Global Warming and Evolution

[chaim]

“And this says what about the "destruction of ozone by cfc's"? You surely aren't saying CFC's don't destroy ozone, right?”

No, it is established fact that CFC’s contribute to the destruction of ozone. What hasn’t been clearly established is that anthropogenic causes account for the Ozone hole. One reason is the Ozone hole is, and has been, an annual event in the Polar Regions, particularly Antarctica, since before anyone bothered to look for it. It is an artifact of the polar winter.

This is completely untrue. The ozone hole is a reasonably recent phenomena. Previous to 1965 it did not exist. So your theory is wrong from the outset.

It also isn’t the entire story to simply say that the Ozone layer protects us from UV rays. It is more the result of regular old oxygen protecting us from UV rays. Quote:

“Ozone in the earth’s stratosphere is created by ultraviolet light striking oxygen molecules containing two oxygen atoms (02), splitting them into individual oxygen atoms (atomic oxygen); the atomic oxygen then combines with unbroken 02 to create ozone, 03. The ozone molecule is also unstable, although, in the stratosphere, long-lived; and when ultraviolet light hits ozone it splits into a molecule of 02 and an atom of atomic oxygen, a continuing process called the ozone-oxygen cycle, thus creating an ozone layer in the stratosphere.”

My point is that if there were no UV rays striking the top of the Earth's atmosphere, then there would be little or no ozone. Ozone is very effective at filtering out some wavelengths of UV radiation, and as long as sunlight is hitting the top of the Earth's atmosphere ozone is continuously generated. As stated, ozone will break down more quickly in the presence of CFC's, as well as methane and other gasses; but ozone itself is a very unstable compound, breaking down quickly even without the presence of those gasses. As long as the sun is shining, however, ozone is always being generated.

Even on Earth there are places where the sun doesn’t always shine. When the sun doesn’t shine, the reverse effect is true. The Antarctic ozone hole begins to form in the polar winter and reaches its peak in the polar spring. This corresponds to the time frame of the polar winter, when there is no sunlight hitting the upper atmosphere in the Polar Regions. If no sunlight is hitting the upper atmosphere, no ozone is being generated.

Again this is totally untrue. The ozone hole does not form in the winter, it forms when the sun hits the stratosphere (which photochemically disassociates Cl2 to Cl which destroys ozone). The data that you presented demonstrates that ozone depletion does not begin to occur until the beginning of August (which is polar sunrise in the Antarctic stratosphere. If as you propose the ozone hole is caused by darkness it would be peaking in July, right BEFORE polar sunrise.

“Each winter, the air around the South Pole cools and begins circulating to the west. This vortex effectively isolates the air over Antarctica…”

You are speaking of another phenomenon of the Polar winter known as the polar vortex. This vortex does lead to a closed atmospheric system which tends to isolate the Polar Regions from atmospheric mixing, as you list. However, the connection I am not sure you are making is this. Since the sun is not generating ozone in the Polar Regions during polar winters and ozone is an unstable compound, a “hole” in the ozone layer forms during polar winter and spring. CFC’s, methane and other anthropogenic gasses do accelerate this process, but when spring returns and the Polar Regions begin to receive direct sunlight again, the Ozone hole begins to shrink. If CFC’s are destroying the Ozone and causing the Ozone hole, why does the ozone return? Because it is generated by sunlight hitting oxygen in the upper atmosphere. Unless the Sun shuts down, it seems we will always have plenty of ozone.

The ozone returns when the polar vortex breaks down and mid latitude air mixes into the polar stratosphere. Again you theory of the lack of sun causing the ozone hole does not agree at all with the data.

To summarize, stratospheric ozone is the result of oxygen protecting us from UV rays; the ozone "hole" is the result of polar winters.

I agree that CFC's could have made the ozone hole worse than it naturally would have been, and therefore it is not intrinsically bad that the use of these chemicals was reduced. But again, I see little to no valid evidence that the hole in the Ozone layer was caused by man. It is another assumed cause and effect argument on the part those on the alarmist side of the question.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Without GOD we are simply like all the rest.

-sigh-

I give up, like all the rest of what? Humans?

Turpentine is a good cleaner to get oil paint out. It comes from trees.

Did the word "solvent" in my post cause you to post this? Did you get the point of why I used the word "solvent"?

Jets get far less mileage to the gallon and unless you have a truck or a muscle car from the 50/60/70's you will get more than 10 MPG.

Jets usually carry more than one moron to the mall.

But as for the 10mpg was more directed to "Hummer" owners.

Forbes notes "H2 gets a paltry 13 mpg on the highway and 10 mpg in the city"(SOURCE)

But even a pickup truck that gets 15mpg, or a minivan that gets 16mpg is an affront (SOURCE).

Conservatives want to give away their money to whom and what they choose and not have it taken and handed out to whomever by the STATE.

So why do conservatives want to shut down abortion clinics? I mean, it's just lib'ruls giving their money to places they want to give their money to!

But that's not the point. The point is, that if people have proven themselves inerrantly profligate with how they utilize fossil fuels then strictures should be put on how fossil fuels are parced out.

Sorry to say this, but you can't just go out and buy anything you want, no matter how rich you are. You can't buy a human life. There are laws. You can't buy an automatic weapon because it's dangerous to those around you. No matter how good you'd be with it and use it only for target practice.

But I digress. We do have laws on the books that limit our excesses. And fuel usage should be no different. IMHO.

Your teacher likely didn't get skin cancer of the hands and they smoked more way back when.

What exactly are you trying to say here? Do you want to tell us something about the carcinogenic potential of benzene?

But who listens to a bunch of conservative christians speaking of coffin (coughin') nails, and one's body being the temple of the Holy Spirit, especially when one needs to look so sophisticated.

What are you on about here? Are you saying only atheists and bad people smoke? Well, I've got another surprise for you: I'm an atheist (and arguably a bad person), and I don't smoke. My parents were smokers.

Tell me again, what this all has to do with greenhouse gases? I keep losing sight of the debate when following you down these rabbit holes.

 

[LittleNipper]

-sigh-

I give up, like all the rest of what? Humans?



Did the word "solvent" in my post cause you to post this? Did you get the point of why I used the word "solvent"?



Jets usually carry more than one moron to the mall.

But as for the 10mpg was more directed to "Hummer" owners.



But even a pickup truck that gets 15mpg, or a minivan that gets 16mpg is an affront (SOURCE).



So why do conservatives want to shut down abortion clinics? I mean, it's just lib'ruls giving their money to places they want to give their money to!

But that's not the point. The point is, that if people have proven themselves inerrantly profligate with how they utilize fossil fuels then strictures should be put on how fossil fuels are parced out.

Sorry to say this, but you can't just go out and buy anything you want, no matter how rich you are. You can't buy a human life. There are laws. You can't buy an automatic weapon because it's dangerous to those around you. No matter how good you'd be with it and use it only for target practice.

But I digress. We do have laws on the books that limit our excesses. And fuel usage should be no different. IMHO.



What exactly are you trying to say here? Do you want to tell us something about the carcinogenic potential of benzene?



What are you on about here? Are you saying only atheists and bad people smoke? Well, I've got another surprise for you: I'm an atheist (and arguably a bad person), and I don't smoke. My parents were smokers.

Tell me again, what this all has to do with greenhouse gases? I keep losing sight of the debate when following you down these rabbit holes.

If people will not respect their own bodies, they are not going to respect the environment. If people will not respect the CREATOR, they are not going to ultimately know what to do concerning HIS creation. I know several Christians who smoke ---- and they are trying to stop. As far a benzene, I will tell you that it is far worse to leave the oil paint on one's hands then to clean it off with turpentine and then wash one's hands with cold water. Oddly, I find that many people who do drugs, have casual sex, drink in excess, and smoke; drink bottled water and take vitamins. Not that the bottled water and vitamins are bad------------but they already ruined their bodies. The vitamins and bottled water is not going to solve anything......

 

[Gawron]

I have been busy lately with associated issues, but wanted to respond to your post.

Posted by Chaim:

“This is completely untrue. The ozone hole is a reasonably recent phenomena. Previous to 1965 it did not exist. So your theory is wrong from the outset.”

No, it isn’t. Perhaps a bit of actual history is in order first. Although Dobson began his study of stratospheric ozone in the 1920’s, regular ground-based measurements did not begin until 1957. But the Canadian scientist who instituted the monitoring program at Halley Bay, Antarctica, did so as a potential aid to weather forecasting, and not to track possible ozone depletion.

The first comprehensive worldwide stratospheric ozone measurements did not begin until 1978 with the Nimbus-7 satellite. This vehicle carried a TOMS (total ozone mapping spectrometer) and a solar backscatter UV meter. The Antarctic ozone hole wasn’t discovered until 1985, when the British Antarctic Survey team recorded the first visible evidence that the ozone layer was depleting. Even they stated that the ozone layer thins every year from August to November by as much as 60 percent.

If you read over the historical timeline, you find that during the mid-1970’s, studies suggested that CFC’s might destroy the ozone layer, therefore scientist started trying to find ways to measure it. Since the annual ozone hole didn’t just appear while we were measuring the Earth’s ozone layer, this is not the cause and effect you suggest. Scientist did not discover the ozone hole as a result of CFC use, scientist discovered the ozone hole as a byproduct of studying the potential effect of CFC use.

There are no accurate measurements of the thickness of the Antarctic ozone layer prior to 1980. Since then, satellite measurements show that the layer thins by about 60% from August to October and then returns to normal by December. Data that were collected between 1957 and 1979 suggest that the annual thinning was less, perhaps on the order of 30% to 40%. It is therefore likely that the October ozone thickness has declined since the 1960's; however I doubt that the 300 to 350 DU's in the 1960's on the Cambridge University chart are accurate, as the evidence required to support this claim is virtually non-existent. It is more likely that October ozone levels would have been more like 170 DU's. This would put them on a par with the 1986 level.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/docs/UO/Timeline/EN/timeline.cfm

Basing your claim as quoted above on a lack of evidence is not the best way to refute the argument that anthropogenic causes created the ozone hole. Besides, if mankind was steadily destroying the ozone layer, it wouldn't recover to essentially the same level every polar summer.

“Again this is totally untrue. The ozone hole does not form in the winter..”

You should read my post more carefully. I stated it begins to form in the polar winter, but the ozone hole doesn’t occur during the polar winter, it is an artifact of the polar winter. The polar vortex definitely plays a role in the annual phenomenon.

“Conditions in the Antarctic winter stratosphere are highly
suitable for ozone depletion because of (1) the long
periods of extremely low temperatures, which promote
polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) formation; (2) the abundance
of reactive halogen gases, which chemically destroy ozone;
and (3) the isolation of stratospheric air during the
winter, which allows time for chemical destruction to
occur. The severity of Antarctic ozone depletion can
be seen using satellite observations of total ozone, ozone
altitude profiles, and long-term average values of
polar total ozone.”

Source:

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:0E54sga80rwJ:www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2006/chapters/Q11.pdf+measurements+of+the+Antarctic+ozone+layer+prior+to+1980&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Here is a link to a story concerning another natural cause for ozone depletion:

http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524906.300

It is also interesting to note that the 2002 Scientific Assessment mentions the effect of solar cycles on levels of ozone, highlighting how increased ultraviolet impact produces more ozone and lower ultraviolet levels results in less ozone production. This was addressed in my prior post.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:C2LJCNSPU1EJ:www.unep.org/OZONE/pdfs/execsumm-sap2002.pdf+2002+scientific+assessment+on+global+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

 

[Gawron]

OK, I posted a longer response to chaim prior to this one, but I don't see that it has been placed yet. Regardless, perhaps we are all on the wrong track. It seems the British have found the answer.

Fat People Cause Global Warming
May 17, 2008

"If you're packing extra pounds, I hope you're pleased with yourself for what you've done to the flourishing but officially threatened polar bears. British scientists have managed to link what moonbats regard as the two greatest crises facing their country: the global warming farce and the fact that not everyone's weight conforms to official expectations."

"Overweight people use up more fuel for transport and consume more food, thereby producing more dreaded carbon emissions. They also contribute to the food shortage (caused largely by biofuels) and the oil shortage (caused largely by drilling restrictions)..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1973230/Fat-people-blamed-for-global-warming.html

I hope none of you GW supporters are overweight.....

 

[LightHorseman]

So let me get this straight...

Evolution is false because some other, completely unrelated theory, is false?

 

[Gawron]

Who on this thread has made such a statement?

 

[Gawron]

This was a double post so I deleated it. But to answer Lighthorseman below, I would not make the analogy that one theory is flawed because of the other. They are seperate issues, and on this thread I have stuck to global warming.

 

[LightHorseman]

Who on this thread has made such a statement?

Seems to be the fundamental premise of the OP...

"Evolution is false because look, heres some other theory that may have some flawes in it"

 

[Gawron]

Or if not "fat people," perhaps this is the cause of global warming:

Gore investment body closes $683m fund
By Fiona Harvey in London

Published: April 29 2008 19:55 | Last updated: April 29 2008 19:55

The investment vehicle headed by Al Gore has closed a new $683m fund to invest in early-stage environmental companies and has mounted a robust defence of green investing.

The Climate Solutions Fund will be one of the biggest in the growing market for investment funds with an environmental slant.

The fund will be focused on equity investments in small companies in four sectors: renewable energy; energy efficiency technologies; energy from biofuels and biomass; and the carbon trading markets.

This is the second fund from Generation Investment Management, chaired by the former vice-president of the US and managed by David Blood, former head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.

The first, the Global Equity Strategy Fund, has $2.2bn invested in large companies the company judges have “sustainable“ businesses, from an environmental, social and economic viewpoint. Mr Blood said he expected that fund to be worth $5bn within two years, based on commitments from interested investors.

Mr Blood said raising $683m for the new fund in the midst of “market disruption” showed the resilience of green investing. “The fact we were able to raise $683m was extraordinary, so our experience is that it has not really been a problem [raising funds despite what is] generally a difficult environment,” he told the Financial Times.

“A fear expressed by some is that the first thing to go in a downturn is the nice-to-have sort of investment. Some people put green investments in that category, but we think that is nonsense. This is not nice-to-have – it is fundamental finance...because the transition from a high-carbon to a low-carbon economy is a ginormous step that is going to happen quickly,” he said.

Both Mr Gore and Mr Blood had invested in the new fund to a “pretty sizeable” extent, Mr Blood said.

The average size of investment made by the new fund is likely to be about $30m, in small private or public companies. All of the investors in the new fund were drawn from the company’s existing pool of investors.

None were willing to be named but existing investors in the Global Equity Strategy Fund include the Swiss private bank Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch; the California State Teachers Retirement System; Sweden’s Mistra Foundation; and Australia’s Victoria Super Fund.

Last year, Generation formed a partnership with the Silicon Valley venture capitalists Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers to collaborate on possible investments.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

 

[True_Blue]

So let me get this straight...

Evolution is false because some other, completely unrelated theory, is false?

No, this post is intended to demonstrate how a completely false theory like global warming can make its way into the media and become accepted as gospel by millions of people. The thought processes behind global warming and evolution are strikingly similar, and both are accepted as a matter of faith by their adherents. Since global warming is demonstrably false despite the many scientists, academics, media people, and politicians that believe in it, it is very plausible that evolution is false as well.

(I'm defining "global warming" as the idea that only by scaling back industrialization can we save the planet from certain doom caused by anthroprogenic global warming.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

No, this post is intended to demonstrate how a completely false theory like global warming can make its way into the media and become accepted as gospel by millions of people.

Oh, so now it's "completely false". And you have based that on...?

Sorry, but just because a small group of people desperately do not want it to be true does not make the theory "completely false".

The thought processes behind global warming and evolution are strikingly similar

In that both are scientifically robust? In that both utilize facts and data to formulate a model?

, and both are accepted as a matter of faith

Maybe by some of the scientifically illiterate who don't understand the science. But apparently most of the appropriate authorities on these topics and who understand the science, actually think they are accurate theories. And they aren't doing it solely as a "matter of faith".

by their adherents. Since global warming is demonstrably false despite the many scientists, academics, media people, and politicians that believe in it, it is very plausible that evolution is false as well.

Please don't equate your couple of "questions" with proving Global Warming "demonstrably false". You have yet to address the physical chemistry behind CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Some on here keep talking about the temp-CO2 relationship, but they never have discussed the physical chemistry of the C-O bonds and the underlying role as a greenhouse gas.

(I'm defining "global warming" as the idea that only by scaling back industrialization can we save the planet from certain doom caused by anthroprogenic global warming.)

That is a subset of "Global Warming". But as has been pointed out to you already in this thread, it doesn't mean the wholesale destruction of industry and in fact could result in new industries and research avenues for development.

 

[Gawron]

Although I have limited my comments on this thread to global warming, I agree with True Blue's statement above. There is a correlation between the manner in which the science of both global warming and evolution is advanced. Far too many people, for whatever reason, fail to actually research the topics for themselves, which leads to blind acceptance of both with little or no question.

 

[Vene]

(I'm defining "global warming" as the idea that only by scaling back industrialization can we save the planet from certain doom caused by anthroprogenic global warming.)

Oh, you're arguing against the politics. How cute. This sounds like a textbook example of a strawman argument.

 

[thaumaturgy]

There is a correlation between the manner in which the science of both global warming and evolution is advanced.

Be careful not to confuse your potential misunderstandings over the science behind these with the actual scientists who understand this stuff and who, further, understand how science works.

Far too many people, for whatever reason, fail to actually research the topics for themselves,

That's likely because far too many people have regular lives to lead and far too few are scientists by training. The key differentiator with Global Warming and Evolution is that these topics appear to the uninformed scientific sub-literate to be things they can have a valid point about, despite their being nearly illiterate on the details.

That's the problem. Normally when people start to really investigate the science behind it, they become more like the vast number of experts who deal with these topics every day, et viola, they tend to believe in evolution or believe in global climate change.

That's why there's usually just a handful of "scientific" dissentors on the global climate change topic. The majority of dissent, as it would appear, comes from political and economic sectors. People with vested interest in seeing global climate change not be taken seriously and anthropogenic blame not be assessed.

As for the evolution debate, the majority of dissent comes from those with a personal or religious agenda and seldom from the scientific side. With a few notable exceptions.

Again, it's the impression that the layman has that his or her "2 cents" is worth anything in the debate.

which leads to blind acceptance of both with little or no question.

Well, that's a valid criticism of the non-scientist. As for the majority of scientists who work with these topics it appears far less "controversial". Ironically that doesn't seem to make much of an impact on those who would have us believe otherwise on these topics.

Hmmm.

 

[keith99]

Although I have limited my comments on this thread to global warming, I agree with True Blue's statement above. There is a correlation between the manner in which the science of both global warming and evolution is advanced. Far too many people, for whatever reason, fail to actually research the topics for themselves, which leads to blind acceptance of both with little or no question.

Let's be fair and complete. The same holds for gravitation! Has anyone on these boards charted the movements of the moon and observable planets to verify that their paths follow those predicted by an inverse square law? For that matter has anyone here done anything beyond simply noting that things fall (which whould hold for a flat earth model)?

Anyone verified Maxwells Equations?

Or are these also takne of 'faith' with at most a couple of demos at a museum that could easily have been faked?

 

[Gawron]

Here we go again.

"Be careful not to confuse your potential misunderstandings over the science behind these with the actual scientists who understand this stuff and who, further, understand how science works."

Because of course only the chosen few can actually understand how science works, and the rest of us should be happy to be the stupid lemmings we are. I have enjoyed the back and forth with you on this topic, but this a cheep and disingenuous manner in which to attempt to dismiss someone's informed viewpoints. Are scientists the only ones who know how to read?

"believe in global climate change."

My dissent is with the notion of anthropogenic driven global climate change, and the agendas being advanced in that name. And I am not alone.

"That's why there's usually just a handful of "scientific" dissentors on the global climate change topic."

Quote:

"[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"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. "[/FONT]

End quote. This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientist. I don't see 31,000 as a "handful."

Link: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

"Again, it's the impression that the layman has that his or her "2 cents" is worth anything in the debate."

What is your point, that the American taxpayer who is going to foot the bill for addressing the global warming crises isn't allowed his "2 cents?" Just shut up, all you hicks, and take it? Or is freedom of speech not your thing?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Here we go again.


Because of course only the chosen few can actually understand how science works,

You are perfectly free to learn the science. My point being that if you learn the science it is less likely you will see it as controversial. That's why the majority of climate scientists feel global warming is a real threat and we need to address it.

and the rest of us should be happy to be the stupid lemmings we are. I have enjoyed the back and forth with you on this topic, but this a cheep and disingenuous manner

I did not mean to be cheap and disingenuous. I'm being quite genuine. What I see on this and other discussion boards is that one point is taken and the other, more serious science is avoided. In this case, on this board, I see one poster repeatedly pointing out a reversed cause-effect relationship in the temp/CO2 record, but never an actual discussion of the physical chemistry behind what a greenhouse gas is or why it functions the way it does.

And until I get something more than one single version of criticism of the theory I'll go with the huge number of experts who have indeed "bought into this".

I've worked in earth science and I've worked at a major research institution that deals with this stuff. My wife works at another one that is famous in this field. Neither I nor my wife are experts on this. But indeed we have an appreciation for the science behind it.

My experience as a geochemist has allowed me to understand a bit about the physical chemistry but I'm not an expert on this. But I don't think the citation of a few "dissenting opinions" on this equals the weight of the data and models and science that goes against those dissenting opinions.

in which to attempt to dismiss someone's informed viewpoints. Are scientists the only ones who know how to read?

Did I say that? Because I don't remember saying that. Perhaps you are arguing with someone else?

End quote. This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientist. I don't see 31,000 as a "handful."

Let me lay a quote on you:

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.(SOURCE)

emphasis added.

Emphasis added. Now, what part of "all" and "whose members expertise bears directly on the matter" is confusing here?

I bet quite a few of the 31,000 signatories you list are not people whose "expertise bears directly on the matter", since that is usually the case for these mass "detractors". But I don't know about this list of signatories.

Let's just say I'll believe a climate scientist on a climate topic long before I'll believe an economist or structural engineer on a climate topic. I also have the added advantage of some background in the appropriate sciences here.

What is your point, that the American taxpayer who is going to foot the bill for addressing the global warming crises isn't allowed his "2 cents?"

Yes. This is a very important topic and it isn't open to "a popular vote". This, as so much in science, isn't a "market good". We have one planet, and the models are telling us that we are directly responsible for endangering said planet. The only thing that needs to be done is act with a bit more responsibility. No one is asking for the wholesale dismantlement of the American society.

No vote. No voice for the scientific illiterate on this.

Just shut up, all you hicks, and take it?

Yes. But then I also feel the same way about vaccinations. Shut up hicks, if you don't want your smallpox vaccination, too bad.

Or is freedom of speech not your thing?

This isn't a "free speech" issue. Just as the personal ownership of nuclear weapons isn't a "free speech issue". You can't own one. End of story. No discussion.

This is too dangerous to leave to the uninformed to hold up.

You are perfectly free to think whatever you want and say whatever you want. But don't expect just because you can say it, it is the truth. Even if you honestly and earnestly believe it.

Sooner or late the experts are allowed to be heard and they must be heeded. When time is ticking and we've likely already passed a couple critical tipping points, the time for "debate" is over. Action must be taken.

Global climate change is real. Anthropogenic global climate change is likely real. There's something we can do about it now. If we dawdle around while all the uninformed balk we lose. Everyone loses.

 

[Gawron]

I have just read over your response, and must say I am stunned at the depth of the enviromarxist agenda you are willing to see enforced based on the word of the IPCC, a political agency.

At the moment I do not have time for a detailed response, but I will be back later tonight to address these issues.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I have just read over your response, and must say I am stunned at the depth of the enviromarxist agenda you are willing to see enforced based on the word of the IPCC, a political agency.

I hope you are stunned. I can understand that enforcing a level of personal responsibility at a near-crisis time could be stunning to some.

If it is so hard to give up our gas guzzlers and our wanton ways when the fate of our only home is at stake, well then I'm afraid that this moves beyond a reasonable discourse.

As I said earlier, at some point the experts have to be believed. And when "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter" agree that this is an issue that needs addressing, I suggest that now is that time.

If you find it offensive enough to throw "strawman" labels such as "enviromarxism" at it then maybe you need to take a step back and look at what is exactly on the line here. (I can almost taste how much you hate this idea that you had to invoke the worst of Conservative Nightmare Monsters: "Marx" in your fun portmanteau label!)

It's not like you can go somewhere else. Got a condo on Mars?

At the moment I do not have time for a detailed response, but I will be back later tonight to address these issues.

I do hope so.

But please keep in mind these very salient points:

1. America is the global leader in consumption of petroleum. We make up 5% of the earth's population but use 25% of the petroleum.

2. America is the global leader in power and economic muscle. If anyone should step up to the plate and do something it is us.

3. "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter " agree that global warming and likely anthropogenic global warming is real and should be addressed.

4. The physical chemistry and quantum concepts are firmly in place around why CO2 is a known greenhouse gas.

5. The time for discussion and dawdling is quickly drawing to a close. At some point in every legal topic broached by Americans throughout their history we have had to come to a concensus. In this case the concensus is in when "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter " have agreed that this is a serious concern.

If you wish to keep the discussion going on ad infinitum then sadly you will get the globe you deserve.

Do answer me a question while you are at it:

WHY do you not want us to moderate our carbon footprint?

I'll tell you what I think it is. I think it's all about the money (based on the "enviromarxism" label you dredged up). You have decided, as many people do, that you are unwilling to make sacrifices for something that you can, with a little effort, justify ignoring. People aren't roasting alive in the streets that we see, so it's no problem. Why endanger our present day standard of living?

Now, I don't know you, so I'm just guessing. But usually when someone so vehemently denies physics and chemistry on this level and prefers the teachings of a small minority group to "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter ", it is usually for a decidedly non-scientific reason.

And I similarly suspect that if "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter " came along and told you that looking at pictures of Ralph Nader caused cancer you'd be among the first to wave that banner high and proud and use it to outlaw the Ralph Nader pictures. For the safety of society!

But again, I'm just guessing.