originally posted by: mbkennel
All of human civilization evolved in that flat portion with a very stable 280 ppm, and a very flat temperature. Why # that up?
Because it's obviously not meant to always stay there--why f**k up a natural-cycle trend, too, by assuming that we are the absolute cause of any
dramatic rise of either temperature or CO2?
Look, I agree that we should put forth reasonable effort to reduce our impact on the planet as much as we can, yet still live a reasonably modern and
comfortable life due to our technological advances, but with that said, I know that our understanding of all of the working mechanisms in our
atmosphere, on our surface, and within our planet is far and away incomplete at this point, and I am unwilling to bow down to those who think that we
need to use government to force and tax its way into a supposed correction of the problem--again, assuming that we even are the major catalyst of the
Keep in mind that most people don't even consider the reality that CO2 increase follow the temperature increases, and don't cause them, at least as
far as these Vostok samples are concerned. That's just yet another reason why it's hard for me to take the argument that our CO2 (and CH4) output into
the atmosphere is destroying our planet seriously.
No, and no scientist ever said that it was.
What is the point? If something happened naturally before (for different reasons), then somehow humans can't be responsible for a similar
If lightning starts a forest fire naturally in the past, does this mean that all suspected arson is actually natural? Even if you find a gas can,
matches, and a note?
The point is that it's utterly ignorant for those who subscribe to and regurgitate the alarmist AGW theories and "fixes" to say that humans are the
only cause for such dramatic rises and falls of atmospheric CO2 and temp changes, and it's a pretty pathetic strategy to prey on the emotions
(especially "guilt") of the ignorant in society who don't know any better about this topic. It's very easy for people to be duped into believing all
of the hype and propaganda about the AGW theory/theories (I was one of them up through college), but if/when people actually start diving much deeper
into the mystery and looking at both sides, it's evident that the IPCC and the pro-AGW camp don't have things right with any dramatic amount of
We can agree to disagree about that last point, and that's fine, but let's not treat all of us who are skeptical about the AGW or mainstream
'understanding' of climate change as ignorant fools. I'm not saying that you did--in fact, you were very matter of fact and lacking ad hominem attacks
(which is rare in this topic by most), so thank you for that.
I treat this topic like I do home improvement, or car maintenance--I'm no expert, but I sure know way more than the average Joe, and I definitely know
that the devil is in the details.
Best regards, and sorry this was long and late.