All that is true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You are sooooooooo confused. What we are talking about is the Age of Man, OK, not millions of years ago nor millions of years from now, Darwin. Were are talking about the relatively short amount of time that man has been on the planet until the time of our ultimate extinction. Are you still with me? Now, during our time on the planet, there were many centuries when we lived like animals. But about 10,000 years ago humans began living in cities and agriculture began, there was an accompanying beginning with the deforestation of the earth which has continued to the present day and is rapidly accelerated. This caused a rise in the warming curve, not a huge one, but a real one. It is man-made and can be addressed simply by serious reforestation. But the big rise began with the industrial revolution, when we began to pump billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. It really has risen on a steeper curve in the 30th century. Now we can address this pollution, too. We don't need to stop global cycles, it is futile to do so, and that is not what anyone is trying to do. It is a straw man from the deniers. But the spike we're living in is human-caused and can significantly bring on mass extinctions within 200-300 years, far sooner than the planet would do naturally in millions of years. Humans would not survive mass extinctions of the crops and animals that we depend upon for sustenance. Addressing the human-caused pollution that threatens us is entirely doable.
So explain to me red, if china , India ,brazil and other countries refuse to do even the things we already do then what actually achieve? Do we destroy our industry and add hundreds of dollars in energy cost to every American family to combat this percieved threat all the while other countries do nothing? I feed my family by working at an evil oil refinery. Do I give up my job because of this? Will the refinery in brazil or china close? American industry spends billions on pollution control and countries like china spend nothing. What happens to my family when my refinery relocates to Mexico ? I can't save the world. I don't want someone to cost my job to move to another country and my kid has to move from his nice brick home to lot 12 at bobs trailer land because daddy lost his job because of someone else's idea that my job is bad. We can't run our world on rainbow dust and we can't tax the pollution away. Fire away!
I assume you meant 20th century. You would have me convinced except for the fact that the spike we're living in has happened before and will happen again regardless of the existence of humans and their relatively miniscule emmisions.
Paranoia. All of those countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol and are taking steps to reduce carbon pollution. We have not and are not. No one has advocated this. You made it up. Why would we destroy our industry? Nothing that is proposed suggests doing this. It is a lame old right-wing uninformed claim that doesn't hold water. What is proposed is to reduce carbon emissions, not destroy industry. We don't even have to guess, we have the example of sulphur. Sulphur pollution had reached the point in the 1970's where acid rain was killing our forests and actually starting to ruin paint on cars. So cap and trade protocols were put in place to reward companies that reduced emissions and penalized those that did not. And the coal industry screamed that it would kill them. But guess what . . . it not only worked to get rid of sulphuric acid pollution but it encouraged industries to modernize ancient factories that made them more efficient and more competitive with foreign producers. So don't let uninformed pundits tell you that nothing can be done to change human-made pollution. Carbon cap and trade will work just as well. Untrue. they spend a lot more than nothing. You ignore the fact that we produce more than twice the per-capita carbon pollution of the rest of the world. We have the biggest problem and have the most room to improve without crippling our industry at all. Cry me a river. Plants have been moving overseas for decades because of corporate greed, not global warming. All of us are in danger of losing our jobs to changing markets, low sales, deficit budgets or whatever. Woo said anything about your company being evil? Only you. WHo said that anyone thinks your job is bad? Only you. Global warming isn't about you, OK. It's a bigger issue than you and me.
Red, I do not post often at all in any of these forums but you seem like a smart guy. Tell me what are the plans to feed the billions of people much less provide a decent way of life on this planet with what is being proposed buy any body of policy makers. I thought the consensus view in the 1970's that we had a population problem. I still think we do have a world population problem. I think you would would agree that most everybody would want to leave our children a better place to live and we can do a better job of helping our environment to recover but there are some real logistical problems with some of the ideas that seem to float around public policy discussions. There is plenty of land to put all the people, but to feed them, shelter them and provide some kind of society is a logistical nightmare. I can go along with the idea of trying to do something about it but the proposed solutions do not seem to address all of the problems. Maybe you can lay out a simple guideline of ideas that you think mankind should do to address the problem globally and move the discussion forward in a more enlightened way
and we shouldn't sign kyoto as it stands. Giant redistribution of wealth scheme all in the name of a bogus hysterical chicken little doo dad.
Pardon me, but what does that have to do with the validity of global warming? Like what? Make a case if you have something on your mind. I'm defending the science behind the global warming curve here, not the politics. But if you have something political to discuss, I'll probably have an opinion on it. Then get specific. What proposal and by whom that suggests what? Sure. 1. Recognize the problem 2. Develop solutions 3. Evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of the solutions. 4. Pick the ones that make sense and implement them.
A regular offering to the Church of Red is what I recommend. Then a holy man will beseech the deity on your behalf.
