Choc, there is nothing wrong with speculation. Go and research your suspicians honestly. If you can find the data and the causal mechanism and go with the data.

But be honest. Too many people "know the answer" and ignore the data. They cherry pick what works and ignore what doesn't. The best data is what doesn't fit your model. Finding an explanation for that may lead in a direction you never thought.

len

The effects of carbon dioxide are not in dispute. As a far out example (and I am repeating myself-sorry), Venus has an atmosphere nearly totally comprised of CO2. The result is a surface temp that is the hotest in the solar system, even warmer than Mercury which has essentially no atmosphere and is 30 million miles closer to the sun. Valid, repeatable tests have shown the proclivity of CO2 to "let in" certain wavelengths of energy but not "let out" others such as infra red.

I'm not going to argue the liklihood of this - or even the reason for your belief this is a natural outcome of dealing with the negative effects of industrialization. If we use Europe as an example because of their higher gas prices (whether due to taxes or other market forces) we can see how this would turn out. Europeans responded with different car design. Design, as it turns out, which we find particularly interesting - smaller, lighter, cleaner and more efficient.

A reduction in resources often leads to innovation that surplus makes unnecessary.

Why not try innovation? Why persist in the belief that a response to "climate change" leads only to bad things?

But not quite as amusing as your appeal to conspiracy theory.

I have a good friend who has seen the set where the first moon-landing was filmed. Actually seen it with his own eyes. I am not joking.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain - a simple way to explain away that which we choose not to believe.

If global warming were really a problem, then the celebrities telling us to drive Priuses (Al Gore, Cameron Diaz, Bono) would fly commercial first-class instead of using private jets.

(tongue half in cheek)

You're free to choose any action that does not require action from me. If you choose an action that does require that I do something, then we've a problem that's irreconcilable.

http://images14.fotki.com/v371/photo...19/lmao-vi.gif

Quote:

I have a good friend who has seen the set where the first moon-landing was filmed. Actually seen it with his own eyes. I am not joking.

Ridicule in this thread means you've run out of factoids supporting your unproven theories.

I will "believe" Global Warming is caused by the daily activities of humans as soon as that is proven. Even then, I will oppose any action to stop those activities until it's proven that Global Warming is bad.

Since it's pretty well proven that Global Warming is an over all positive, that isn't likely to occur any time soon.

Just to give a little perspective on the human locusts theory. If you took every human in the world and fit them in like standing room at a concert they would all fit in the Los Angeles metropolitan area......










Five to six times over! Now grab a globe and...........

Every man, woman, and child in America could move to Texas and would not be at the population density of Manhattan Island. In fact, they'd not be close.

Absolute "hog wash"!

Trace amounts of CO2 in an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere does not enhance the "insulating capacities" of that atmosphere to any significant degree.

Scientific fact:

The Earth is a net loser of energy -- we radiate more energy out into space than we receive from the sun. (The excess energy comes from the planet's internal heat.)

Carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere plays -- for all practical purposes -- absolutely no role in regulating either the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun or radiates out into space.

The greatest influencing factor in the earth's nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere that affects both the heat received and lost through the atmosphere is dihydrogen oxide.

If you want to really do something to help control global climate change, push for government control on the levels of dihydrogen oxide allowed in the atmosphere!

Competentone, you seem very sure in scientific 'facts'. Are you a college professor, expert in climatology or something of that order?

Aurel

Because Carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere are being found to be less important than once 'thought' we now have the latest scare. --The oceans are absorbing the excess Carbon dioxide, leading to concern over the ph of the oceans. (Carbon dioxide in solution is carbonic acid . . . ooohhh *ACID* in our oceans -- be scared . . .be very very SCARED!

buuuurrrrppp
:rolleyes:

Is it all Americans? I heard one time the world. Either seem wild to me.

Anyone want to work the math on this one?

- Skip

No. It means that when faced with the sort of intellectual intransigence evidenced by the following comment - a certain fatigue sets in at my end. A fatigue best relieved by a glass of single-malt, some John Coltrane and perhaps just a hint of ridicule.

Quote

I will "believe" Global Warming is caused by the daily activities of humans as soon as that is proven. Even then, I will oppose any action to stop those activities until it's proven that Global Warming is bad.

Since it's pretty well proven that Global Warming is an over all positive, that isn't likely to occur any time soon.

Unquote

At the density of Manhattan (67k/sqmi) you could fit every man woman and child in the world inside Texas three times over. Unless I missed something.

Interestingly though the population density of NYC would allow the world to fit perfectly in Texas.

I read once that if every person in the world was allowed a 2 by 2 foot square space to occupy, the total area would be roughly the size of Jacksonville, Fl.

Yep, that's almost perfect.

We were on a cruise on Lake Geneva last summer, and the guide announced that if the entire population of the world were drowned in the lake the water level would rise exactly 6 inches (15 centimeters).