I don't think the science is cut and dry or convincing. It's not like putting a beaker of water over a bunsen burner and it boils - where you can see a definitive cause and effect. The whole thing smacks of shamanism, astrology, and the like. Enough scientific buzz words and fakery to convince some people. I'm generally not a believer in conspiracy theories, but there's a strong element of "we have to do something drastic (AND EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE AND LIFE ALTERING)" to it that fits with these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalism
The whole point of terrorism is to do a limited amount of damage that is enough to strike fear into the masses so they'll take some desired action. Mission accomplished.
Answer honestly. Do you really believe that the scientists I know are lying about their beliefs on this subject, or are you just coming up with a plausible argument?
So, I ask again, is there any point, any information that you could learn that would change your mind? If so, what would that be.
I think it's a form of mass hysteria. Everyone's afraid to say out loud that the emperor wears no clothes. Or they follow a certain line of reasoning that is built on faulty premises and never question the premises. So, influenced by Al Gore, big important person! Or your college professor. Or Obama's grants decision makers.
I showed you an article about volcanism causing massive glacier melt in the antarctic. If that's the truth, then what does that say about all the rest of the claims about glacier melt in the antarctic? What's it going to take for you to believe the whole thing's been a hoax?
It would take good evidence that 1) there is no increase in co2, 2) humans are not causing the increase in co2 or 3) evidence that co2 is not a greenhouse gas. There could be other info to, but at this point the bar would be pretty damned high.
Stop breathing - you exhale CO2. Plants die without CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but don't be fooled by stupid math tricks. Mars' atmosphere is 95% CO2, and no runaway greenhouse effect. It is a trace amount of our atmosphere, measured in parts per million. It is much less effective a greenhouse gas than water vapor, which is ~4% of the atmosphere. As for "increase in CO2"
What are having trouble with? Climate changes! http://toryaardvark.com/2009/11/27/climategate-greenland-another-inconvenient-truth/ People farmed on Greenland over a 1000 years ago, then were frozen out. Now you can get back to their farms that have been covered with ice for centuries. It works that way. Man, especially now that there are nearly as many of us on earth today, as had ever existed in total before 50 years ago, has to effect the change some. China is leading the way with people numbers and CO2 emissions. Their emissions (including Taiwan and Hong Kong) are about three times the amount of the next three largest emitters combined. So what exactly would you expect us here in the US to do about this? Stop cooking our dinner? Stop heating the house? Ride a horse? Well while you think on it, I do have one suggestion for the US to take the lead on, since any affect man has on climate change is directly effected by our population numbers. The US could take the lead in reducing the population increases around the world, starting with our own. Since the increase in population in the US is entirely from immigration, we should shut it down and learn to run an economy with zero population growth. That might well have the added benefit of reducing the differential in incomes of the general population over a period of time
Since a reduction population growth is the prime way to curb emissions, I expect it will be extremely hard to do. The democrats will object with every fiber since the only way they can exist is with new voters. As populations mature, they tend to become more and more conservative. Without new voting blocks, it's bye bye Dems and they are well aware of this evolution. They believe in evolution, you know!
Although there is no easy fix, I would say the best thing that we in the US could do are a couple things. Most importantly, do tons of R&D on technologies that could assist the process, even if that means the govt paying for the R&D. It will pay off huge in the future, as we will have all the leading patents and expertise and that will be a premier economic field globally as more and more nations find it imperative to join forces in reduction of pollutants. We could make reduction of the burning of fossil fuels a centerpiece of all trade agreements and other international agreements the US signs off on. The US could give major tax breaks to any company working on or producing pollution-lowering products or services. Help make sure that red tape is removed for those who enter this field. In the end, It can't just be the US, we are only a piece of the world. But we are set up as creative thinkers and capitalists who if incentivised correctly are the most likely people to discover the likely multi-pronged approaches to alleviating this mess. Also we need to make sure that those who do not convert to less polluting systems once they are available are penalized financially for not joining in the effort to lower emissions.
Peanuts! If you take the US to zero it changes nothing in the grand scheme. In my life time the population of the earth has more than tripled, and the US is on the Path double this century. I don't know if that is possible for the earth, I seriously doubt they can be feed, perhaps not even breath. Maybe I am in error, do you think the population of the earth can support triple what it is today? Hell if we all rode horses, their CO2 emissions would do us in.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/solar-provides-02-electric-supply-002-obama (CNSNews.com) - Solar power, which President Barack Obama promoted in his State of the Union Address, accounted for 0.2 percent of the U.S. electricity supply in the first nine months of 2013, according to data published by the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration. That is up from the 0.02 percent of the total electricity supply that solar power sources provided in 2008, the last calendar year before Obama took office. Let's spend even more money on it!
First off, you are not reading my post, i am talking about the US leading the technology boom which will come, and making sure it happens sooner rather than later so that as the world adopts the new technologies, the US profits and the environment and co2 emissions improve. Secondly, even if the US did only affect itself and as you say reduce output to zero, that is not at all peanuts. The US as of 2008 produced 19% of the global co2 production. Instead of arguing with me because you think you should, consider what I actually say. I'm done responding to your posts that are connected to nothing. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_the_United_States The fleet of plug-in electric vehicles in the United States is the largest in the world. Since 2008 over 215,000 highway-capable plug-in electric cars have been sold in the country through May 2014.[2][3] The market share of plug-in electric passenger cars increased from 0.14% in 2011 through 0.37% in 2012 to 0.62% of new car sales during 2013.[4][5] The U.S. was the world's leader in plug-in electric car sales in 2012, with a 46% share of global sales.[6] Let's spend more money on it!
Lets spend a shit load more. Mostly, more on research on every little aspect. Study ways to reduce CO2 when using fossil fuels, Study wind, study solar, study getting solar energy from space, study getting it from the ocean, study alternates to the fossil engine, study how to make gears glide easier to reduce friction on current technology, study how to make appliances and cars and other electronics use less energy to function, study it all.
