It Gets Tougher And Tougher To Sell The Idea Of Global Warming…

Taxcutter asks:
How does rejection of imaginary threats have anything to do with the ability to continue living?

 

Wrong, as I illustrated, there are people who simply refuse to believe in climate change on any level. You are making a hasty generalization which - by definition - is fallacious and invalid.

There are a few facts that are simply not debateable:
1) human population grows over time.
2) humans have become more reliant on technology over time.
3) our current means of producing and powering our technologies create significant pollution.
4) whereas there are natural resources that would normally offset pollutants (whether from man or from natural events), humans destroy more of these each year to make room for more resources that produce pollution.

In short, we are contributing increasing levels of pollutants while destroying the resources that would offset the issues created by those pollutants.
Given the finite nature of our atmosphere, in what way is it reasonable to suggest that we are not contributing to climate change?

 

That's simply amusing. You've illustrated that you have no reason or logic that supports calling the threats themselves "imaginary" other than paranoid delusions about "big government", then continue to call the threats imaginary anyway...

 

And again the real question that has not been answered is "how much"? Are you a believer in catastrophic global warming?

 

As already illustrated, our contribution grows exponentially as we produce more each year while wiping out more of the natural resources that offset our production.
There simply is no rational argument against the fact that this pattern leads to a point where we are producing more than the environment can handle. Whether you believe we've already reached (or passed) that point is irrelevent to the fact that the status quo needs to change.

 

You are talking about pollution and the environment, I am talking about global warming. I will agree with you about pollution but am skeptical about catastrophic global warming. Now, are you a believer in catastrophic global warming?

 

Taxcutter says:
Back when the discussion started in the 80s and 90s, the Warmers poisoned the whole thing with "remedies" that involved crushing US taxpayers and consumers. I know enough about Big Government to know those ideas were warmly embraced by Big Government types worldwide. Big Government is incapable of imagining anything that does not enlarge Big Government.

Also, Big Government moves by small bites. If they can get people to admit there is Warming, they will try to gin a clamour for Government to do something. Much like what we've seen with gun confiscation. They'll start small but stay after it for decades and even if their "remedies" are ineffective or counterproductive, Big Government never, ever gives anything back to the people.

As such, AGW deserves nothing but the most implacable and vigorous opposition.

 

Wait, so you agree about our rate of pollution, but don't believe it increases global warming?

http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/690
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/unger_02/
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109712
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/climate.shtml
http://www.globalissues.org/article/521/un-framework-convention-on-climate-change

In order for that to be true, each of the above organizations and 97% of the specialists in this field would have to be involved in a single massive consipiracy. For obvious reasons, that's simply stupid.

Perhaps you accept that pollution does cause global warming, but not catastrophic global warming?
That would mean that you believe there is a "line in the sand" at which global warming becomes "catastrophic", and (without changing the status quo) we will somehow not step over that line. If this represents your belief, please feel free to explain what would prevent global warming from progressing to "catastrophic" levels without a change in the contributing factors.

 

You have just proven how propaganda is disseminated and becomes truth without fact. For instance, your 97% has been debunked but it lives on in the minds of many. The current global warming is a hypothesis that is unproven. The fact that the hypothesis predicted more warming that hasn't happened for the last 15 plus years should be a clue.

 

Are you saying that global warming does exist, and we may well be (hopefully slowly) poisoning ourselves out of existance, but you can't acknowledge the issue or start looking at realistic solutions because you're too paranoid about what might be proposed?!
Do you have any idea how stupid and short sighted that is?

 

Taxcutter says:
Trying to put words in my mouth, are you?

Let's get things clear. There is no AGW.

The DISCUSSION was what was poisoned.

 

But how could Al Gore be wrong? He invented the internet.

 

Do the neo-cons actually have valid rebuttal to AGW or are they still sticking to the "liberul scientists are wrong" excuse.

 

You're making several unsupported assertions:
1) please illustrate that the 97% figure has been debunked.
2) please illustrate that warming has not occurred in the last 15+ years.

 

I asked whether I was understanding you correctly. That's hardly "putting words in your mouth". Defensive and paranoid much?

Back to square one...
What is it that you don't believe?
Do you believe we produce exponentially more pollution?
Do you believe that we exponentially reduce the planet's ability to offset our pollution?
Do you believe that our pollution contributes to warming?

 

Nope, no actual rebuttals. Just more of the same "head in the sand" BS.

 

When did he claim that?

 

If the warmies are serious about warming why a carbon tax instead of a deforrestation tax?

 

That's actually a decent point.
There are two issues:

1) we produce too much pollution.
2) we reduce the planet's natural systems that offset our pollutants.​

Why wouldn't we do both?

 

You can't cut emission anywhere close to enough to keep up with that much deforestation and reduction of natural carbon sinks.

 

Right, which is why I said both are important...

If we continue to produce emissions at a rate that grows exponentially, it is also infeasible to generate enough forest to keep up with emission production.

 

So post a link to a reliable news source to what's being done about the deforestation.

It IS very feasible to stop cutting down what exists.

 

I don't believe I said that deforestation was being adequately addressed. In fact, I believe I said you raised a good point that more should be done. Not sure why you're being argumentative about that...

That being said, here are a couple of links:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/environment/ev0007_en.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch9s9-6-1.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/22/us-forest-climate-talks-idUSBRE9AL0MM20131122

Goodie. So we keep what exists, while continuing to escalate our emissions... and we still end up producing more than the environment can sustain anyway.

 

Deforestation accounts for about 17% of co2 in the atmosphere. Now, that is just from burning and doesn't take into account the loss of forests as carbon sinks.

Doing more to combat deforestation would likely have a greater impact than all the hoops that stifle our economy that our government would put us through.

 

Human kind does not have the power to accomplish "Global Pollution" either.

Though we are wide spread enough across the surface of the planet to create enough pockets of intensive local pollution to make the continued survival of 90%+ of our population very difficult and unpleasant.

But that doesn't mean an "Drastic End to Life on Earth"!

Earth Abides...

And it will do so with or without humans. Most likely, life on Earth will simply adapt to a new, more durable mode, perhaps some dominant life form able to in part feed on pockets of left over intense human pollution!



And the Global Climate, well, it will just keep on doing what it always has done, which is cycle in response to the dominant driving factor, the variation of the Sun!





P.S. Hey all you Radical Greens!.... Ya know, the other day, Ms. Earth came to converse with me about you, we had quite a talk, and you know what? Believe me when I tell you, she's not all that impressed! She mentioned allot 'bout, hyperbole, and you're just in it for the power and money....

-