Climate change-1970's style

Again, just to clarify. Climate change is indisputable. There is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record, core samples etc., to show that the only constant in Earth's climate is change.

I am just not convinced that anybody can accurately predict it due to the incredibly complex nature and unknown variables.

I have seen more than enough evidence of media manipulation and selective data plucking,

There are plenty of other good reasons to reduce and replace fossil fuels, not the least of which is the rapidly diminishing supplies and immediate pollution they cause.

reply to post by Anamnesis

yes... those explanations ARE laughable. However, those are not the ONLY ways to signifigantly reduce C02 emmisions. Presenting preposterous strawman arguments hardly proves your point.

What they prove is how devastating Cap & Trade will be to the population of the planet. That is something most people just don't seem to grasp. That is that carbon dioxide is produced every time any organic compound is burned in oxygen. Period. There is no technology, no filter, no process that can change that fact. No matter how advanced we may become technologically, burning carbon in oxygen will produce carbon dioxide.

Not all energy can be produced by alternate power sources. It simply can't. There are only so many rivers to dam. There can only be so many windmills before we affect the wind patterns. The sun only shines so much. And it is simply not practical to carry wind, sufficient solar cells, or a river dam in the fuel tank of a car.

You've probably seen the movie "who killed the electric car", that's just one example of cost effective ways to reduce C02.

The electric car was killed by oil interests, yes. They wasted their money in killing it, in my professional opinion. It is simply not feasible with modern technology to use an electric vehicle for long-distance traveling. The batteries are not sufficient to store or produce that kind of power. We are making advances in the technology,and I support continued research and development.But unless one lives inside a major city and both works and shops only within a short distance, they are impractical.

It's a shame that Oil Co.'s dictate policy and actively seek to destroy technologies that would help reduce our dependance on fossil fuels as well as reducing consumption of electricity.

At least the oil companies produce a needed product. What does the IPCC, the CRU, Al Gore, and Jim Hansen produce? Besides hot air, incriminating e-mails, questionable data, and shoddy code, that is...

I'm certainly not suggesting that we resort to living in caves but that's where we are headed if we continue on our current course undetered.

Please explain how you arrive at this conclusion. It would seem to me that a lack of energy would be more conducive to setting society backwards than an abundance of energy.

You say that confidence is low with regards to global climate change. That's just your opinion and I'm assuming that you are not an expert on climate or meteorology.

I am not a mechanic; I fix my own cars.
I am no longer a licensed electrician; I do my own wiring.
I am not a plumber; I maintain my own pipes and well.
I m not a carpenter; I build much of my own furniture.
I am not painter; I do my own painting.
I am not a computer tech; I have built every PC I have ever owned.
I am not a typist; I am replying to you.
My wife is not a chef; she cooks our food.
We are not farmers; we raise our own food.

In short, just because someone does not work in a field, it does not follow that they have no knowledge of that field. Albert Einstein was once a lowly patent clerk, yet he was responsible for the Theory of Relativity. Nikola Tesla, the man who was directly responsible for the C power distribution center we use today and the ignition coil that allows engines to operate, though he dropped out of school not once but twice and his first company dismissed him.

You would appear to have much in common with those who scoffed at Einstein and Tesla.

So, I'm going to believe what the experts are saying, they indicate that confidence is high w/regards to Co2 having a direct correlation to increased tempuratures globaly.

You are of course free to believe what you wish. However, I urge you to think for yourself instead. What is the acceptable level of CO2 in the atmosphere? I haven't even found a common answer to that simplistic question. I base my calculations on pre-industrial levels of 280ppmv(as tht seems to be an implied 'safe' level), but many of these climatologists will argue that it should be even lower... some even want it reduced to the point that agricultural science indicates that it would endanger plant growth!

Obviously, we have two choices: The first would be to deny that we have any influence whatsover on the climate and just continue on our course consuming fossil fuels undetered hoping that our assumptions are correct. The second choice would be to take the warnings seriously and begin to reduce Co2 emmisions with the hopes that we can prevent catastrophic climate change.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. We have a myriad of options available. We can continue to clean up our environment in other, more economically sound and effective ways such as litter disposal, better forms of water treatment, improved efficiency, and economically viable recycling programs. We can try to curb deforestation. We can make sure overhunting does not occur. We could clean up that island of plastic floating in the Pacific Ocean. We can continue to find ways to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions,and work to convince other countries to adopt better limitations on such emissions. And we can do all that without destroying our economy, without making the unfortunate in society unable to travel or heat their homes, and without padding the pockets of those who are busy trying to print new currency in the form of 'carbon credits'.

We can make a positive difference, and a difference we can see. But not by stopping fossil fuel usage or taxing people on an inert chemical they breath out naturally.

TheRedneck


[edit on 1/6/2010 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by TheRedneck


You're just being argumentative now....

What they prove is how devastating Cap & Trade will be to the population of the planet. That is something most people just don't seem to grasp. That is that carbon dioxide is produced every time any organic compound is burned in oxygen. Period. There is no technology, no filter, no process that can change that fact. No matter how advanced we may become technologically, burning carbon in oxygen will produce carbon dioxide

I never mentioned Cap and Trade or Carbon Credits. And yes there are technologies and strategies that have proven results to reduce these emmissions. We were able to reduce So2 and Nox levels signifigantly with minor disruption to industry.

Not all energy can be produced by alternate power sources. It simply can't. There are only so many rivers to dam. There can only be so many windmills before we affect the wind patterns. The sun only shines so much. And it is simply not practical to carry wind, sufficient solar cells, or a river dam in the fuel tank of a car.

The sun only shines so much???? seriously?? hehe... that's funny.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells? Nuclear Power? More efficient use of fuel??? It's not that difficult to come up with more... I think most people just don't want to give up their 4X4... can't very well go deer huntin' w/out one eh?

The electric car was killed by oil interests, yes. They wasted their money in killing it, in my professional opinion. It is simply not feasible with modern technology to use an electric vehicle for long-distance traveling. The batteries are not sufficient to store or produce that kind of power. We are making advances in the technology,and I support continued research and development.But unless one lives inside a major city and both works and shops only within a short distance, they are impractical.

Short distances? Low performance? Impracticle?

really? Check out this bad boy! over 300 miles on a single charge... 'bout the same as a tank of gas.

Your professional opinion? Which profession would that be?

At least the oil companies produce a needed product. What does the IPCC, the CRU, Al Gore, and Jim Hansen produce? Besides hot air, incriminating e-mails, questionable data, and shoddy code, that is...

Who's talking about those guys? Not me...

Please explain how you arrive at this conclusion. It would seem to me that a lack of energy would be more conducive to setting society backwards than an abundance of energy.

who said anything about not producing energy? I'm talkng about alternatives.

In short, just because someone does not work in a field, it does not follow that they have no knowledge of that field. Albert Einstein was once a lowly patent clerk, yet he was responsible for the Theory of Relativity. Nikola Tesla, the man who was directly responsible for the C power distribution center we use today and the ignition coil that allows engines to operate, though he dropped out of school not once but twice and his first company dismissed him.

So... because you can put on a bandaid, or give a child an asparin for a headache makes you a brain surgeon? Your logic is flawed here.... Next.

.......many of these climatologists will argue that it should be even lower... some even want it reduced to the point that agricultural science indicates that it would endanger plant growth!

Source please.... otherwise it's just your "expert" opinion.

And we can do all that without destroying our economy, without making the unfortunate in society unable to travel or heat their homes, and without padding the pockets of those who are busy trying to print new currency in the form of 'carbon credits'.

First thing you've said that I agree with... but you seem to think that I am arguing for Carbon Credits and the whole Al Gore dog and pony show and that's just not true bubba.

Again... you seem to be arguing with someone else but directing your resonses to me. I'm not Al Gore... okay?

~peace.

Originally posted by Anamnesis
Short distances? Low performance? Impracticle?

really? Check out this bad boy! over 300 miles on a single charge... 'bout the same as a tank of gas.

Nice looking car but totally impractical for my needs, not to mention the $100,000+ starting price.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus



hehehe... I hear you. An extreme example but a good example of state-of the-art technology nonetheless; the kind of technologies that should be subsidized (but not by Al Gore).

There's no need for extreme reaction to the problem of CO2 emissions as The Redneck suggests. The technologies are there to provide clean energy but we've been told they aren't practicle and too expensive. Well I think that's Bullsh*t. Now the whole damn mess has been made so political that you can't even discuss it without someone implying your a pinko that wants send us back to the stoneage. There's no sin or shame in admitting that rapidly increasing CO2 emissions are effecting serious climate change but everyone has been made to believe that by the MSM. We've all been had by the corporate bastards that own the Governments and media. They figured out how to capitalize on the situation because they couldn't shut the pinko-tree-hugging-looniebird-scientists up!

I just think we should face the problem head on.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Anamnesis]

reply to post by Anamnesis

I never mentioned Cap and Trade or Carbon Credits.

No, you didn't. But the sole push for 'solving' the 'problem' of carbon dioxide is Cap & Trade. Please name one other method being discussed seriously by world leaders.

And yes there are technologies and strategies that have proven results to reduce these emmissions. We were able to reduce So2 and Nox levels signifigantly with minor disruption to industry.

Sulfur is not a necessary component of hydrocarbons. Carbon is. You can conceivably remove the sulfur from fossil fuels without affecting their ability to burn. You cannot remove the carbon with the same results.

NOx is a result of high temperatures produced during combustion. It is possible to reduce combustion temperatures to reduce NOx compounds. It is not possible to reduce carbon dioxide in that manner.

The point is that all fossil fuels will produce carbon dioxide, regardless of what technology is used.

The sun only shines so much???? seriously?? hehe... that's funny.

How about you show me somewhere on the planet where the sun shines for more than 12 hours per day on a yearly average? Then we can both laugh.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells?

Until we can find a way to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen that doesn't use as much energy as the hydrogen contains, hydrogen is no more than an energy storage medium... not an energy source.

Nuclear Power?

Agreed. I would be willing to bet that if all the money spent trying to convince Joe Public that CO2 is a dangerous poison had been spent on nuclear waste disposal technology, we would all be using nuclear-produced power right now.

More efficient use of fuel???

Again, agreed.

I think most people just don't want to give up their 4X4... can't very well go deer huntin' w/out one eh?

Just like you can't very well go to a Global Warming expose without flying there in a private jet?

Check out this bad boy! over 300 miles on a single charge... 'bout the same as a tank of gas.

That's with the high-capacity batteries. How expensive are they?
What is their lifespan?
How much pollution is produced by the manufacture of one of these batteries?
Where will you charge it on the road?

Great idea, but I don't think we're there yet. Maybe in ten years (the Model S is due for delivery in 2012), we'll see more of these. Maybe in 20 years, the average person will be able to afford one... assuming they have any money left after paying for the carbon credits to heat their home.

In the meantime, do you mind if I drive a car the ten miles to get groceries?

Yes, I am on carbon credits again. I am on them again because they are the problem with and the only seemingly acceptable 'solution' to carbon dioxide levels. Get the world leaders to drop that fiasco and I will drop it as well.

Which profession would that be?

30+ years in electronics, primarily concerning power systems and switching circuits.

Who's talking about those guys?

who said anything about not producing energy?

I did, in both cases.

You cannot argue both sides of an argument. At the present time, Global Warming means CO2 Cap & Trade. Period. There are no other alternatives at this time, and no indication that anything else will be considered. In that respect, if one argues for man-made CO2-based Global Warming, one is also arguing for CO2 Cap & Trade.

Therefore, I reference the proponents and consequences of CO2 Cap & Trade.

So... because you can put on a bandaid, or give a child an asparin for a headache makes you a brain surgeon? Your logic is flawed here.

It may not make me a brain surgeon, but it does mean I have some knowledge. By implying that one either knows everything or nothing about a subject, you show your flawed logic.

Source please.... otherwise it's just your "expert" opinion.

Seeing as this is not the crux of my argument, we'll just let it be my personal opinion. I have a Hummer to wax.

Feel free to spend some time researching what different climatologists say... you might be surprised. I would be interested in hearing your personal opinion on what CO2 concentration level would be acceptable, though.

you seem to be arguing with someone else but directing your resonses to me. I'm not Al Gore...

OK, you are not Al Gore.

So, exactly what methods do you propose for dealing with Global Warming?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Thanks for the good repsonses... Star for you.

Please name one other method being discussed seriously by world leaders.

That's part of the problem I think. C&T is the only "solution" being discussed. However, a C&T system was put in place by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments in the US and it is successful.

The expected market price for SO2 allowances was in the range of $650-$850 (in 2000 dollars). The actual market has been between $100 and $200 for most of the program.

In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100 percent compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants took advantage of the allowance banking provision to reduce SO2 emissions 22 percent (7.3 million tons) below mandated levels for the first phase of the program.

On the eve of legislation, the EPA estimated that the program would cost $6 billion annually once it was fully implemented (in 2000 dollars). The Office of Management and Budget has estimated actual costs to be $1.1 to $1.8 billion -- just 20 to 30 percent of the forecasts.

The market-based approach enshrined in the U.S. Acid Rain program has demonstrated that environmental protections need not compete with economic well-being.

Source Article

So maybe C&T isn't the "monster" lurking in the shadows waiting to eat us up but I still feel that CO2 emissions can be reduced dramatically via technology, alternative sources and proper forest management globally.

I was reading yesterday that 20% of the total greenhouse gas emission is due to de-forestation. That's a huge percentage, more than all the fossil-fuel-burning vehicles in the US. I think you mentioned it as well.

The point is that all fossil fuels will produce carbon dioxide, regardless of what technology is used.

True, but an alternative fossil fuel that burns much cleaner is Natural Gas. It's also one of the most abundant fossil fuels on the planet. Unfortunately, the majority of power plants and home heating systems in the US still burn Oil or Coal to produce electricty and heat, this seems archaic to me since we in the South have been using NG for over 50 years now.

How about you show me somewhere on the planet where the sun shines for more than 12 hours per day on a yearly average? Then we can both laugh.

lol... yea I'm a smart a$$ sometimes, please forgive me.

The sun always shines in space! Orbiting Solar Power plants could beam energy back to Earth in the form of Microwaves or Laser radiation. It's pretty slick technology and the Japanese have announced plans to develop SBSP. The realization of this technology is still a couple of decades away but development has begun in earnest.

Wiki article

Until we can find a way to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen that doesn't use as much energy as the hydrogen contains, hydrogen is no more than an energy storage medium... not an energy source.

It would be great to fill up your tank with water instead of gasoline, wouldn't it? If only.... but water isn't the only source of Hydrogen. Natural Gas is another source and it's extremely abundant. Solar Cells can be utilized to produce H as well.

Agreed. I would be willing to bet that if all the money spent trying to convince Joe Public that CO2 is a dangerous poison had been spent on nuclear waste disposal technology, we would all be using nuclear-produced power right now.

You might win that bet. However, I think the CO2 emmissions issue has been so highly politicised that the facts about the impact of rapidly increasing CO2 emmissions remain a mystery to most. My opinion, based on the evidence, is that the environment will reach a tipping point soon...

That's with the high-capacity batteries. How expensive are they?
What is their lifespan?
How much pollution is produced by the manufacture of one of these batteries?
Where will you charge it on the road?

Well sure, it's expensive now but that will change as the technology is refined and improved, and when demand increases. You would "fill up" where you do now... at a Gas station. The amount of energy needed to produce the batteries will drop as technologies are developed.

In the meantime, do you mind if I drive a car the ten miles to get groceries?

By all means! But it would be better if you took the bus. OK... maybe that's not practical for grocery shopping but for a commute to work it's not a bad idea.

Yes, I am on carbon credits again. I am on them again because they are the problem with and the only seemingly acceptable 'solution' to carbon dioxide levels. Get the world leaders to drop that fiasco and I will drop it as well.

Maybe it's the only solution under consideration because it's a proven successful solution... (see above) Of course it will only work if corruption and profiteering is eliminated, but that's true for any public program. There should be a distinction made between the actual system and those who wish to exploit that system for profit. How can it be a fiasco when nothing has been implemented yet? You anticipate a fiasco, that would be a more accurate description of your appraisal.

You cannot argue both sides of an argument. At the present time, Global Warming means CO2 Cap & Trade. Period. There are no other alternatives at this time, and no indication that anything else will be considered. In that respect, if one argues for man-made CO2-based Global Warming, one is also arguing for CO2 Cap & Trade.

OK... I can live with that. C&T can work, it's already been successful. Again, I think it's important to make the distinction between the solution and the scumbags who wish to exploit it.

cont below...

reply to post by TheRedneck

It may not make me a brain surgeon, but it does mean I have some knowledge. By implying that one either knows everything or nothing about a subject, you show your flawed logic.

hehe.... a percieved implication is an assumption not based in reality. I never said that if you're not an expert you have no knowledge of a subject but conversly, having knowledge of a subject does not make you an expert.

Feel free to spend some time researching what different climatologists say... you might be surprised. I would be interested in hearing your personal opinion on what CO2 concentration level would be acceptable, though.

Thank you for allowing me to "feel free"

I think it's more important to regulate the rate at which we are emmitting CO2, the Earth's natural systems can and do regulate a "balance" so-to-speak. But we are currently overwhelming those natural systems.

I honestly think that you and I are not so far apart in our concerns with regards to the environment. I completely agree with you when you say that we need to focus attention on other pollution sources as well. However, It seems that the main point of contention here is whether or not man-made CO2 emmissions are actually causing a problem, I think they are, you seem to think they eren't. Fair enough.

~peace

reply to post by Anamnesis

That's part of the problem I think. C&T is the only "solution" being discussed. However, a C&T system was put in place by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments in the US and it is successful.

Yes, I will agree wholeheartedly that Cap & Trade is the problem. And I cannot dispute that it did work for SO2 and NOx emissions. However, I maintain that carbon cannot be taken out of hydrocarbons without destroying the hydrocarbons (and their use) while sulfur can. Sulfur is an impurity. Carbon (specifically the C-H bonding) is the very source of the energy.

There have also been some drawbacks to the NOx restrictions. Diesel engines beginning this year (2010) are required to meet stringent new standards for NOx emissions. This has led to the inclusion of exhaust recycling systems and particulate filters, both of which drastically reduce engine efficiency and raise the cost of operation. I do not state this is not a worthwhile trade-off, but rather wish to point out that even these emission restrictions, which have been largely successful, come with hidden costs.

Sulfur restrictions such as the catalytic converters have resulted in a higher cost for the cars, meaning some people cannot afford to upgrade or maintain their vehicles to promote fuel efficiency. It has also led to many such units not being maintained properly due to cost and actually starting fires from the heat produced in a clogged unit or emitting compounds worse to the environment than the original exhaust. Again, hidden consequences.

I was reading yesterday that 20% of the total greenhouse gas emission is due to de-forestation. That's a huge percentage, more than all the fossil-fuel-burning vehicles in the US. I think you mentioned it as well.

Deforestation is indeed a problem, although it is not as major so far as carbon dioxide levels as one might think. There is much more plant life in the oceans, for example, than on the land. Still, I will accept your figure of 20%.

...an alternative fossil fuel that burns much cleaner is Natural Gas.

Yes, simply because the lighter hydrocarbons have more C-H bonds per atom of carbon than the heavier hydrocarbons. For example, methane (CH4, the lightest hydrocarbon) has 4 C-H bonds for every atom of carbon. Ethane (C2H6) has 6 C-H bonds but 2 carbon atoms, meaning there is a carbon atom for every 3 C-H bonds. Octane (C8H18) has 18 C-H bonds and 8 carbon atoms, averaging just over 2 C-H bonds for every carbon atom. And so on, with some of the heavier hydrocarbons averaging just over a 1:1 ratio.

There is also the laziness principle. Our infrastructure is based on liquid fuels for transportation. Gaseous fuels require much more control during transportation, delivery, and consumption. Before the trillions of dollars needed to switch over to a gaseous infrastructure can be spent, there must be enough demand to warrant it. Perhaps that will continue to happen, but it is a slow process, and is slowed even more by high energy costs contributing to tighter personal budgets.

lol... yea I'm a smart a$$ sometimes, please forgive me.

We all are sometimes. Apology accepted, and I will offer my own apology for my tone as well.

The sun always shines in space! Orbiting Solar Power plants could beam energy back to Earth in the form of Microwaves or Laser radiation. It's pretty slick technology and the Japanese have announced plans to develop SBSP. The realization of this technology is still a couple of decades away but development has begun in earnest.

You know, I have heard of this technology, but I have reservations about our present technology being capable of harnessing it. f someone can make a small station and demonstrate that it is not only possible but practical as well, I will gladly throw my support behind this idea.

But, as you properly point out, this technology is in the future. Continue to advance it? Yes! Abandon energy until it comes to fruition? Foolhardy.

I might also point out here my present favorite: wave energy. There have been some exciting advancements in this technology as of late, and I see no downside to using wave energy.

It would be great to fill up your tank with water instead of gasoline, wouldn't it? If only.... but water isn't the only source of Hydrogen. Natural Gas is another source and it's extremely abundant. Solar Cells can be utilized to produce H as well.

Natural Gas can be burnt without converting it to hydrogen first... meaning that the hydrogen is stll just an energy storage rather than an energy source. Solar cells do not split water; they produce DC electricity which can be used to split water. The electricity could also be used itself, again making hydrogen an energy storage rather than an energy source.

I think the CO2 emmissions issue has been so highly politicised that the facts about the impact of rapidly increasing CO2 emmissions remain a mystery to most. My opinion, based on the evidence, is that the environment will reach a tipping point soon...

Considering that I have actually been told that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen before ( ), I would say that you are quite correct in your first statement. And that is a true shame. It indicates that science is no longer a driving force in the progress of mankind, but rather the illusion of science via politics is now the driving force behind such attempts at progress.

And that scares me more than carbon dioxide.

As to the tipping point, I really don't see that happening. It may indeed be true that any stabilization will be a few degrees warmer than previous stabilizations, but it that be so bad? It will mean crops grow faster, there will be more land available for crops, and growing seasons will lengthen. Those would all seem to be good things.

Well sure, it's expensive now but that will change as the technology is refined and improved, and when demand increases. You would "fill up" where you do now... at a Gas station.

The amount of energy needed to produce the batteries will drop as technologies are developed.

Of course it will improve, but only to the point that physics allows. As we improve the capacity and cost of battery technology, we also gravitate toward more exotic materials and thus more toxic pollution.

There is also a change in infrastructure indicated, although not as extensive as what is indicated with a change to gaseous fuels. It will still take time to manifest.

But it would be better if you took the bus.

You just made one of my points. Thank you.

There are no buses here! I live ten miles from the nearest town. I live 50 miles from the nearest metropolitan area which has bus service. If I want to change my location, I have but two choices: drive or walk.

This is at the crux of the political debate. If one lives a few blocks from a bus stop, one does not need a car. The car becomes a luxury. But not everyone has such an advantage. On the other hand, if one lives so close to public transportation, one cannot normally grow their own food. I can grow most of mine. That means that there is again a hidden cost to being able to take the bus. Everything one needs to survive must be brought into the area from somewhere else, at the expense of fuel.

See? Even the most simple and obvious answers have hidden drawbacks. Most of which are not considered when making life-changing decisions such as CO2 Cap & Trade.

How can it be a fiasco when nothing has been implemented yet?

Oh, but it has been implemented! Since 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has been in effect in most industrialized nations, with the United States being the most obvious exception. And yet, I have heard nothing from the IPCC or the CRU about how it has abated carbon dioxide production at all.

a percieved implication is an assumption not based in reality. I never said that if you're not an expert you have no knowledge of a subject but conversly, having knowledge of a subject does not make you an expert.

It does not always require an expert to speak intelligently on a subject. To use your previous example, I need not be a brain surgeon to know that an operation has a low success rate. That information can be found by anyone and can be applied by anyone.

To transpose this philosophy to our current debate, I need not be a climatologist to understand the properties of carbon dioxide. A chemist would be much more informed on that subject. Indeed, how would a degree in climatology lend itself to an understanding of the economic and social aspects of CO2 Cap & Trade? I would think an economist would have more knowledge in such a field, but it is the climatologists asell as the politicians who are calling for CO2 Cap & Trade.

It is also easier to disprove a theory than to prove it. To disprove a theory, one must only show that it fails once. To prove it, one must show that it never fails.

I honestly think that you and I are not so far apart in our concerns with regards to the environment. I completely agree with you when you say that we need to focus attention on other pollution sources as well. However, It seems that the main point of contention here is whether or not man-made CO2 emmissions are actually causing a problem, I think they are, you seem to think they eren't. Fair enough.

Agreed, fair enough. And if the push were to educate the public on the dangers of carbon dioxide levels alone, then I would have no problem with simply agreeing to disagree. But that is no longer the case. If Cap & Trade is implemented in the stated hope of curbing carbon dioxide levels, my life could be severely and negatively impacted by such. Thus, I must make my case now.

Such is the danger whenever politics is used in conjunction with theoretical science (and make no mistake, AGW does fall under the heading of theoretical at this time). If someone claims, for example, that there is a shifting of the poles approaching, then that is theoretical. But it does not mean the discoverer has adversely affected my life, only that a natural event could affect it. If that same discovery is used to adversely affect my life through forced relocation, for instance, then the claim turns out to be false, I have been damaged for no reason.

At this point, all we have are claims and counterclaims. As you so properly point out, this is more about opinions based on the science than about the science itself. I am always against opinions being used for political goals.

TheRedneck


[edit on 1/8/2010 by TheRedneck]

The ice age theory was a media darling. Just like they are good at taking any idea and running with it.

Just like people are not even sure these days if eggs are good or bad for you, it might change next week.

The ice age theory was debunked and not even that well received in the science community when it came out.

reply to post by Anamnesis

I was reading yesterday that 20% of the total greenhouse gas emission is due to de-forestation. That's a huge percentage, more than all the fossil-fuel-burning vehicles in the US. I think you mentioned it as well.

Where did you read this?

According to major AGW supporter The World Bank:

Though a growing forest will absorb many tons of CO2 each year, the World Bank writes that a mature forest will produce as much CO2 from respiration and decomposition of dead specimens (e.g. fallen branches) as is used in biosynthesis in growing plants.

^ "Global Environment Division Greenhouse Gas Assessment Handbook - A Practical Guidance Document for the Assessment of Project-level Greenhouse Gas Emissions"

www-wds.worldbank.org...