I wouldn't quite say that we've had no effect; Though our actions of strip mining, deforestation, not handling pollutant by products well enough, the negligence of supporting solutions of hemp paper/plastics/medicine/food, etc. All do more harm then good in terms of survivability. This is our spaceship for this age in time, and it never does us any good to mistreat it.creamcheese said:From your posts here I take it you don't believe that humans have had a noticeable effect on the climate.
I'm here to ask you, so what?
So, while I believe that human contributions to just one trace gas as the sole of our problems is blatantly false; I don't take the naive position of our actions on the environments of the world and their corresponding effects on the climate.
Indeed.creamcheese said:It is a fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising. You can't dispute that, you can even measure them yourself.
Not quite, and I'd like to know what your definition of "risen dramatically" and "recently" are. The climate, according to ice cores, has a heartbeat of about 100K years. Would it be wise to compare the temperatures of the next three days, so you can plot out the next century? I think not.creamcheese said:It is also a fact that global average temperatures have risen dramatically recently. This is also an undisputed fact.
Water vapor is a far bigger greenhouse gas, and just how much CO2 do you think we add to the atmosphere in comparison to natural sources? If we indeed give out far more, then it's natural to think we might be throwing this engine a bit off course; But if it's a small percentage, then why focus on just CO2?creamcheese said:CO2 is a greenhouse gas, also a fact. You can do the experiment your self if you want. Humans spew out CO2 into the atmosphere, also a fact.
A better question would be: Do our actions out-power the natural inertia of the variables that drive the engine that is our climate for Earth. The climate will always change, it always has.creamcheese said:Now, given all of the above as fact, the only question that remains is:
Is human-emitted CO2 the primary cause of the warming we see? [don't even try to question that it is at least part of the warming, no matter how tiny a fraction]
Well, yes. There's no disagreement between us here, but in what way are these changes to be implemented?creamcheese said:The above question is essentially where the "controversy" thrives. Now I ask, even if humans aren't primarily causing global warming, aren't all the solutions to global warming beneficial to us anyway? In other words, even if humans have nothing to do with global warming, and it's all a hoax; we should still be using renewable energy sources and protecting our environment.
Currently, the COP15 treaty (that failed) has global taxation and regulations that "Must be implemented" to "solve this problem". Doesn't this sound more like a political statement, then a scientific one? We should be empowering the individual person from the bottom up, with choices that will lead them in the direction of self sufficiency; Whilst destroying the monstrosity that is consumerism...
This is what I mean by the hijacking that's taken place. We recognize that our ways are destructive, and that change is needed; But instead of changing through emulation of self sufficient communities "they" have the "answer to our problems". This is methodology that the church uses throughout the ages to captivate people into their cult; Don't fall for the same mind traps that the people you like to refute fall into.
There's oil fields in the caspian sea, alaska, iran, and half of russia that still have more fuel then all of Canada does in its oil sands. There won't be any shortage, and it's only mentioned to play with the price of these commodities.creamcheese said:Coal, oil, and natural gas will run out sooner or later. Some predict as early as 2050. Sure, we might find even more remote sources of those fuels, but eventually it will be cheaper to build wind farms and solar panels than to drill 20 miles into the crust for oil. By converting now, we save ourselves the pain of doing it later.
An interesting side note here: The original model T had a better MPG rating then most cars do today. Whilst computers have skyrocketed in terms of computing power. Why is that?
Wikipedia said:The Model T had a front-mounted, 177 in,³ (2.9 L) four-cylinder en bloc motor (that is, all four in one block, as common now, rather than in individual castings, as common then) producing 20 hp (15 kW) for a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h). The engine had side valves and three main bearings. Recent accounts credit the default-configuration Model T with fuel economy on the order of 25 to 30 mpg (7.8-9.4 L/100 km). The engine was capable of running on gasoline or ethanol[3], though the decreasing cost of gasoline and the later introduction of Prohibition made ethanol an impractical fuel.
This assumes the environment has no capacity to adapt to these new levels, which there is, so if you really are afraid go grow your own food and plant/help propagate as many natural species around you as you can.creamcheese said:Also... although I admit this would take a very long time to happen, but it could: Carbon dioxide is a toxin [to humans], and if atmospheric levels rise too high, zomg zombie apocalypse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity
Admittedly we would have to have around 20x-30x what we currently have, but I like to take the long view.
Let me know what you think.