Rick Monteverde wrote:
Stephen wrote: I don't understand why you seem to feel humans have no
control over human-generated carbon dioxide.
How you got that I don't know, but please don't tell me. Of course
we can control (dramatically reduce) it, for instance by shutting down
our economy and sharply curtailing personal liberty. That's the solution
of the socialists who have hijacked a sweet little environmental
movement concerned with things that really matter, and turned it into
the giant global warming hoax. We could also reduce it as an incidental
byproduct of nuking up, or by achieving and implementing a LENR or
similar technology breakthrough. I'd hate the first, *very* cautiously
accept the second, and we'd all love the third.
Here is an excerpt from a document signed by thousands of scientists
primarily to refute the lie being circulated that scientific debate is
over and there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of AGW:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere
and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial
scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce
many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments
of the Earth.
Sounds like a confession of faith to me.
I'm not in the mood and I have no free time to start accumulating
content for the forum on all the evidence out there, searching, cutting
and pasting, citing references, and then having it all tossed back in my
face as the threads deteriorate into the non-sequiturs and silliness you
get when arguing with True Believers.
Yes, I know exactly what you mean.
It's like when someone says that humans only contribute 0.4% to the
Earth's CO2 load which is pretty insignificant, and someone else takes
the time to look it up and finds that what's actually meant is that
humans are causing a 0.4% rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration *every
year*, and that the net rise in global CO2 levels since the start of
heavy human CO2 generation has actually been at least 35% ... and the
person who made the 0.4% claim to start with just ignores the larger
numbers and says anyone who thinks that there might be a problem is just
a true believer.
Yup, I understand exactly how you feel about folks who disregard the
evidence.
Makes me gain even more respect
for what Jed and others do for LENR/CF.
Didn't expect such closed mindedness on a forum where being on the short
end of scientific consensus on controversial subjects is well known to
most of the participants.
I share the position held by a significant minority of scientists when
I see and understand the logic of the case against AGW as superior to
that which is presented in favor of it. I also see the undesirable
political conspiracy promoting it. It's clear that many of the active
posters here don't share those views yet, but I have more than just a
suspicion that someday they will.
- Rick
