Please forgive this very long response. Jim you are very wrong on many points and you deliberately mischaracterize many points that I have made.
The assinine reasoning you put forth is rebutted here. Please go back and look at what is actually being said instead of trying to view this through your politicaly filtered glasses. This is not an issue that the right has brought forward. The left has. The right is just saying "show us with some kind of certainty" that their is a man made problem here.
If that is the case then we should not post out of context snippets from data sets that would indicate there was some question of that fact, and then have a collective mental ejaculation about how clearly the misconstrued evidence shows there is no "global warming."
If it is out of context (OOC) then please provide the context. To say that it is OOC and not provide an explanation how is the same as pleading "no contest" to charges in court.
This is where we disagree. No one credible is saying humans alone are the cause of the present climate change. What is being postulated is that humans are contributing to the natural causes, and the consequences may be quite dire for the human species. The difference is how you view the extent of the oscillations of an unstable system when you add a new stimulus to it. It is this concern that people who advocate instituting controls of human civilization's emissions into the troposphere are addressing.
You are correct we do disagree here. I let the people who are screaming that we need to spend, spend, spend our tax dollars in order to POSSIBLY
have an effect on CO2 emissions speak for themselves. We all can be the judge of what they are saying.
This is more political propaganda. Money, in great quantities is at risk for those who derive their income from selling more carbon based fuels. A lot more than is being given away in grants to study global climate change mechanisms. This is one of the aspects of your particular argument that screams "RED FUCKING HERRING" and makes your entire perspective sound like baloney.
No its not. Just look at where the money is being spent. Even an Australian Lawyer can see that when an agency or group studies global warming they always say the same thing "we see evidence that their is change but more study is needed to figure out what the studies we just did actually mean." Read "give us more money."
If that is the case we should be arguing completely different points. Such as, what the specific mechanisms are and how humans can influence them. Instead we hear your and others with similar POLITICAL outlooks chant about how global climate change is not real because somewhere the temperatures are lower than they were last year and that this is all some conspiracy by Al Gore to fuck the oil companies. So, lets talk about whether what can do is what we should do and if that will have any effect.
And this is where you turn to your typical mischaracterization and obfuscation. At no time have I or anyone in this thread seriously said that global warming is not happeninig. It is, the evidence is very clear. By slapping the "POLITICAL" stamp on it you are trying to demean the argument and obfuscate the issue. You and the people who keep screaming for more taxpayer dollars are the ones who turned it into a political issue. And by the way Al Gore is not trying to stick it to the Oil Companies. Al Gore is just trying to make a buck by sowing the fear and dread of chicken little. I agree let's talk about what we should do (which is nothing) and if it will have any effect if we did do something (it won't, measurably at least.)
The only reason there is any lost production is because we are at our core, for sale for a dollar. Don't allow people who don't share the values of America to sell shit in our country, or, really, don't allow Americans to buy shit in countries that don't share our basic values with the intent to import them into the United States.
So in otherwords we should wall ourselves off and make illegal all exports and imports to and from those countries who disagree with us. I disagree that "America is for sale for a dollar." What I see is an economy that is global. Let's look at the Auto industry for a little bit. Did you know that American Auto workers cost the companies they work for $79.00 per hour? You know what the cost for Toyota and Honda is? A little less than $50.00 per hour. That includes the tariffs they pay by the way. How do American car companies stay competitive? They reduce the cost of the inputs into their products. Thus we get the crappy American car. So of course they will try to find wherever they can, an advantage. This leads to some pretty shady practices and offshoring of jobs. Thank you UAW.
But strip away all the fluff and your argument is the same, greedy, selfish and essentially morally empty argument that if doing the right thing costs you anything you vote to fuck the right thing because in your lifetime the bad shit won't manifest. This and the RED FUCKING HERRING feature of your argument make it all about your money, which has no scientific value to the discussion.
You are babbling like and addled Meth Addict.
My whole argument is that there is not a single piece of reliable evidence that anything we spend our money on or any program that we enact that reduces CO2 emissions without first finding a suitable source of energy, is irresponsible. YOU
are the one that is screaming "DAMN THE TORPEDOES! FULL SPEED AHEAD!" and charging off down this primrose path of spend money because some nut job says it will help.
What I am saying is that we need to know that there is something wrong before we even think that money can fix it.
This is another misuse of data. If you understood the problem better you would be happy to be able to drop 1 PPM/year.
That 1 PPM comes at the expense of zero (0) CO2 emissions. That means the only thing kicking out CO2 is our hot steamy breath.
That means anything that uses hydrocarbons as fuel, all plastics manufacturing, every last thing that creates C02 gets turned off like a switch, and THEN we MIGHT see 1 PPM reduction per year.
That means we only put 1 PPM into the atmosphere. C'mon now stick with me here. If we only put 1 PPM into the atmosphere how are we actually effecting C02 levels to point that anything we do will help?
Think of the analogy of the straw that broke the camel's back. If we manage to slow the rate of CO2 contributions to the troposphere that are due to man's activities, or even, as you suggested reverse it, it is feasible we will not "break the camel's back."
Your analogy is flawed because CO2 is not the problem. You are the one that has thrown the GIANT RED HERRING
into the mix. CO2 lags behind the temperature increase. C02 is the result not the cause. Read the studies. I can not be any more clear than that.
The rate of change in any oscillating system in nature is linked to the amplitude of the oscillations. In this case the issue boils down to whether or not mankind's contributions (from all mankind driven sources) to the mechanisms responsible for the rate at which global climate change is coming will drive a temperature excursion that is abnormally high. And, if it is, can we do something to damp rather than excite the amplitude?
Again CO2 is not the issue. There is a greater threat from increased water vaper in the troposphere than CO2. AGAIN another GIANT RED HERRING
As for your CO2 concentration timing based on ice cores, I would agree that at the times of highest temperature in the excursion the mechanisms causing the excursions should be liberating CO2 from the storage areas in ice and water at the fastest rate. All this indicates is that when it gets really fucking hot, some forms of life will thrive, while others won't, and some of the other mechanisms involved with the warming side of the equation will peter out faster and have a more controlling aspect on global climate change. After all, it does "return to normal" eventually, and it is unlikely that CO2 alone is the culprit.
You are right CO2 is not the only culprit but as you point out in the next sentence is that CO2 is the only thing we can effect. And we have found out that the effect we can have on it is insignificant both from the stand point of actually reducing the total PPM and the fact that C02 is not a causal factor. So all of this is the same as masturbation. It has not a single productive end other than it makes some people feel good for a few seconds.
What you miss is the only aspect we are aware of that mankind contributes to, and therefore mankind can affect, is the CO2 part of the problem.
I am not missing it all! That is what the whole crux of my arguments have been! Please try to read for content. It is helpful.
That is just blatantly bullshit. Being able to change the CO2 levels by 1 PPM one way or another per year is hardly insignificant.
It is insignificant the numbers speak for themselves. A little bit more than one fourth of one percent. That is not even outside any margin of error in a statisticians wet dream.
Also essentially rubbish. Dropping 1 PPM per year would completely negate the human contribution to the existing CO2 levels inside of a single generation.
That is if we go back to the STONE AGE in terms of our economies. Again though, CO2 is not the problem as you admitted four "Quotes" above this.
The real issue here is that for convenience your political bent to this issue depends on making it a black and white issue. All or nothing. Which does favor the "fuck it, let the good times roll" agenda you represent. In reality the issue is can we damp the system response to human activity and preserve the human species by curtailing our growing poisoning of the atmosphere (troposphere in particular) through the use of our combined technical capabilities?
No the real issue here is that nothing that you suggest or your political bretheren suggest even comes close to identifying a problem! The environmental movement has created and issue that garners them money and influence in advancing their political agenda. You can post all the wonderful diagrams you want and cite all the lovely numbers and stats you want. All you are doing is creating clutter. Find a study that shows with conclusive evidence that we (humans) are creating a global warming problem and then we can continue. All you have to say to that is that the earth is warming (of course now we see from many scientific outlets that the earth is actually cooling now) and that CO2 is higher than it used to be and we create CO2 so we have to stop creating CO2 and that will stop the problem.
Why don't you at least look into the possibility that the sun may be a big factor in all of this. The possibility that we are having greater exposure to the sun's radiation as is the cycle, and that maybe that is the biggest contributing factor.
The answer is not clear, but for you that means don't try since you might suffer some inconvenience, personally or collectively with those of your political outlook, and not reap some kind of reward in your lifetime. For many of the rest of the people, that means we should try because the consequences are unimaginable. And, if the space program is any indicator, the benefits of the technologies such an endeavor will spawn are going to make a bunch of new wealth. I would also prefer that wealth be American, and that can only happen if the effort is led by America.
You are correct the answer is not clear. Thank you for at least admitting that.
You are wrong in your characterization of my position. Again, read for content. I have said and I continue to say and you have no response to what I say; we have no evidence that anything we can do as a human race is actually causing the globe to heat up quicker or cool quicker, therefore for political leaders to race off down the path of cap and trade, reduction of CO2 emissions without suitable replacements for energy sources is a stupid, infantile reaction, and only serves to show that what is really behind the issue is the desire of these same politicians for more power.
Please indulge me in analogy here. The problem of global warming is being presented as a dooms day scenario. Ocean levels rising, super storms destroying whole regions, truly apocolyptic stuff. The cure is being paraded around that we have to give more to the government, the government then has to spend the resources on more information or else WE WILL ALL DIE. Let's take that characterization and apply to a situation on a smaller scale.
Your body is the globe. You have the symptoms that you get real hot and you get real cold sometimes. You hear that this can be attributed to the circadian rhythms of the human body but you want to be sure. So you go see your internist. He says that it is probably the Circadian Rhythms but just in case he sends you to an Oncologist. Now you are thinking you have cancer. You see the Oncologist and he says no you don't have cancer. You want a second opinion so you see another oncologist. He says no you don't have cancer. Finally you see a total of 100 oncologists. 17 of them say you have some form of cancer but they can not identify it, 83 of them say you do not have cancer. So you go home and tell yourself that well 17 of them think I have cancer, that means I will die a horrible death. So you decide to cure your cancer with a bullet to your head.
Every suggestion that has been put forth to dampen the global warming cycle would be economic suicide for a country. That is what it boils down to.