> > > > The question here is "what would constitute adequate action".
> > > > To my understanding, to avoid the dire consequences the alarmists
> > > > are predicting, we'd have to go back to pre-industrial levels of
> > > > emissions, on the order of 1% of current levels. GLOBALLY.
> > > I don't think anyone is advocating that idea. It is obviously silly.
> > Yes, you are advocating that very thing. you are just not
> > admitting it because it is so obviously silly.
> That does not qualify, in my estimation, as polite conversation. I will
> thank you for responding to what people say, not to what you want to argue
> against.
Okay, I'll refrain from drawing the obvious conclusions from your
statements.
> As for what you are saying, I believe that there are very big errors both of
> judgement and of fact, frankly.
That's called disagreement. Intelligent people with different
viewpoints sometimes have those. Now if you presented some evidence to
suport your case and didn't simply jump to straw-man denials, ad
hominem attacks and flat denial, we could have a discussion which might
in theory improve both of our knowledge bases on this subject.
> Let's start with this one, which seems to be pretty much central to the
> beliefs you are espousing:
> >. Any sensible understanding of the carbon cycle supports
> > > the intuitively obvious conclusion: the sooner, the better.
> > You're wrong here, there's a carbon saturation after which it
> > ceases to be a forcing.
> This isn't really true, it turns out. Consider Venus.
Consider Mars which has an atmosphere of 230000 ppm co2 why then
is it not an oven? Simply because there are a great deal of factors at
work other than carbon. Venus isn't a fair comparison due to several
factors, among them, 1) it is closer to the sun. 2) Our moon has
been shown to have gravitationally "skimmed" our atmosphere such that
there is a very great deal less total volatile volume to work with on
earth.
> A little humility would be appreciated please, as would refraining from
> strawman arguments, as would references, preferably ones traceable to
> primary scientific literature or peer reviewed surveys. You are in adult
> company on this list.
Okay, adult, present the alternate source of energy you are
supporting. Or present some evidence that 25% of current emissions
would produce a stable carbon cycle. Or how about listing of the
technologies you think are capable of reducing global emissions by 75%
without ending the economies of the world.
Or for that matter present something indicating that the
temperature ABOVE 2xpreindustrial co2 continues to respond. Produce
evidence (I'll even accept non-peer reviewed sources, and simply check
the facts) to support anything you are saying.
It seems to me that you've been guilty (at least in this debate)
of all of the errors you ascribe to me. You answered exactly 1 of the
points I made, and that erroneously.
I do apologise if I have been a little snippy, I am newly
transplanted from the land of vitriolic bitterness that is
sci-environment.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
