Re: US answer to global warming: smoke and mirrors.
CJY said:
Can you expalin which you are going with? They are below.
"the end of man might be inevitable",
"If this earth is here for any species, I don't know which one it might be but I do know it is not terrestrial."
I'm going with both. I don't see how it is contradictory. I do not pretend to know the fate of mankind, it may or may not be "long-lived". The oldest species on this earth have one thing in common: they live in the water. Where the biomass lies is not my opinion, it's the way it is. People like to pretend they are omnipotent and revel in being at the top of the food chain - that is until a shark swims up to the scuba party, or a bear strolls up to the hiker....My point in bringing them up is that regardless of how powerful you feel, or how in control of the world you feel, we really aren't. We can no sooner warm this planet than control when it rains...
CJY said:
bjcsc, my challenge is below.
A challenge to any one of you believing man has nothing to do with global warming. Show me a single scientific source that credits nature entirely, with global warming.
In fact, your Dr. Gray says "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming."
Your post later says, "Studies have shown that greenhouse gases produced by human activity accounts for around 1 percent of the gases in the atmosphere."
This hardly fits the criteria of my challenge, and in fact, supports my argument.
BTW, how much change in the temperature caused by man is ok, if this is the best you have?
OK, first, I don't know anyone who doesn't think that we contribute, on either side of the aisle. The issue is whether or not we contribute significantly, or whether or not any changes we would make would have a significant impact. Eg. I would hardly count myself as contributing to some world wide relief fund by sending a nickle every year. If all you are looking for is that mankind contributes on some level, then we will agree on that.
As far as Dr. Gray goes, he's not a reporter on TWC, he's the leading expert in hurricane/climate forecasting and works for the NWS. He is very well known by anyone living in a state affected by hurricanes. I guess you live somewhere that isn't. If you want to investigate his position, just google him - he is everywhere...
As far as acceptable levels, the other data I found suggested that if we double the amount of greenhouse gases we produce (in the US), we wouldn't even affect the climate more than what is within it's normal fluctuation. Thus, much as QC outlined, how is it worth risking our entire economy? I think QC's response pretty much hit the nail on the head:
QC said:
I just don't support dramatising the need for it with false doomsday claims which makes people like harmonica believe there is some master boogieman committee that shuts down progress because of donations from Big Bad Oil. On the other hand I do believe that there should be grants for new technology development etc. Yes, even based on emission benefits etc. I would just prefer this stuff as more pragmatic than emotional....
I suggest you reread most of the points made by "conservatives" in these GW threads. Most, if not all, understand the fact that we are in a warming trend. Most, if not all, agree that CO2 and it's equivalents can cause an insulating effect. Most, if not all, agree that the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is likely increased by man's activities. Most, if not all, do not agree to what impact that change has had on global temperatures. Most, if not all, scientists also disagree on the level of impact. Most, if not all, "conservatives" are VERY concerned about the impact on our lives, economy, people etc. on onerous measures that may or may not have ANY affect on a problem that may or may not threaten us to the degree that you seem to be positively, absolutely, completely, impossibly convinced of . . .
I think the term "global warming" is part of the problem. Some people are using it to describe the current warming trend we are in (I think you are), others (like me) only use it to refer to the telelogical hyperbolic dramatizations put on by Al Gore and the like, solely for the purpose of polarizing the population and generating votes. And let's not forget that they did the same thing when Clinton ran. He was in office for 8 years - what did he do, large scale, about it? Nothing - it was a ploy.
So you and I actually agree. Where we differ is in whether or not mankind has a significant impact and if we accept the former as true, whether or not any changes we make in the U.S. would have any significant impact, right? But herein lies the rub: As QC touched on, there are grave and certainly significant consequences involved in most of the solution hypotheses suggested by the proponents, don't you agree? Tell me what you think the solutions are...give me your risk/reward analysis...
