Wrong. I don't know anyone who holds position 1, that's just irresponsible prattle on your part.
My position has nothing to do with what you seem to think it does. More irresponsible prattle on your part. Your position is that we should fear what we don't understand, and we should spend lots and lots of money to do something, even though we have no idea if anything we do will have any effect at all. Essentially, you have bought the global warming huckster's story and you are lined up ready to give him your money. My position is: 1. We know very little about what is happening to the planet and why it is happening 2. We should spend money trying to figure out the what and the why, but it should be spent on real science, not bogus half-truths like, "there were high CO2 levels the last time there was a warming trend, ergo high CO2 levels cause global warming." That is not science. 3. Whatever we learn about the causes, we need to be realistic about our ability to influence the atmosphere. Even without CO2 emissions from humans, the planet will warm and cool all by itself. Let's say we figure out exactly why- polar magnetic shifts, sun spots, cosmic radiation, the Earth's position relative to the Sun- it doesn't really matter what the factors turn out to be, just that we understand them. Does anyone believe we have the kind of Star Trek technology that would be required to counterbalance these other factors? We're talking about harnessing and controlling huge amounts of energy- many times the total generating capacity of all the power plants on Earth. Does anyone really think that we can, in any short time window, say the next two or three generations, harness that kind of power? The obvious answer is no. So what do we do? I suggest we spend money on things we can do something about, like Casey posted. Meanwhile, we can do two things to change our use of fossil fuels: 1. Move away from fossil-fuel burning vehicles. Fuel cells would be good, even if they use gasoline, because they don't burn the fuel, but all ideas are welcome. 2. As coal-fired power plants are decommissioned, we should replace them with clean coal or nuclear plants. Guess what? Those things are already happening. They just take time. On 10/24/07, Gruss wrote: > > > gMoney wrote: > > 90%+ of the scientific community vs. 10%....and the 10% only say that > there > > isn't enough evidence yet. Obvious. > > > > Basically there are 3 places you could be in this debate: > > (1.) The weather isn't changing > (1.a.) Do nothing because nothing is happening. > - Sam's position > > (2.) It's changing but it's not due to Man (cycles theory). > (2.a.) We can't do anything because we're too simple, but > apparently smart enough to know it's not caused by Man. > - Robert's position > > (3.) It is changing and we don't know why > (3.a.) We should gather more information via an expanded discovery > effort. > (3.b.) We should change behavior immediately based on known theories. > (3.b.1) Carbon tax > (3.b.2) Global halt to all Greenhouse Gas emmission > (cows, rice paddys, etc) > (3.b.3) Atmospheric manipulation (GHG eaters, > particulate dispersal, etc) > > I'm in the 3.a camp, but I could be convinced to go with 3.a & 3.b.1 > depending on the level of action. > > The concept that it's not happening seems ridiculous. The concept > that it is but we can't do anything ... well my self esteem isn't low > enough to believe that. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade to ColdFusion 8 and integrate with Adobe Flex http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:245037 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
