you are right. gum wrappers are not perfectly analogous to CO2. wow, shocker there. my analogy was meant to explain something in lay terms, not give a perfect scientific analogy. you REALLY ought to get over yourself. your mini-lectures brim with condescension and are often, as was the case here, irrelevant.
if we're wrong then we have severely overpaid for having drastically reduced emissions and spurned new industry and innovation. i'll take that wrong over the alternative, if that's your argument.
Go ahead and send me $400 dollars so I can make my home more energy efficient. If you're willing, I'll PM you my address.
global warming happens in local pockets all over the world. beijing, mumbai, LA. it's obvious that when smog, a cloud that is linked to the burning of fossil fuels, usually in massive amounts of cars, warms localities. knowing this, and knowing that most smog is linked to CO2, how difficult is it to take the next step and say, "to better eliminate pollution, we need more fuel efficient transport?" how difficult is it to apply what is happening all over the place on a micro scale to the macro world scale? to me, it's not that difficult. even further, i think that people generally prefer clean air to polluted air. EVEN IF global warming is not anthropogenic, why would you argue against movements to make things cleaner?
What, GT, you don't want to give me your money so that I can be more efficient? You mean you don't like giving up your money for something you think is pointless? But you would demand exactly that from me. Hayden, I'm not opposed to being clean. Who wants smog and pollution? Not me. But (1) how do we define pollution? If CO2 is pollution, then is the Earth itself to be regarded as our biggest polluter? And (2) the "clean" argument is not the argument being used. Glaciers retreating has nothing to do with pollution or being clean. The argument being used is the crisis argument. "If we don't do something now, we're doomed." Frame the national political argument in terms of being clean, and I'll become an advocate.
Coelacanth's entire strategy is obfuscation. He doesn't like what the climate scientists are telling us we need to do so he raises questions such as, "What caused the ice ages?", or "What percentage of global warming is caused by man?" Coelacanth's questions are irrelevant. We know that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. We know that man is releasing massive amounts of CO2. We know what the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases will be on the climate. We even know what the best course of action is - reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. It ain't rocket science Coelacanth, but it is science - and I think that bothers youi as much as the cost.
watching coelacanth obliterate lame arguments is very entertaining. i love how some (particularly those who have no epistemological basis for their morality) feign false morality in regards to global warming. yet....after many conversations can't begin to defend the most basic propositions they are putting forth. here are the questions that arise from this thread once again which are ever louder in my head: 1. if mankind is responsible for a "significant" portion of global warming, how much is "significant?" what part are we responsible for and what chance do we have to "significantly" reduce it? (note: vague answers about how we should do "whatever we can" are completely unacceptable to any meaningful dialogue. after all, what if "whatever we can only amounts to .01% of the affects. is that worth trillions of dollars?) 2. why is CO2 reduction being pushed beyond all other pollutants when there are many others that are clearly much worse and affect day to day life much more significantly and quantitatively as well as qualitatively? (note: harking us back to some reference to how CO2 is causing warming but not being able to remotely quantify how much of our warming is being caused by CO2 is also very weak.) 3. when the main proponents of global warming theory on this board are shown to be wrong, they quickly skip to juvenile slams and non-substantial ad hominem critiques. why is that?
what's even more entertaining is watching you switch between "it's not warming" and "ok it's warming, but we aren't responsible" and "ok but even if we're responsible, it's too late anyway" and "ok well even if we could do something, it'll cost too much". as to your questions: 1. you are right, we cannot exactly quantify man's impact. perhaps to some this is "evidence" of no impact at all, but that doesn't hold water for me. and we know that we're capable of reducing our emissions, and we know our emissions are part of the cause....so to many (including me) we should act to reduce our emissions. if we're WRONG then we've overpaid for the innovation and efficiencies which will be caused by this forced reduction. that's better than if we're not wrong and we don't act at all. 2. GT already answered this above.
that exact question (what if you're wrong) was asked BY YOU earlier in the thread....and then you're going to use my answer against me? ha. I don't think that the overwhelming science is wrong. But you do. I believe that you're wrong, but you don't. Thus, the discussion of "ok, what if each side is wrong" is a genuine one. If you want to use it as a way to score a point in a game you made up, be my guest, but that doesn't change anything.
i agree we should be good stewards. i don't think we are being good stewards. i think we should change that.
because without an ultimate authority or a mandate by the creator, it is just an opinion. and i could just as easily say that it is my opinion that your opinion is stupid and i think we should live life to the fullest regardless of any consequences that may be perceived as "negative" by you. regardless, we agree fundamentally. i just don't see that your belief has any basis for authority so it is quite uncompelling to me.
