Man Based Global Warming....

[Alric]

Oh my dog. All they do is recycle the same fallacies over and over!

Tim came back with this:

CO2 lags temperature increase by about 800 years based on the ice core data, so CO2 is not causal in temperature rise in that record.

We discussed that ages ago. With two very lucid posts on how CO2 can both trail, cause and exacerbate increases in temperature. Journals were cited and explanations provided and we are still going on about it.

We also came back to the "there is no warming" idea. Once it was shown again there is warming there was an attempt to dismiss it as "natural phenomena" with no explanation.

They also brought up the high cost of being responsible which, regardless of it being necessary, it is actually more economical and efficient.

This is precisely the definition of close-mindedness. To ignore the data and come up with your own, or the blogs you like.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by HTMLSpinnr

I've always failed to understand, regardless of the truth in Global Warming assertions (which I too am inclined to believe), WTF is wrong w/ cleaner, more efficient living, and being socially responsible?

There is nothing wrong with cleaner and more efficient living. However, I would I would prefer our leaders just say that.

Why do we need to greatly improve vehicle fuel economy and invest heavily in public transportation? National Security!!! We use 25% of the oil produced in the world but only have 3% of the oil reserves. That is a huge national security issue that puts the nation in danger. This is reason alone for the US to greatly reduce our use of oil.

California's CO2 regulation is another example. It has nothing to do with CO2, it is California attempting to regulate fuel economy. However, the regulation of fuel economy is specifically reserved for the US congress so California is trying to do an end-around. They are attempting to build public support for their CO2 regulation by blaming the increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires on global warming. Instead they should be blaming their own policy of fire suppression that leads to an ever increasing supply of fuel for wildfires. People are building in areas that naturally burn every few decades and then trying to prevent these wildfires.

[hyo silver]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

...but there is a economic cost and trade-offs to be considered...

Is that what all this is about? It might cost you money?! Look at the big picture, long term. Consider ALL the costs, and compound them like you would with interest. It's about time the economic costs of climate change were given some serious consideration.

[Fibb222]

Originally Posted by HTMLSpinnr

I've always failed to understand, regardless of the truth in Global Warming assertions (which I too am inclined to believe), WTF is wrong w/ cleaner, more efficient living, and being socially responsible?

Absolutely nothing, except oil and coal executives will need to find cushy jobs for their kids in another industry. I'm not be facetious.

I think a lot of the resistance exists because the leaders in carbon intensive industries feel entitled having already "made it" and are strongly reluctant to create a new business and risk being entrepreneurial again, when the status quo is so profitable and easy for them.

We need strong incentives to get them off their butts, because long term, they are just dead weight economically while they pollute the planet.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by hyo silver

Is that what all this is about? It might cost you money?! Look at the big picture, long term. Consider ALL the costs, and compound them like you would with interest. It's about time the economic costs of climate change were given some serious consideration.

It's ALWAYS about money! The problem is that people don't want an honest accounting of the real cost. Just like we don't want to pay "taxes" for universal health care, we are willing to send our middle class to the poor house when they have an medical emergency!

Thems that have,,, don't like giving it up,,, especially to thems that don't!

Icarus

[viking31]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

Absolutely nothing, except oil and coal executives will need to find cushy jobs for their kids in another industry. I'm not be facetious.

I think a lot of the resistance exists because the leaders in carbon intensive industries feel entitled having already "made it" and are strongly reluctant to create a new business and risk being entrepreneurial again, when the status quo is so profitable and easy for them.

We need strong incentives to get them off their butts, because long term, they are just dead weight economically while they pollute the planet.

You're pointing the finger at the wrong entity. Coal and oil companies produce a product which you, and you alone purchase. Until you destroy your automobile, live off the grid, and purchase no products made by man (since virtually all products made use some oil or coal in their production) then you will never achieve your goal of a "pollution" free world devoid of most human inhabitation. To do so we would all have to live as humans did 10's of thousands of years ago. Not pleasant to say the least.

Humans will always pollute to some degree. Compared to the past, I think we are doing a pretty good job at controlling it to a reasonable level.

It's tiresome to hear again and again that "we" need to do "something" (whatever that may be) with no realistic solutions to your perceived problem with CO2 output. Yes, it is about money, and if you want to solve the problem (as I sit here typing with numb fingers for the eighth cold winter in row) I suggest you start spending your money to fix the problem, whatever it may be...

Rick
#4 2006

[thepolarcrew]

The energy guys don't like it when you go off grid either.

We need real tax incentives. Possible rebates.

[Fibb222]

Originally Posted by viking31

You're pointing the finger at the wrong entity. Coal and oil companies produce a product which you, and you alone purchase. Until you destroy your automobile, live off the grid, and purchase no products made by man (since virtually all products made use some oil or coal in their production) then you will never achieve your goal of a "pollution" free world devoid of most human inhabitation. To do so we would all have to live as humans did 10's of thousands of years ago. Not pleasant to say the least.

Humans will always pollute to some degree. Compared to the past, I think we are doing a pretty good job at controlling it to a reasonable level.

It's tiresome to hear again and again that "we" need to do "something" (whatever that may be) with no realistic solutions to your perceived problem with CO2 output. Yes, it is about money, and if you want to solve the problem (as I sit here typing with numb fingers for the eighth cold winter in row) I suggest you start spending your money to fix the problem, whatever it may be...

Rick
#4 2006

That is so dumb. Are you serious? ... I'm ... ughh.. I'm not going to bother with a detailed response. I know I should, but I'm just going to hope most will see your post for what it is.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Alric

Oh my dog. All they do is recycle the same fallacies over and over!

Tim came back with this:



We discussed that ages ago. With two very lucid posts on how CO2 can both trail, cause and exacerbate increases in temperature. Journals were cited and explanations provided and we are still going on about it.

We also came back to the "there is no warming" idea. Once it was shown again there is warming there was an attempt to dismiss it as "natural phenomena" with no explanation.

They also brought up the high cost of being responsible which, regardless of it being necessary, it is actually more economical and efficient.

This is precisely the definition of close-mindedness. To ignore the data and come up with your own, or the blogs you like.

As usual Alric, you are missing the point. Shawn argued that the historic ice core record affirmed his position that CO2 *has* to cause warming (i.e., negative feedbacks could not possibly be significant). The problem is, the ice core record does not affirm this at all.

[Dave_PH]

From "Nature" on PBS.

"Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears when once lush forests became the Tundra".

Now that the area is warming again brown bears and a rich variety of life are taking hold in the north. Just as it was before. Polar bears were a temporary solution and obviously not a good one becasue they haven't learned to take advantage of the new food supplies in the region. Brown Bears are winning the evolutionary game.