Greenhouse Gases to be Listed as Pollutants by EPA

If by "science is sound" you mean the thermometers are working then I'd agree.

However, during the medieval period ago the Earth was much hotter than it was today so the science behind whats going to happen if the temperature keeps increasing is very unsound.

And as for the cause of such warming, lol, that science is definitely not sound.

 

I don't say avoid clean energy, i say just don't force people to use it. Incentivize? Absolutely. Invest in research? Fantastic!

Force people to use it by taxing them? No. I am all for some taxes believe me, but not this one. If you want to cut CO2 - go nuclear like France. They pay cheap for CO2 free electricity.

The problem with trying to reduced CO2 to say 1970 levels is that it won't make a freakin difference.

The half-life of CO2 is decades. That means the excess CO2 we've dumped is going to be up there for a very long time, and we'll still be injecting a bunch of CO2 - just at 1975 levels or whatever. And keep in mind that 1975 levels were plenty enough to keep global warming going.

Where is a study that shows cutting our CO2 to 1975 level sor whatever is going to turn back global warming? Where do they get this from? It's bull.

And the cycle may be too late. Less sunlight is reflected back because there's less ice caps, so that might have us in a positive feedback loop already.

Hopefully, massive algae blooms can straighten it all out.

 

Well, I was a skeptic for a while, but the reason I am convinced now is that phenomenon that were predicted to happen if indeed global warming was man-made have occured. An example of man made global warming (greenhouse effect warming) would be that the temperture increases we'd expereince would be greater at night than during the days. And this has indeed been the case. It's not the highs that are increasing, it's the lows.

Other thing such as atmospheric measurements align with a greenhouse effect associated with man made gases, and rules out pretty much every other explanation.

I am very mistrustful of environmentalists who really don't think scientifically but rather with their hearts. However, because I think scientifically, I must accept that global warming is real and is caused by the greenhouse effect associated with man made emissions.

 

Your brand of anti-science is quite an unusual one. You use the trappings of science, but what you are really doing is attacking and denying its very core principles. I’ve seen you do this in a couple of threads now.

For those who do value real science, I don’t think you should place any weight on anything Sweet Lou 4 2 has said, and as a specific example note that there are some very promising technologies that are in the working prototype stage for removing CO2 from the air. Here’s an introductory article.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/0...a-market-for-a-synthetic-tree-that-10510.html

 

Waters spilling over levees is actually part of geology...in fact, it actually helps make the land more fertile. What we have done by development has actually gone against this....flooding is part of nature, and while there is an immense human cost to it, the solution is far more complex than just from global warming.

Further more, a rise in sea level won't impact a place like fargo since the tidal forces of the oceans don't reach that far up the mississippi.

Venice is an example of a city that has adopted to sinking or rising sea levels. It proves my point. NOLA is already under sea-level...an 18 inch rise in the water certainly doesn't help, but keep in mind it is not going to happen over night. Intelligent city planning around an 18 inch rise in sea-level can do a lot to mitigate potential problems...if they start now and not wait.

 

Like you are ignoring potential benefits of global warming???

Will all do respect, the sea level is going to rise. The notion that cutting C02 by 20% when the population will grow 40% in the same period is kinda strange to me. Did you know that man made deforestation may account for 20% of global warming and CO2 level increases?

There's a lot of misinformation and false faith in the idea that cutting back CO2 a little bit, even though it would be at great sacrafice, is going to be enough to save us from difficulties ahead.

It's not. It's a total false panacea.

Co2 levels are going to increase, not decline, whatever is going to happen, it's going to happen. It's not a disastrous thing if we plan ahead. Humanities foolery was to build so much of it's value near the coastline in the first place.

Ever country with a coast must start planning for the impact of a rise in sea level of a few feet in the next 100 years. That is the only sane path for now. Because the drumbeat of humanity - progress, isn't going to stop for the environmental movement.

it doesn't matter if animals are put into extinction, it doesn't matter if small groups suffer. You can not unite 7 billion people in a fashion where those who have not much to live for or are willing to accept the risk are expected to altruistically join.

A solution that does not appeal directly to the self-interests (and I mean short-term, not 20-50 years) of humanity is simply a waste of time.

As I said, research and develop - absolutely. But if you really care, then you better say let's go nuclear. Uranium mining is awful, but if you have to pick your poison.

Which is it, global warming (which may be inevitable), pollution, or mass suffering from poor economics?

 

I really respect your POV. I do. In fact, I admire it. And I say that sincerely.

I am not dismissing the possibility that technology wont' solve this problem. If I was saying that, would I support research and investment into CO2 free technology??? I support it, wholeheartedly. I think we must invest in all of this.

My point isn't that we shouldn't invest in this technology, we must. My point is that as of today, there is no feasible solution to bringing us back down to 1970 levels. THe technology isn't there yet, and to try to implement this will only curtail human progress today - and not avoid the costs of global warming tomorrow.

So what's the point?

I am saying if we want to really address CO2, we have to think about how can we cut CO2 emissions by 90% over a 25 year time frame. And even that might be too late. This is an important point. It may be too late. THere is no science that supports the therory this is reversable. The half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is decades.

Think about this for second. That means even if we cut CO2 emissions in half today, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn't even decline - it will still increase! That's because we are still pumping CO2 faster into the atmosphere than it's being taken out.

We don't have a choice. Maybe we'll reverse global warming in 100 years, but if you truly believe that CO2 is warming the planet, and I think it is, and that this will increase sea levels - you must accept that this won't be stopped.

What we need is technology that can make it cheaper, not more expensive, that's why I support massive R&D. I think it should be a project that should unite the world. A 100 billion dollars in investment.

But forcing people to use it with taxes? No way. Just a silly idea.

 

Oh please. Don't be so naive. A slightly warmer winter is not worth a thing after global ecosystems collapse.

The time lag is inescapable. As was reported several months ago, even stopping ALL CO2 emissions at this point will not avert the continued sea temperature increases, ice melts, and large scale changes. It takes a LONG time to alter the ocean's temperature.

Not going to happen. It's far easier to implement GHG emissions restrictions than to get people to alter/abandon/secure prime beach front property. Get real.

I agree, which nullifies your previous statement. We can't alter what's already been done, but we can keep it from getting worse.

We're cruising towards all three.