Yes, CO2 is increasing by humans. In many ways fossil fuels keep us alive and fed. It runs the furnace for my house to keep me from freeaing (20F outside), it runs the tractors that farm the fields, the trucks and trains that deliver the food, and most people in the US require driving a car to get to work.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is likely increasing the global temperature - probably at a miniscule rate compared to the rate of warming due to natural cosmological and geothermal causes. Yes, humans continue to make it worse (in a tiny way), but without the CO2 creation the polulation would die in large numbers at the present state of technology. I didn't say don't worry. In fact we should be preparing for warming. We should reduce our use of fossil fuels as the economy and technology permit. What if I am wrong? No difference. Everyone is polarized one way or the other. The reality is that no matter what the president commits the US to, what I am suggesting is what will happen in the end anyway - gradual reduction of CO2 as the economy and technology permit. But, we should not be selling the effort on the basis of Global Warming - we should be selling it on the basis of not poisoning our atmosphere. If the fanatics were to get the reins and turn the "Global Warming" theory into an emergency, it would cause a shift of lower middle class individuals into poverty to pay for the emergency efforts. Many would die from not being able to heat their house, buy food, or go to work. It would delay contributions of the US toward elimination of world poverty. It would create a huge demand for a technological alternative that the world doesn't have. After all is said and done there would be significant economic damage, perhaps greater war as many of the poverty stricken look for a way out, and I believe a total failure to abate global warming in any meaningful way. On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:51 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bob, you seem to agree there is warming... > > That CO2 is increasing, by humans... > > I presume you agree that increased CO2 heats things up with the greenhouse > effect. > > I presume you understand that oil pays a lot of people a lot of money to > make global warming look like some kind of conspiracy... > > I can agree that CO2 and greenhouse gasses may not be the only cause of > global warming/climate change/disruption... > > So do you think humans continue to make the situation worse? > > How sure are you we shouldn't worry? > What if you are wrong, what is the cost? Pretty high right? > What if I and those concerned about global warming are wrong, what's the > cost? Wouldn't being greener bring other benefits anyway? > > John > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> For fear of being branded a card carrying republican, I hate to comment >> on such topics. I believe the "global warming movement" is a false flag - >> just another lie being broadcast as propaganda to achieve some government's >> pet objective. It is not that I don't believe the earth is warming - I >> do. The reality is that the earth goes through cold and hot cycles. Ice >> cores show a period of 100k-200k years between glaciations (peak cold). >> What happens in the middle between peak cold glaciations? The answer is a >> peak hot earth. We are only about 25k years from the last peak cold >> glaciation, and probably 25k-75k years from peak hot earth. The earth is >> presently in a gradual heating portion of the cycle as we move toward the >> peak hot earth. The false flag is the promotion that warming as being >> caused by man - the science is not good enough to say this with any >> reliability. Yes, there is rise in CO2 and there is warming, but the earth >> would be warming even if there were no CO2 additions. The question is only >> whether there is a small change in rate of warming caused by the CO2 >> addition. Cutting CO2 emissions drastically will likely have no >> significant effect on warming but may incur significant cost. Wouldn't >> that money be better spent in elimination of world poverty? >> >> Having said that, I believe there is good reason to design out the use of >> fossil fuel burning: it is poisoning the air we breath. It is particularly >> acute in the cities and worse in the industrial coal burning cities in >> China. The average person does not realize that with every 20 gallons of >> gas they burn in their car, they are adding over 300 pounds of CO2 to the >> air. Another side benefit is elimination of the fighting that has its >> roots in oil supply favoritism. >> >> The justification for LENR is clean air, and clearing the landscape from >> power distribution ugliness through distributed power generation without >> the scale, danger, and nuclear waste of the fission industry. The third >> world will benefit from this readily because they don't have a grid to >> start with. Availability of small, non-polluting power generation systems >> (particularly CHP) will help their rise from poverty via access to energy >> without the expense of a grid and without need for world controls on >> nuclear proliferation. And what about solving the world's fresh water >> crisis? This is a real opportunity: LENR powered desalinization. >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Calling all cold fusion flacks! >>> >>> I added a comment to this article at 10:15 (that's how you can find it). >>> I would appreciate up-votes to make it more visible: >>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/opinion/hope-from-paris.html >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
