[quote=gryphonms]Actually Buckwheat is pretty much spot on. To me the real question is what can we do to reverse the man made damage in a reasonable manner. For example eliminating coal as a fuel would devistate our economy due to massive job loss. Whereas gassifying coal would create new business for our economy.[/quote]


Before any talk of "reversing" anything, the facts need to presented.
What percentage of "climate change" is caused by man?
How much is greenhouse gas from the burning of fossil fuels?
How much is caused by global deforestation?
What is/was the long term effect of dumping chemicals?
What about our trash? Burning? Burying? Dumping?

I blame the penguins.... 😟

[quote=tailgater]Before any talk of "reversing" anything, the facts need to presented.
What percentage of "climate change" is caused by man?
How much is greenhouse gas from the burning of fossil fuels?
How much is caused by global deforestation?
What is/was the long term effect of dumping chemicals?
What about our trash? Burning? Burying? Dumping?

[/quote]

Answers

98.2%
98.2%
1.8%
Chemical are bad, mkay.
You can't burn, bury, or dump poor people. We need to take care of them.

You're welcome.

[quote=DrafterX]I blame the penguins.... 😟[/quote]

Yeah, she was kinda mean.

[quote=HockeyDad]Answers

98.2%
98.2%
1.8%
Chemical are bad, mkay.
You can't burn, bury, or dump poor people. We need to take care of them.

You're welcome.[/quote]


Soylent Green is people!!!

TG:

On this issue we disagree. For this is not about percentages. It is about cause and effect. For example CO2 levels are at 401 PPM, the highest level ever recorded. This information comes from NOAA. The effect of higher CO2 is Global Warming. There are many other facts that can be looked up that support the idea that we proactivly need to repair our environment the best we can. To mention a few other important facts polar ice cap melt, rainforest deforestation, and ozone layer depletion are also serious environmental issues that need to be addressed. Again these are not issues about percentages they are about cause and effect.

I think the scientific research overwhelmingly shows that we need to proactivly need to make changes to reverse these facts.

[quote=HockeyDad]Answers

You can't burn, bury, or dump poor people.

[/quote]
That's not true.

Just ask a serial arsonist.

[quote=gryphonms]TG:

On this issue we disagree. For this is not about percentages. It is about cause and effect. For example CO2 levels are at 401 PPM, the highest level ever recorded. This information comes from NOAA. The effect of higher CO2 is Global Warming. There are many other facts that can be looked up that support the idea that we proactivly need to repair our environment the best we can. To mention a few other important facts polar ice cap melt, rainforest deforestation, and ozone layer depletion are also serious environmental issues that need to be addressed. Again these are not issues about percentages they are about cause and effect.

I think the scientific research overwhelmingly shows that we need to proactivly need to make changes to reverse these facts.[/quote]

Don't settle for half the facts.

First, define the problem.
then determine the causes and their respective influence.

If burning fossil fuels accounted for only 5% of the higher CO2 levels, then even if we cut our burning by half, it would only impact the problem 2.5%.

So is the problem that we're burning fuels, or that we're eliminating natures means to clean the air, or that we simply exist and our urban sprawl is generating and reflecting heat?
Or did we alter the temperatures of our oceans and lakes and streams by dumping chemicals that kill the plant life?
Or could our light pollution have an effect on normal night time cool down?
Or, well you get the gist.

Half truths are no better than lies.

Did you fall for this crap in the 1970's when the earth was heading towards a new Ice Age?
Or a decade ago when Algore's hockey stick promised mercury rising?
Does it now simply "feel better" because it's just called "change"? So when the records show that May was a cold month it's OK?

I'm guessing the coal industry will just have to pay the EPA a huge fine and will keep operating as is.. EPA guys will get a huge bonus as a result.. 😟

[quote=DrafterX]I'm guessing the coal industry will just have to pay the EPA a huge fine and will keep operating as is.. EPA guys will get a huge bonus as a result.. 😟[/quote]

😱
Oh, you said "bonus".
Nevermind.

How much history do we have about the Sun's life cycle(s)? Pretty sure it plays a role in the Earth's temperature too. Not much we can do about that even if we understood/knew about them.

Way too many unknowns to point fingers at the US's power plant emissions.

Prescription without diagnosis = malpractice.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned of heavy costs to the EPA’s carbon rules, saying they would cost the economy an average of $51 billion and 224,000 jobs a year through 2030. The group also sees up to $28.1 billion a year in costs for utilities and customers.

Film at 11.. 🤦

[quote=HockeyDad]Answers

98.2%
98.2%
1.8%
Chemical are bad, mkay.
You can't burn, bury, or dump poor people. We need to take care of them.

You're welcome.[/quote]
=d>

[quote=BuckyB93]How much history do we have about the Sun's life cycle(s)? Pretty sure it plays a role in the Earth's temperature too. Not much we can do about that even if we understood/knew about them.

Way too many unknowns to point fingers at the US's power plant emissions.

Prescription without diagnosis = malpractice.[/quote]


Water vapor is actually the leading cause of the greenhouse effect, not CO2 yet we give water vapor a pass on it.

Should there be outrage..?? 😕

[quote=HockeyDad]Water vapor is actually the leading cause of the greenhouse effect, not CO2 yet we give water vapor a pass on it.[/quote]
What about bovine flatulence?
And hair spray propellant.
And why would a greenhouse even need gas?
The only stupid question is the one left un-asked.
Or the ones posed here.

[quote=tailgater]What about bovine flatulence?
[/quote]


I don't know how anything survives on the west side of Amarillo... 😟

HD, your right, but from what I have read increased water vapor is caused by increased CO2 levels. So to decrease the water vapor levels you need to decrease the CO2 levels.

[quote=gryphonms]HD, your right, but from what I have read increased water vapor is caused by increased CO2 levels. So to decrease the water vapor levels you need to decrease the CO2 levels.[/quote]

Where'd you read that?