On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >> I disagree. We have no clue about climate mechanics - just people who claim >> to. > > And I question your competence to claim that they don't understand > them. Scientific consensus can totally be wrong, it has certainly > happened before. Might be true this time. But I have yet to see good > evidence from you or anyone else to support the claim that the current > scientific consensus is wrong.
I have not seen any good evidence that man is causing the 'warming' we are experiencing, and neither has anyone else, its all supposition. I have never disputed the fact that the 'climate' seems to be 'warming'. I am just not sold on the fact that it is purely based on human activity. And, since you did not answer my first question in my reply, I will take it to mean that you agree that the other periods of warming in earth's history were NOT based on human activity. We can then use that 'repeating pattern' 'theory' that was presented earlier, and assume that the current 'warming' is NOT caused by human activity. > >>> "Maybe we should think about how we do things." >> >> Like buying and selling carbon credits? I still don't understand how >> that is supposed to help..at all. > > Well, the theory is pretty straight forward. If you believe that > carbon dioxide is a main component of the greenhouse effect (trapping > incoming solar energy and warming the planet as a whole) then a key to > alleviating that effect would be to try and maintain some sort of > control on the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere and/or > being sequestered. If X carbon credits represents Y net change in > atmospheric carbon dioxide, then the market comes into play by capping > the overall net change (Y) by allowing units of X to be exchanged > between groups so that those who are able to reduce their carbon > emissions are able to trade part of their quota to a company that is > having a more difficult time, thus keeping the overall net change at > the desired level Y. There are problems with this system but that is > the basic theory. Translation, you can pump as much carbon dioxide as you can afford. -- Scott Stroz --------------- The DOM is retarded. http://xkcd.com/386 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:310231 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
