Re: Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers

In article <znu-76346B.02033301062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I don't know why you guys are so hopeful that global warming has natural
causes. If we're causing it, maybe it's not to late to do something. If
e.g. solar variation is causing it (not presently considered likely),
we're screwed.

--

I don't think that there is much we can do about it EITHER way. While I
don't discount the possibility that global warming is caused
anthropogenically, or is at least exacerbated by anthropogenic activity,
I do feel that the evidence is not real compelling AT THIS TIME. OTOH, I
also am not sure what knowing this for a fact will do for us. The
population of this planet continues to grow at a largely unchecked rate.
These new arrivals need heat in winter, fires to cook their food, and
eventually, as second and third-world infrastructures catch-up to the
first-world, energy for their cars, electric lights, etc. Until then,
Chinese peasants will continue to burn coal and coke for their fires,
Brazilian farmers will continue their slash and burn tactics on the rain
forests because that's their only source of livelihood and there is
nothing on the horizon that could change either situation in the next 50
years at least. In fact, these greenhouse gas emissions are, if
anything, going to get a lot worse before they get any better. Do you
agree? While at this moment, we Americans use more resources per capita
than any other nation, the rest of the world is rapidly catching up with
us. How can anything be done? We could help by abandoning our cars, but
since there is no infrastructure that can replace them, its not likely.
Changing over completely to hydrogen to either burn (produces no
greehouse gases) or convert to electricity using fuel cells is probably
50 years off, and still that would only affect the contribution by the
developed nations while population in the underdeveloped nations along
with their increasing energy needs continue to grow at unprecedented
rates.

Again the question comes down to population. If there is too much
greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere to keep the climate
"stable", then the reason is that there are too many people here with
energy needs. There can be no argument that I'm aware of that says that
a smaller world population wouldn't significantly reduce the amount of
greenhouse emissions. If you know of one, please explain. Negative
population growth through financial penalties is also the easiest of all
the proposed global warming remedies to implement. No new technology is
needed, no changes in infrastructure, just laws limiting the size of
families. If each couple, starting today, could only have ONE offspring,
The current world popualtion would be about halved in less than 100
years. This is a lot easier to do than it will be to get over a billion
Chinese to stop burning coal and coke or getting Brazilian farmers to
stop burning the rainforests at an alarming rate. Meanwhile, we can
continue to work on technological "fixes" as well, which, when coupled
with lower populations, will result in significantly lower greenhouse
effect. Will this reverse global warming? If its anthropogenic, the
answer is "maybe". If its wholly natural, the answer is an emphatic no.

--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.
.

Loading