liberal wants a bigger, more powerful government. (And this is why Bush is a liberal.)[/quote]

Ah, so you use a dictionary that is different from everyone else’s in the World, and think that makes you smarter than everyone else. That explains a lot.

You’re talking about ONE specific form of conservatism, called FISCAL-ECONOMIC conservatism, which asserts a moral justification for the free market, grounded in principles of individual liberty and individual choice. But that support is not moral or ideological, but driven by the Burkean notion of prescription and the assertion that government intervention in the economy will make people feel less responsible for the society.

IDEOLOGICALLY what defines conservatives are Cultural Conservatism, Social Conservatism and Religious Conservatism – which are all, indeed, about keeping the status-quo.

Benjamin Disraeli, himself a member of the Conservative Party in England, said it best:

“A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy.”.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
And again you make a lot of assumptions. Most… Almost everybody… Are you sure about that? [/quote]

There are only two sure things in life: death and taxes. The rest is just about hedging your bets.

More often than not, the difference between successful people and fools is in how well they hedge their bets…

Putting all your bets in the chance that Global Warming is either non-existent or good is as foolish as putting all your bets in it being a certain fact of catastrophic consequences.

Diversify! Diversify! Diversify!

91

I think that the cons have run out of remotely inteligent things to say on this subject…

92

[quote]knewsom wrote:

Like I said. If 7 out of 10 doctors told you that pissing standing up could lead to erectile dysfunction, would you sit down to pee?[/quote]

If 7 out of 10 doctors told me that, I’d know which 7 doctors to ignore in the future.

If this is feasible for everyone, it is leaps and bounds ahead of the ‘save the planet’ rhetoric. Efficiency for efficiency’s sake. Especially when it translates to $.

If my neighbor and I drive the same distance to work, get the same vehicular comforts, and get there in the same amount of time except that he burns twice as much fuel as me, the appropriate solution is blatantly obvious.

Depending on what you buy organic where, you’re part of the problem. I don’t know about your particular region, but organic off-season and even in-season produce travels a lot further to get to store shelves, generating more CO2. Not to mention that organic farming can be more land and labor intensive.

93

aha, finally.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
If 7 out of 10 doctors told me that, I’d know which 7 doctors to ignore in the future. [/quote]

people said the same thing about smoking and lung cancer. guess what? those people are dead, dude. The example I gave was hypothetical; for a more realistic one, see the smoking example.

[quote]
If this is feasible for everyone, it is leaps and bounds ahead of the ‘save the planet’ rhetoric. Efficiency for efficiency’s sake. Especially when it translates to $. [/quote]

as far as public transit, usually a no-brainer moneysaver, unless you live in an area where it hasn’t been developed. I suggest writing a letter to your representatives, requesting an adequate system be constructed.

Living in Midtown Sacramento and working in West Sac and in Carmichael is a PITA for me, as I can’t really take public transit to get between these three places every day (yes, I work two jobs, no, it’s not easy), hence the motorcyle. As for alternative fuels, well, bio-diesel is pretty easy to make, and can be used in any diesel vehicle with few to NO modifications. I suppose the only limiting factor involved is having a diesel vehicle, or having the knowledge and wherewithal to convert a gasoline engine to diesel - that and the availability of used vegetable oil, which any given fast food place goes through gallons a day…

[quote]
If my neighbor and I drive the same distance to work, get the same vehicular comforts, and get there in the same amount of time except that he burns twice as much fuel as me, the appropriate solution is blatantly obvious. [/quote]

so are you driving a prius? or a geo metro? or some other highly efficient vehicle? If so, right on brother… keep on keepin’ on there. If there were still any EV1’s for sale, they’d pretty much be the ideal commuter car because mass producing electricity is far cleaner and more efficient than internal combustion vehicles and mass petrolium distribution.

[quote]
Depending on what you buy organic where, you’re part of the problem. I don’t know about your particular region, but organic off-season and even in-season produce travels a lot further to get to store shelves, generating more CO2. Not to mention that organic farming can be more land and labor intensive.[/quote]

I eat organic because its healthy, not just for environmental reasons - and living in Sacramento, there are plenty of locally grown organic veggies to be had.

If you live somewheres else, far away from organic farms, grow your own, or join a community farm, which, incedentally, are about the cheapest for good veggies.

94

So the environmentalists do not need proof, but we must prove everything? Isn’t this a guilty until proven innocent scenario? Well how about this:

Kyoto Protocol

First lets deal with the little piece of fraud. If it is so important, why are 9 of the 20 biggest CO2 producing countries exempt? Did you know 13 of the original 15 European countries expected to fail at achieving the emissions targets?

This is seen by many, including me, as not actually being about global warming, but as a way to “level the playing field” and punish the more successful countries, specifically America.

By the way, since 1990, America has actually beat many of the Kyoto countries as far as emissions. 16% increase for America, compared to 24% for Canada for example.

And we are approaching 200 billion spent because of the protocol, for an estimated change of 2 thousandths of a degree by 2050.

Act now before the proof is in

The New York Times reported in 1975 that “many signs” suggest that the “earth may be headed for another ice age,” would it have been a good idea to decide that pumping a lot more CO2 into the air to help prevent this catastrophe? I don’t think you would agree with the try to fix it before we prove it scenario in hindsight on this case.

Computer Models

There are plenty of computer models showing the devastating events of the increases in CO2 production in the future. But there are a few problems with this, the first being the whole idea that you can predict the future. The second that we know so little about how the environment really works that it is only a little better then guess work.

But the biggest problem is the fact that they actually think it is ok to round up, instead of properly, the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. (If they rounded properly, it would be 0.) So they use a number that is 3 times greater then what it really is, and try to say that is ok, because it is standard practice.

Do you understand how far off this takes things? According to my math, that means CO2 levels are said to double in 70 years when the actual number would be 211. The estimated 20-year increase will actually take more then 60. The first full scale fusion power plant is expected to be online before then.

Shrinking Ice Caps

It is true, the south polar ice cap has been shrinking for the past 6 years at least… ON MARS. Can you explain how humans are producing global warming on Mars? It is believed that the Sun’s solar output increases and decreases from time to time. It is estimated that it was 5% less during the little ice age.

Temperature Cycles

Just looking at combined data from China over the last 2000 years, they have had 5 periods of temperature variation:
0 - 240 Warm period
240 - 800 Cold period
800 - 1400 Warm period (which includes the Medieval warm period of 800 - 1100)
1400 - 1920 Cold period. (The little ice age.)
1920 - present Warm period.

Strong evidence that the Earth should be warming naturally right now. In fact the current warming trend actually started 400 years ago, well before the industrial age.

Isn’t Global Warming Bad?

American and Europe actually have gained over a week to their growing seasons. America is about 30% greener, while Europe is about 60% greener, and this is due to plants thriving on CO2 in the air.

With all the talk of greenhouse gasses, I am surprised nobody tries to actually learn about greenhouses. Intelligent management of greenhouses requires the introduction of CO2 to help the plants grow. All this new vegetation should actually slow the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, so interestingly the Earth is responding to the increased CO2, probably doing more then the Kyoto Protocol could ever do.

Are we causing Global Warming?

No we are not causing global warming, as these are historical trends. But I won’t say we do not have an effect, because we obviously do. Just not to the extent that the sky is falling crowd says we do.

CO2 does in fact absorb a portion of the heat spectrum, and more obviously absorbs more. Although, though you may have not heard this before, there actually is an upper limit.

Junkscience.org has explained it like this. Each molecule of CO2 acts like a slat in a window blind. You close one, and less light gets through. If you keep adding slats, at some point you run out of light to block, and regardless of how many more slats you add, you cannot block any more light.

Interestingly H2O has a much larger spectrum, and is therefore a more important greenhouse gas.

Energy

Obviously I do not support pollution, though some of you may want to try to put that into my mouth. Nor do I think we should keep increasing the level of CO2 indefinitely. But we have plenty of years before this will be a real problem, and the way technology is going, this will never be a real problem.

According to Philip Deutch, cars use only 60% the gas they did in 1972. Refrigerators use a third. It takes 55% less gas and oil to produce the same GDP as in 1973. The cost of wind power is down 80% over the last 20 years, and solar has dropped from $1 per kilowatt to 18 cents.

I foresee hybrid cars becoming 50% of new car sales within 5 years. (The supposed experts say longer, lets see who is right.) Fuel Cells finally functional in 20 - 30 years. Fusion reactors going online in 50. So over the next 50 years, our world is going to slowly move away from fossil fuels, and the CO2 increase will slow, and eventually stop.

And remember we have 60 years before what the doom and gloom computers say will happen in 20, so obviously I am not worried.

95

[quote]hspder wrote:

IDEOLOGICALLY what defines conservatives are Cultural Conservatism, Social Conservatism and Religious Conservatism – which are all, indeed, about keeping the status-quo.[/quote]

Not exactly - this is incomplete. Under this definition defenders of the existing welfare state would be considered conservatives. When you speak of Western conservatives, there are specific things they are looking to conserve, not just the status quo.

To the topic…

Full disclosure: I am one of those ‘green’ conservatives you read about on occasion. I do more ‘greeny’ stuff than my lefty friends. I use the same arguments calling for conservation of natural resources, etc. as I do for conservation of Western culture, etc.

That being said - as Boston Barrister noted for himself, I remain agnostic on global warming. I remain convince-able, but not without a better depoliticization of the science at hand.

Part of the problem of convincing skeptics is the manner and delivery of the information. There is a piece on Al Gore in the current issue of Worth magazine. To be frank, I like his ideas - more investment into energy diversification, etc., but I couldn’t help but notice the way he is selling it actually defeats his agenda.

That being said, here is the reason I don’t worry as much about global warming, even if there is some truth to it - the development of greener, cleaner energy alternatives is in swing. And it is being done for a number of good reasons that practical minds can get on board with - national security, energy diversification, and to mitigate more local environmental problems that we know concretely exist (water/soil quality, etc.). As such, there is a better case - a more pragmatic one - to be made for greener technology, etc. outside the abstraction of global warming, but the end result is that we get the technology regardless.

96

[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You wan’t say why GW is a bad thing

I’ve already said it – in fact, explained in extensive detail. I just don’t have the time or the inclination to keep repeating myself. If you are HONESTLY interested in the reasons – rather than just throwing jabs at ghosts – use the search button above.
[/quote]

Let me rephrase - you can’t say why GW is a bad thing without using junk science, and op-ed pieces.

Pardon me if I reject your position. You are wrong. Just like the rest of the blame the evil man contingent.

97

[quote]knewsom wrote:

people said the same thing about smoking and lung cancer. guess what? those people are dead, dude. The example I gave was hypothetical; for a more realistic one, see the smoking example.[/quote]

Very good knewsom, you can cherry pick quasi-relevant analogies and pass them off as supporting your hypothesis.

Good thing you chose smoking and the big C and not steroids the dead bodies they generate or ephedrine. Or listen to the experts suggest drugs like thalidomide or stacking Crestor with Baycol or Phen/fen or Bextra or Vioxx.

Better to not think for yourself, not listen objectively to both sides, and not promote a general level of awareness. Rather, spew mania about the impending doom and its homology to cancer.

My wife does into the city, the politicians here are more interested in building airports. Contrails combat global warming so why not.

Diesel for reasons other than the environment. However, I find it funny the people who drive a prius to ‘save the planet’. If everyone else is strangling and punching the planet the prius owners are merely choking and slapping it. If there’s a problem and a solution, commuting is only a small part of it.

You’d be surprised, it’s hard to beat the cost of foreign labor.

I agree in that everybody should at least have some understanding of where their food comes from, what it takes to grow it, what is/isn’t gained by organic growing, why outsourcing is so prevalent, and to get people off their asses in general. I understand that not everyone ‘has the time’ but a majority do and should. But now we’re getting really off topic.

98

I know I am late to this thread but…I do not care about global warming.

The Earth will fix itself long after I am gone by going through an ice age.

No worries.

99

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I use the same arguments calling for conservation of natural resources, etc. as I do for conservation of Western culture, etc.[/quote]

THAT’S the kind of consistent ideology I respect.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As such, there is a better case - a more pragmatic one - to be made for greener technology, etc. outside the abstraction of global warming, but the end result is that we get the technology regardless. [/quote]

I agree. There are even better reasons than Global Warming making a case for “greener” technology.

Unfortunately they don’t get the general population as excited about it as Global Warming does – especially during Extreme Weather season. With such short attention spans, nothing gets people to connect the dots faster than hearing about Global Warming when it’s >90?F outside (as it’s been in CA for almost 2 weeks straight). People actually appreciate having something to blame for the scorching heat, and – presto! – Global Warming becomes an easy sell.

It’s sad, but true.

I do agree that we will get the technology regardless – I just feel it will be too little, too late.

For example (and this is just an example), the current high-volatility stock market – that is causing a lot of problems for a lot of very entrepreneurial people – is, in the opinion of many (including myself) in great part a delayed side-effect of the high oil prices we’ve been experiencing for too long. If we weren’t so dependent on oil prices, the bull market would probably have continued, Bernanke or not.

So, my biggest complaint against this administration (with regards to this subject) is their claim that imposing higher emission restrictions would cause an economic downturn. On the contrary – just the job CREATION in high-paying research and development jobs would more than make up for any costs, and I am fairly sure it would actually cause one of those nice Keynesian upturns that Reagan, for example, was so fond of.

100

[quote]The Mage wrote:
So the environmentalists do not need proof, but we must prove everything? Isn’t this a guilty until proven innocent scenario?
[/quote]

Oh come on. Do you wear a seatbelt? I mean, isn’t that like being guilty until proven innocent as well. Don’t be a complete asshole. There are a lot of risk reduction steps that people take, which imply a chance of something happening.

Failure to achieve is different than allowing temporary exemptions for developing nations.

This is the political spin put on it, yes. The richer countries are more capable of handling the adjustements required to move away from their current habits, theoretically. Even at the end, when you talk about adjustments in technology, you are talking about the richer countries, and those are some of the strategies that could be employed to reach goals.

Oooh, pat yourself on the back, that’s wonderful. If it doesn’t matter in the slightest, then why start crowing all of a sudden? Seems a bit inconsistent.

Who’s we? The US isn’t going along with the protocol?

You don’t believe in global warming but you believe in viable net energy return fusion reactors?

You know, you could be right. What’s important is that things don’t get out of hand and change too quickly. Getting out and pushing with all our might in the same direction just might be a stupid thing to do.

The length of a growing season is dependent on the temperature of the air and soil. The greener part is a separate issue than the growing season dude. Yes, plants thrive on CO2, just as we thrive on oxygen.

LOL. You are starting to get a bit flaky here. While the plants will respond to CO2 increases, there are limits as to what they can do. This is evidenced by rising CO2 levels. Only a very small portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is at or near ground level and immediately available to the plants at any point in time.

This paragraph contradicts itself. There can be both endogenous and exogenous causes of global warming. It can be both part natural and part man-made. I’m sure you realize that.

[quote]CO2 does in fact absorb a portion of the heat spectrum, and more obviously absorbs more. Although, though you may have not heard this before, there actually is an upper limit.

Junkscience.org has explained it like this. Each molecule of CO2 acts like a slat in a window blind. You close one, and less light gets through. If you keep adding slats, at some point you run out of light to block, and regardless of how many more slats you add, you cannot block any more light.

Interestingly H2O has a much larger spectrum, and is therefore a more important greenhouse gas.[/quote]

LOL. Absorption? What the hell are you talking about? Junk science is starting to sound like junk here. While there is a limit for any substance as to how much heat it can absorb, there is no real limit on the amount it can relfect, just think of a mirror.

Oh really? How do you know what levels of CO2 will represent a real problem and what won’t? With oil prices rising making coal and natural gas handy alternatives, how do you know that our use of fossil fuels isn’t going to continue for too long. You youself say it should not continue indefinitely, but what do you mean, we should use them until they run out?

You have no idea whether or not they will be a real problem.

[quote]According to Philip Deutch, cars use only 60% the gas they did in 1972. Refrigerators use a third. It takes 55% less gas and oil to produce the same GDP as in 1973. The cost of wind power is down 80% over the last 20 years, and solar has dropped from $1 per kilowatt to 18 cents.

I foresee hybrid cars becoming 50% of new car sales within 5 years. (The supposed experts say longer, lets see who is right.) Fuel Cells finally functional in 20 - 30 years. Fusion reactors going online in 50. So over the next 50 years, our world is going to slowly move away from fossil fuels, and the CO2 increase will slow, and eventually stop.[/quote]

Well, that would certainly be the right direction. As to whether or not it will happen is anyones guess. However, this is going to cost a fortune… if you measure it the same way the other costs of reducing CO2 are measure. OMG, it’s a penalty on affluent countries! These are precisely the types of things that affluent countries should be promoting to help reduce oil dependence and greenhouse emissions. Idiot.

[quote]And remember we have 60 years before what the doom and gloom computers say will happen in 20, so obviously I am not worried.
[/quote]

Sure, you have a precise measure on exatly how much time and leeway we have, just because. You don’t get to pull numbers out of your ass and claim they are important either bub.

If we get to the point that we cause any of a number of possible “tipping point” issues, then the whole set of assumptions will change. We simply don’t know if reducing snow cover or glacial cover will have an accelerative impact on these issues.

It is extremely stupid to just “assume” we’ll be fine, just because we want it to be so.

What people are really asking for is that we stop exerting so much of our own influence on what is happening, so that things will continue to move slow enough that we’ll easily have time to adjust. The biggest concern is that we create some type of accelerative force which makes things happen in a timeframe that is incredibly costly and inconvenient for ourselves.

Good thing your crystal ball has all the answers, isn’t it?