The ups and downs of global warming

[BmanMcfly]

Nuclear energy is very clean, highly efficient, cost-effective (in the long-term), and technologically feasible. It can also be used to export excess energy to Canada and Mexico at a profit. It could provide for all of our infrastructural energy needs indefinitely and reduce our dependency on foreign oil by the order of several magnitudes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to give solar, wind, or tidal energy political priority over nuclear energy.

Your analysis of canadian energy needs is... flawed.

Canada is the source of much of the worlds uranium, already has a few nuclear reactors, Manitoba sells it's hydroelectric excess to the US, also, the US buys up the vast majority of canadian oil and natural gas production.

 

[Catawba]

There are public schools in Maine who have switched their boilers from oil to wood pellets. Keep the fuel industry in state.

The more localized the energy source, the more efficient and less likely to have outages. All it will take is the will of the people to become self sufficient again. Look at what Denmark has accomplished. They are fast becoming the world leader in green technology!

If they can do it, I see no reason why we cannot.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Ill take a wind farm in my back yard any day over a nuclear power plant... which would seem to have a big red target painted on it enticing potential nut cases.

Those really are not viable on anything more then a local use. There's just not enough wind to be harnessed in most places.

My nephew's research suggests otherwise. In any case...

I'm referring to that temperature graph that AL Gore altered for his film. well, maybe not altered, but showed them in a way that could prove his point... when you view that graph superimposed, the link between temperature and CO2 that Al Gore claimed proved that CO2 was the most important.... well, the actual fact is that the CO2 levels lag behind the temperature by a number of centuries.

Of course the term "environmentalist is not monolithic. This is what Tyson Slocum had to say of the legislation under consideration:

... what this bill will do, it will not result in significant reductions.

It creates a legal right to pollute for industries and gives away credits for free to allow companies to meet those targets without having to pay for them. And that is simply not going to spur the kind of investments we need. President Obama had it right when he announced in his budget in February that if you wanted to pollute, you would have to pay for the right to pollute. And by holding an auction, the government would raise hundreds of billions of dollars that could be reinvested back to the American people to offset the impacts of higher energy prices that a cap-and-trade program would bring and to spur billions of dollars in needed investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Ya, that 'carbon trading' deal was also a scam... it was a 'feel good' bit of legislation to do nothing while claiming to do something.

This still takes away from the point that I've been trying to make that there are MUCH MORE devastating pollutants than CO2; dioxins, GMO's, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones, and a wide aray of environmental pollutants whose effects are all between known toxins and lacking in research.

Funny thing is that I saw a ray of hope that people would come together on these issues after 9/11. Some Conservatives were seeing the issue from the national security point of view, primarily- That is O.K. as long as we move forward. Now, what I hear from people like Krauthhammer and friends is that we need nuclear and drilling. Talk about a big gift to corporate America! Here is James Woolsey speaking in 2005:
An interview with geo-green James Woolsey, former head of CIA | Grist

You've been working with the Energy Future Coalition to get measures into the energy bill that would accelerate the development of next-gen energy technologies. Can you give an overview of the technologies you're pushing for?

We want substantially better fuel efficiency from vehicles and alternative fuels that can be used in the current infrastructure. As for cars, we are advocating modern diesels, flexible-fuel vehicles, hybrids, and a plug-in adaptation for hybrids. We're also pushing for the development of cellulosic ethanol and biofuels. Almost all of these are here and now, compatible with the existing infrastructure, and can be worked on by your average mechanic. It's not like trying to put hydrogen reformers into every filling station in the country.

High-grade diesel technologies have just now caught up with our emissions standards. Flexible-fuel vehicles can use any mixture of gasoline and ethanol -- up to 85 percent ethanol. The cars most of us drive now use a maximum of 10 percent ethanol. It's a simple conversion -- just a slightly different kind of plastic in the fuel line and a differently programmed computer chip.

Plug-in hybrids would be a simple adaptation of existing hybrid technology by adding a battery that can recharge from the grid. You'd charge your hybrid at night and drive about 10 to 30 miles on the overnight power before you start using liquid gas, which means your 50-mpg Prius now becomes a 100- to 150-mpg Prius. Based on current electricity prices, you would get the functional equivalent of 50-cent-a-gallon gasoline.

Just a couple points :

Ethanol and other 'biofuels' is a sickening use of ressources. Burning FOOD. As a society we over-consume in food, and while there are places in the world starving that could be dealt with, instead we divert this food into 'ethanol' plants to make gasoline additives.

Also, did you notice in that guy's spiel how nothing offered ENDED the reliance on oil, rather just reduced the flow.

What is your position on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

If the oil companies were mandated in their contract, with a penalty EXCEEDING the value of the ressources obtained, to clean up the area and to be accountable in ensuring that as little environmental damage took place... I might be okay with it...

However, that'll never happen... and Bush already decided on that one, didn't he??

I have concerns about the vulnerability of the trans-Alaska pipeline and, moreover, that [drilling in the Arctic Refuge will] reduce us from 68 percent imported oil to 65 percent oil in 10, 20 years -- well, that's a drop in the bucket. It doesn't begin to compare to the strides we could make with alternative fuels and vehicles.

You do realize that the bottleneck is NOT in the oil pulled out of the ground but in the refineries?? Also that the supply aspect of the price is in the REFINED supply, and not the extra that is 'in queue'.

What are your opinions of the House-passed energy bill?

You'd have to be a bit more specific... I'm aware of a number of energy bills, but am not certain of which ones have passed or not.

It needs substantial improvement, starting with the fact that it's so focused on increased incentives to the oil industry to explore for more resources when the president has said it's really not necessary at $50-a-barrel oil. And the fact that they're focused on hydrogen fuel cells when there's not going to be any substantial effect on oil use by moving toward hydrogen fuel cells for some 20 years, because the infrastructure changes are so huge. I hope these and other issues will be corrected in the Senate version.
conservatives -- are becoming divided or united on the energy issue?

I couldn't say, how conservatives feel... I have no assoiciation with any party... although I will agree and disagree with the party stance on different issues (although for the most part I disagree with about 90% of what's come out of government)

I can only say that there appears to be plenty of controversy in the environmental movement about "cap and trade". I don't know where you live but hear in Maine there is a point around which environmentalists and libertarian conservatives come together: we are CHEAP! People have small wind mills in the back yard, many people heat with wood or wood pellets (modern wood stoves are cleaner and much more efficient than heating with oil. People have venison and moose steaks in the freezer.
That said, I believe we should have a gas tax that stabilized the cost of gas at higher level than it is currently, spurring consumers to demand highly efficient vehicles and preparing Americans for the next oil shock. The tax can be used for next gen infrastructure.

Why would you want to add ANOTHER tax on the people that are already struggling to keep afloat?? What good would a new tax do if there's noone with money to PAY the tax??

You want a solution : Take out the cartel. Then I'll talk to you about what type of taxes should be placed on fuel...

The next shock will not be an 'oil' shock... it will be an 'inflation' shock. (You can COUNT on that happening within 2 years... what Gerald Celente of 'trends research institute' says will be called 'the greatest depression'... oh and historically, look back over the past 100 years and see what happens after a depression to pull the country out of depression.)

As it stands, Americans are already becoming complacent once again..

I disagree... while, yes there is a number of americans becoming more and more complacent, there is also a growing number of americans (and people world wide) that are becoming more and more active, politically, environmentally (afterall, energy efficiency on a personal level is a good thing), etc.

 

[Cassandra]

Those really are not viable on anything more then a local use. There's just not enough wind to be harnessed in most places.

Around here there are a number of people with windmills in their backyards. A good buddy of mine uses it, alone, for electricity: Mainers are eccentric!

But I have much more confidence that solar will be of major importance.

Check out BrightBuilt Barn


"On an objective plane, here are the numbers. In its first year, BBB produced 6345 kilowatt hours of electricity, and used 1251 kwh, leaving a surplus of 5094 kwh.

In other words, BBB produced five times as much electricity as it used. My little BBB could power itself and four other homes just like it."



I think there is a huge business potential for green prefab homes.Take a home like this, make it more affordable through economies of scale, (It costs close to $200,000. with all appliances) and drive a plug in car. This should not be "far fetched".

This still takes away from the point that I've been trying to make that there are MUCH MORE devastating pollutants than CO2; dioxins, GMO's, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones, and a wide aray of environmental pollutants whose effects are all between known toxins and lacking in research.

I really have no way of judging the relative damage of various pollutants but how do you address the harm as long as we rely on dirty coal and dirty cars?

Also, did you notice in that guy's spiel how nothing offered ENDED the reliance on oil, rather just reduced the flow.

Does anyone think we can end the reliance on oil? Woolsey offers some pretty radical suggestions.
I quoted the Woolsey discussion because he is one of a number of conservatives who sees the urgency for alternative energy. That conversation took place in 2005. His ideas were completely dismissed by the Bush administration. In those 8 years, I wonder how many gas guzzlers were purchased and starter mansions were built on the assumption of cheap oil, indefinitely.

The next shock will not be an 'oil' shock... it will be an 'inflation' shock. (You can COUNT on that happening within 2 years... what Gerald Celente of 'trends research institute' says will be called 'the greatest depression'... oh and historically, look back over the past 100 years and see what happens after a depression to pull the country out of depression.)

Oh, I agree with you there. Americans are definitely scr*wed. Even Paul Krugman asserts that the least painful way out of the hole is dollar devaluation. I am not sure that= great depression. Anyway I hear that the official definition of recession is when my neighbor loses his job; depression is when I lose my job. So I guess there is no bar.

I disagree... while, yes there is a number of americans becoming more and more complacent, there is also a growing number of americans (and people world wide) that are becoming more and more active, politically, environmentally (afterall, energy efficiency on a personal level is a good thing), etc.

I agree with you on some things but on this, no, I see a concerted effort to mock and belittle green solutions.

 

[bowerbird]

I think I remember RightinNYC posting how much it would cost to put the entire US on a nuclear power grid. I believe it was right around or maybe just slightly less than what our government has been spending on so called stimulus.

Did he facotr in the cost of training the specialists required to run the facilities? That is what has stopped Australia - we have one reactor and it does not provide electricity - we have no more because the world wide labour pool for trained personnel is very small.

If you want a real breakdown on the economics of this - check out the Garnaut review - I know it is in there somewhere but feel disinclined to read all 500 plus pages of a government document to find it

Garnaut Review Web Site: Home

 

[BmanMcfly]

Around here there are a number of people with windmills in their backyards. A good buddy of mine uses it, alone, for electricity: Mainers are eccentric!

But I have much more confidence that solar will be of major importance.

Check out BrightBuilt Barn


"On an objective plane, here are the numbers. In its first year, BBB produced 6345 kilowatt hours of electricity, and used 1251 kwh, leaving a surplus of 5094 kwh.

In other words, BBB produced five times as much electricity as it used. My little BBB could power itself and four other homes just like it."



I think there is a huge business potential for green prefab homes.Take a home like this, make it more affordable through economies of scale, (It costs close to $200,000. with all appliances) and drive a plug in car. This should not be "far fetched".

Maine is perhaps one of those areas where the wind is adequate to justify a windmill, but for most places it would not work... or at least not reliably enough as a sole source.

I agree that your suggestion is definately not far-fetched, actually, in my city of origin there are new development areas where the houses all come with geothermal heating, among other energy efficiency related items... (not certain if it was just a 'rich' area or some 'pilot project', but none the less)

I really have no way of judging the relative damage of various pollutants but how do you address the harm as long as we rely on dirty coal and dirty cars?

I'm not certain what the pollutants are with coal power, I'd imagine it would be soot and other particulates... it does create CO2, but that doesn't count.

Same with cars, if there's lead in the gas, that comes out the exhaust and into the ais, the chemicals in the rubber of the tires are released...

Now, how would the damage be assessed?? That's a good question, really... I suppose would be the same way that you would determine the toxicity of any substance in humans, animals and plant life...

Does anyone think we can end the reliance on oil?

Perhaps through divine intervention... unless the oil companies find an alternative that can be patented in their name so that the switch could be profitable to them... it's NOT happening. The US WILL ALWAYS be dependant on oil.

The oil cartels could be likened to a 10lb tick on a 5lb dog, the dog knows the tick is there, but hasn't done anything to shake it off, and now is reliant on the tick even to move around.

Woolsey offers some pretty radical suggestions.
I quoted the Woolsey discussion because he is one of a number of conservatives who sees the urgency for alternative energy. That conversation took place in 2005. His ideas were completely dismissed by the Bush administration. In those 8 years, I wonder how many gas guzzlers were purchased and starter mansions were built on the assumption of cheap oil, indefinitely.

Oh, I agree with you there. Americans are definitely scr*wed. Even Paul Krugman asserts that the least painful way out of the hole is dollar devaluation. I am not sure that= great depression. Anyway I hear that the official definition of recession is when my neighbor loses his job; depression is when I lose my job. So I guess there is no bar.

Screwed is to put it lightly... We were screwed BEFORE TARP.

A recession is 3 quarters of stagnation or minor losses, a depression is 6 quarters... from what I hear...

I agree with you on some things but on this, no, I see a concerted effort to mock and belittle green solutions.

Because for the most part the 'green' solutions are part of a scam to sell the world on a tax on EVERYTHING and could even logically be used to tax breathing. It's a religion of dehumanization, making humanity the enemy... now there is a divergence of people that is growing... one side blindly following the status quo, the other openly questioning and even confronting the status quo... this goes deeper then just issues of environmentalism however...

Now, you are smarter then the average environmentalist, you have a grasp of the REAL problems hidden behind the carbon scam, the general public however DOES NOT have this level of discernment... if you told them that 'dihydrogen monoxide' was bad you could convice them to sign a petition to ban WATER (I'm pretty sure there's a youtube video of this).

 

[Cassandra]

The impressive thing about the BrightBuilt home ( I swear I am not an investor) is that Maine is a terrible location for solar power. Imagine what could be done in New Mexico? If it works well here?....

I'm not certain what the pollutants are with coal power, I'd imagine it would be soot and other particulates... it does create CO2, but that doesn't count.

Aside form CO2 -Nasty stuff:

Sulfer Dioxide (acid rain)
nitrogen dioxide
VOC
Arsenic
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium

 

[bowerbird]

The impressive thing about the BrightBuilt home ( I swear I am not an investor) is that Maine is a terrible location for solar power. Imagine what could be done in New Mexico? If it works well here?....

Aside form CO2 -Nasty stuff:

Sulfer Dioxide (acid rain)
nitrogen dioxide
VOC
Arsenic
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium

The mercury was the interesting one - I did some research into the fluorescent globes when it was first mooted about the "dangerous levels" of mercury - found out then there was more in the fumes from a coal fired power plant than in a household full of "fluoros'"

 

[molten_dragon]

There was an interesting article on global warming in the Wall Street Journal online that I thought I'd post on here.

WSJ Article

 

[Catawba]

There was an interesting article on global warming in the Wall Street Journal online that I thought I'd post on here.

WSJ Article

This helps explain the difference between weather and climate changes~

"Note how ever since 1970 there has been an sharp rise, and it is unabated now. Within the yearly temperatures there have always been and there will always be years in which the temperature is cooler than the immediately previous years. This is "noise" in the data and is caused by things like El Nino's and La Nina's. Notice how averaging smooths out the noise. The upward peak is still continuing despite the temperature for 2008 being cooler. But there is more ..."

"While it is true that 2008 is the coolest year of the decade ... or if you want to be even more misleading -- the century or even the millenium ... it is still the 10th WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD. That means that 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 were even warmer. Since 1998 was the warmest year on record that makes the 9 years of this decade the next 9 warmest years since temperature measurments have been made. The warmest decade ever was the 1990's it was 0.14o warmer on average than the 1980's. The 2000's are on pace to be 0.22o warmer than the 1990's. It looks like global warming denialist are even more wrong. Not only is there no real evidence that global warming is reversing, there is evidence that it is accelerating."
Global Warming Canards: Recent Cool Weather Disproves Global Warming | Progressive U

 

[Middleground]

Not only is there no real evidence that global warming is reversing, there is evidence that it is accelerating."[/I]
Global Warming Canards: Recent Cool Weather Disproves Global Warming | Progressive U

Amazing to me that some are still in denial about this. The facts are there. There is no doubt that the planet has been warming since industrial times.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Amazing to me that some are still in denial about this. The facts are there. There is no doubt that the planet has been warming since industrial times.

But how does that PROVE that it was the result of Co2??

Also, who says that colder climate is better then a warmer climate?

 

[Catawba]

But how does that PROVE that it was the result of Co2??

Because of the observed correlation between CO2 levels and temperature throughout history.

Also, who says that colder climate is better then a warmer climate?

The same scientists that have forecast rising sea levels and catastrophic weather events, unless you just happened to be into massive deaths of humans and other life on the planet.

 

[BmanMcfly]

The same scientists that have forecast rising sea levels and catastrophic weather events, unless you just happened to be into massive deaths of humans and other life on the planet.

You mean like the graph that AL Gore used in his documentary, which was shown in just such a way that you wouldn't notice the lag time between the temperature levels and the co2 levels in the centuries later??

The same 'scientists' that plan to benefit the most from the proposed 'carbon' related taxes that are being discussed??

Are you talking about the 'science of consensus' that made CO2 the cause of the worlds problems??

Seriously, nooone has answered yet... if there was no sun tomorrow, how much CO2 would we have to produce to offset it? I mean since CO2 drives climate then you just need to add CO2 and that'll heat things up, right??

Which is worse, CO2 which plants 'breath' to make O2, or heavy metals that have a REAL verifiable effect on the life exposed to those heavy metals?? How would your plans to 'reduce CO2' (btw no CO2 means no plants means no o2) change exposure to such actual toxins?

Finally, can you show me 1 IPCC scientist that adds the sun into his calculations?

 

[molten_dragon]

You mean like the graph that AL Gore used in his documentary, which was shown in just such a way that you wouldn't notice the lag time between the temperature levels and the co2 levels in the centuries later??

The same 'scientists' that plan to benefit the most from the proposed 'carbon' related taxes that are being discussed??

Are you talking about the 'science of consensus' that made CO2 the cause of the worlds problems??

Seriously, nooone has answered yet... if there was no sun tomorrow, how much CO2 would we have to produce to offset it? I mean since CO2 drives climate then you just need to add CO2 and that'll heat things up, right??

Which is worse, CO2 which plants 'breath' to make O2, or heavy metals that have a REAL verifiable effect on the life exposed to those heavy metals?? How would your plans to 'reduce CO2' (btw no CO2 means no plants means no o2) change exposure to such actual toxins?

Finally, can you show me 1 IPCC scientist that adds the sun into his calculations?

Well, we can't control what the sun does. We can control our CO2 output though.

 

[Cassandra]

Which is worse, CO2 which plants 'breath' to make O2, or heavy metals that have a REAL verifiable effect on the life exposed to those heavy metals?? How would your plans to 'reduce CO2' (btw no CO2 means no plants means no o2) change exposure to such actual toxins?

Isn't it all about harmony? We are also reducing the number of CO2 breathing trees and plants and replacing them with CO2 producing cows.

Here is a thought; make the CO.2 produced from coal plants, useful. Algae can produce biofuel and guess what algae needs to grow? -CO2 They have such a thing operating on an Indian reservation. The operator claims he will eventually produce biofuel competitive with $90. a barrel oil.

 

[Gill]

The same scientists that have forecast rising sea levels and catastrophic weather events, unless you just happened to be into massive deaths of humans and other life on the planet.

Yeah, the same scientists that were wrong on both counts.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Well, we can't control what the sun does. We can control our CO2 output though.

Isn't it all about harmony? We are also reducing the number of CO2 breathing trees and plants and replacing them with CO2 producing cows.

Here is a thought; make the CO.2 produced from coal plants, useful. Algae can produce biofuel and guess what algae needs to grow? -CO2 They have such a thing operating on an Indian reservation. The operator claims he will eventually produce biofuel competitive with $90. a barrel oil.

You both thoroughly missed the point...

Molten : Of course we can't control what the sun does, ie : heat the planet...which is WHY I asked the question : How much CO2 would be required to heat the planet so that we could do without the sun?? (The answer, btw, is that without the sun's energy the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrellevant.)

Cassandra, you did bring up a valid question...The answer is YES, we do need to live in a balance with nature... which is why I brought up the question : Which is worse, CO2 or heavy metals?? As in, if you were to expose, say a plant with CO2 and then a second plant exposed to say, mercury... which plant would be better off?

Btw, that idea for biofuels production ACTUALLY sounds like a good source of energy. Much more appropriate then burning food for fuel.

 

[molten_dragon]

Molten : Of course we can't control what the sun does, ie : heat the planet...which is WHY I asked the question : How much CO2 would be required to heat the planet so that we could do without the sun?? (The answer, btw, is that without the sun's energy the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrellevant.)

I think you missed the point that I was getting at.

You asked if anyone could show you a scientist that added the sun into his calculations. By that I'm assuming you mean taking into account the changing amounts of solar radiation caused by increased/decreased solar activity. Since it's common sense that of course the sun is required to heat the earth.

My point is that it there's no point in adding solar activity to their calculations. Unless you're proposing that we change the amount of CO2 we're allowed to emit on a constant basis as solar activity changes, then there's no point in adding solar activity to the calculations because we can't do anything about it.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I think you missed the point that I was getting at.

You asked if anyone could show you a scientist that added the sun into his calculations. By that I'm assuming you mean taking into account the changing amounts of solar radiation caused by increased/decreased solar activity. Since it's common sense that of course the sun is required to heat the earth.

My total point is that the 'consensus' scientists haven't even gone through the studies to determine the relationship between solar activity and it's specific effect on the climate overall and regionally. I mean, the difference between winter and summer weather is simply on the ANGLE that the suns rays hit your region... even moreso then the distance (North American winters are at the point where the earth is closest to the sun (probably why the southern hemisphere overall is hotter then the northern hemisphere)... YET, these scientists claim to be able to predict the future using 'carbo models'.

My point is that it there's no point in adding solar activity to their calculations. Unless you're proposing that we change the amount of CO2 we're allowed to emit on a constant basis as solar activity changes, then there's no point in adding solar activity to the calculations because we can't do anything about it.

No no no .... I'm saying that not only is it essentially useless in the grand scheme of CO2 in the atmosphere for people to be limited in their production of CO2. CO2 is not even a TOXIN beyond that if your system is over-saturated in CO2 that could become fatal, it's a NECESSITY FOR LIFE on the earth.

No, we can't CONTROL the suns cycles, but we can understand them and their effects so that we can actually create a model for the climate that would produce some REAL predictions for the weather... THEN, we can start dealing with the REAL forms of pollution that ARE killing ecosystems around the world.

BREATHING IS NOT AN ECO-CRIME!!!!!!!

 

[kayacamilla]

I must say every individual is responsible for the global warming. The most important is that we give values to our environment. If we do not want to have a very bad climate every single day, then I guess we just have to learn the essence of loving our environment

 

[BmanMcfly]

I must say every individual is responsible for the global warming. The most important is that we give values to our environment. If we do not want to have a very bad climate every single day, then I guess we just have to learn the essence of loving our environment

Loving the environment != hating human life.

And plus, industrial / chemical waste is by a margin more toxic then anything in a persons pollution contribution.

Now, you could probably triple the amount of carbon in the atmoshpere and the only thing would be that trees would grow bigger... HOWEVER, if you add in all sorts of cancer causing agents, heavy metals, etc (REAL POLLUTION) THEN the air becomes toxic, not so toxic where you'll die quickly, but in the long term it will most likely contribute to a persons death.

Do you think that the 'smog' over most cities is 'co2'??

 

[Catawba]

You mean like the graph that AL Gore used in his documentary, which was shown in just such a way that you wouldn't notice the lag time between the temperature levels and the co2 levels in the centuries later??

No I mean due to a consensus of scientist from 180 countries from around the world.

The same 'scientists' that plan to benefit the most from the proposed 'carbon' related taxes that are being discussed??

I don't go in much for conspiracy theories.

Are you talking about the 'science of consensus' that made CO2 the cause of the worlds problems??

No I mean the consensus of scientist that are trying to point out the wisdom of not crapping where you live.

Seriously, nooone has answered yet... if there was no sun tomorrow, how much CO2 would we have to produce to offset it? I mean since CO2 drives climate then you just need to add CO2 and that'll heat things up, right??

You are just being silly now. If you pump smoke into a room, it will displace the oxygen and make it difficult to breath. Our adding large quantities of CO2 to all the natural sources have overcome the earths ability to naturally sequester all that CO2.

Which is worse, CO2 which plants 'breath' to make O2, or heavy metals that have a REAL verifiable effect on the life exposed to those heavy metals?? How would your plans to 'reduce CO2' (btw no CO2 means no plants means no o2) change exposure to such actual toxins?

No one is talking about eliminating CO2, just reducing it to the life supporting levels through history.

Finally, can you show me 1 IPCC scientist that adds the sun into his calculations?

The sun is not in our control. Our CO2 output is completely in our control.

 

[Catawba]

Yeah, the same scientists that were wrong on both counts.

Interesting opinion but I'll have to go with the consensus of scientists from 180 countries.

 

[Catawba]

Loving the environment != hating human life.

Interesting outlook. I prefer the Native American view of a symbiotic relationship between man and his environment.

Our failure to have learned this may yet be mans downfall. I find it very ironic that we considered them savages.