EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Says Carbon Dioxide Is Not a ‘Primary Contributor’ to Global Warming

Can I ask you why you believe those solutions have never been discussed? Would you be willing to do me a favor? Just Google search those solutions and provide a link to the search results.

 

The evidence for AGW is so strong you an not find a single scientific agency anywhere in the world that denies it. Action has to be taken at the country level to stop this problem.

 

They already regulate the pollutants emitted by those sources. If you disagree with the concept, then you are disagreeing with the elimination of leaded gasoline and sulfur dioxide (the source of acid rain).

 

Was that my argument?

 

You said "The government isn't a solution." That is incorrect.

 

Do they regulate pollutants living creatures exhale? Are we going to start taxing cow farmers now if they have more than 100 heads of cattle?

 

If that's your stance you certainly didn't defend it with your previous statement.

 

What part of this is unclear

Action has to be taken at the country level to stop this problem.

 

I can name several and I linked them earlier, but those are: Earth''s temperature warming, ocean acidification, sea levels rising, ice glaciers melting, and worsening storms.

 

Got a source for any of that?

 

...how did I do that?

 

Action is being taken. Electric cars, solar panels, wind power, as these technologies improve people will adopt them. Eventually, they will reach a point where they are just a better option.

 

Have you ever heard of the social collective action problem?

 

Agreed but much more can also be done with carbon credits and regulation of fossil fuels

 

A brief period of global cooling or a period where the temperature did not rise at the predicted rate?

 

Countries are living on fossil fuels, it's paying for healthcare and schools, you can't just force it, they need a better option.

 

I am not comparing the CO2 concentrations on Earth to Venus. I am using Venus to illustrate the basic concept of greenhouse gases by comparing it Mercury.

 

AGW has the potential to kill many millions of people. What is that worth?

 

You appear to be claiming that 400 ppm is "obviously" not too much because you won't suffer from CO2 poisoning at that rate. Is that your argument?

Also, I fail to see the relevance of an article about the damaging effects of global cooling. We aren't asking you to choose between global cooling or global warming.

 

That's the law part I was talking about. This isn't an asteroid its effects can't be measured by mathematics. What do you think would happen to the economies of countries like India and China if you try to ram this through. How many people do you think will die?

 

Why go after the little stuff when there are bigger nastier targets? Honestly do YOU produce as much methane as a fracking site? If you do then please, for all our sakes CHANGE YOUR DIET

 

Nobody is ramming thru anything. Countries participate willingly or not at all. There is a middle ground but we have not taken near enough action yet on AGW

 

The insurance industry would beg to differ. The impact can and has been measured. Interestingly countries like India are benefitting. Remember these are countries that are still struggling to build electricity infrastructure throughout the country - but now, with the push to micro grids and renewables more and more of the third world is reaping the benefit

 

The law would allow them to do it, and lobbying groups would push for it. As you pointed out I could potently incur a higher tax burden myself because I do not live in a reality where a 0 emission life would be an affordable option.

 

And we are researching same - or do you think we should never change anything about what we currently do?