Tail,

I tops the post because it seemed relevant. To your credit, you have demonstrated that to some it is not.

This as it may be, you're not really serious with those three questions, are you? I mean you're joking right? Don't pretend that you would agree with or be satisfied by answers to any of your nebulous or meaninglessly debatable questions. If you deny the effect are negative just say so.

And if your point is "science does not know" then you're not paying attention. Which is understandable.

Truth is that govmut tell you and your company what they can an can't do all the time. So get used to it. And try not to whine about it when they say we have to make changes like getting rid of transfats because "they" figured out it's bad for you.

Brewha wrote:

400 parts per million. That is where we are at for CO2 levels. They've been on the rise since the industrial revolution. They've been on the rise in the Holocene period coinciding with the written history of mankind and civilizations.

We can go ahead and make the leap of faith that those who proclaim they are intelligent and enlightened have done (yes, you are in that group) and reach the conclusion that man is the cause of this current round of climate change. Next we have to make a proclamation that climate change/global warming/global cooling is a bad thing. (Global warming actually is a good thing for some areas, not good for other areas) Now we can easily see that we need to reduce or eliminate mankind and eventually CO2 levels will fall. Most won't think this is a workable solution but it is an obvious one if we have the problem designed right.

Since we're not going to reduce the human population, CO2 levels are going to continue to rise. We can tweak a few things like carbon emissions and reforestation but these really barely dent the CO2 emissions of mankind and we're still growing our ranks. Here's the reality......CO2 will continue to rise in your lifetime. Temperatures will continue to rise in your lifetime. Sea levels will continue to rise in your lifetime. Nothing you can do will change this. Eliminate all CO2 emissions tomorrow and the levels will still likely rise for another 100 years. You can send me $500 for carbon credits and I'll plant some trees and you will feel much better but the numbers still are going to rise.

What you have to decide is can you handle the increases over the next 50 years. Sea levels are going to be up by one inch and average temperature may be up by half a degree or something. If you can't handle this change...move! If you think you can handle it then adapt, overcome, intelligently re-design, whatever.

HockeyDad wrote:

1. What percentage of our climate change is influenced by man?
2. What percentage of that is caused specifically by fossil fuel burning?
3. If man stopped burning fossil fuel yesterday, what would be the long term impact to climate?


Three simple questions.

tailgater wrote:

LeHockey is a nihilist unless there's a profit to be had.

ZRX1200 wrote:

Ok Tail,

Here you go:
1. An unacceptably high amount.
2. A controllable and significantly reducible amount.
3. Now that's just a stupid question. But; "Each and every good American should do his and her part".

Did I make the answers simple enough?

Brewha wrote:

In your homoerotic daydream, you see me at the doctors getting my third prostate exam of the week and just assume that I'm seeking advice on how to lose some pounds. But again you fail because we KNOW that diet and exercise DO affect weight and that weight DOES affect life span (all other things being equal).

tailgater wrote:

Read what I write carefully Tail. I don't personally support any mandates. Because I simply don't care.

I am simply pointing out that you will take a Dr's recommendation for your personal health without applying the same criteria you are demanding of climate science.

One can not personally care about the climate and still believe the conclusions climate scientists are coming to can be logical.

victor809 wrote:

Hell, even the industrialy owned government says it a really bad problem and we need to do lots of things to stem the tide. Get real HD.

Are you floating the idea that we should do nothing? Maybe just crack open a pack of menthol Kools and see what happens?

What about taking care of things for my grandkids? And their grandkids?

Know what happens with a fatalist attitude? You fail.

Brewha wrote:

Global Warming Nazis using their corrupt theories and numbers to receive MORE tax dollars to fight a battle we"re not certain we even created let alone our ability to do ANYTHING about it.

TMCTLT wrote:

Love your mental analogy here......one mans health being used as a comparison to Global health and concern over
" fair play " The difference in your lame analogy is that his personal doctor has NO AGENDA to use his patients health to get richer than he might otherwise be as opposed to the Global Warming Nazis using their corrupt theories and numbers to receive MORE tax dollars to fight a battle we"re not certain we even created let alone our ability to do ANYTHING about it.

TMCTLT wrote:

Vic, re 488:
Of course we impact the environment.
But if the climate is changed who even knows if it's for better or worse?
A warming trend might have a BENEFICIAL long term impact. We simply don't know and may never know because we only have a minuscule data segment to work with.

Support renewable energy for the right reasons. Using a fictional scare tactic is poor form.

tailgater wrote:

Hehehe. I actually like this line of reasoning Tail. I think you're at least looking at it from the right angle.

My response is that you're most likely wrong... but not for the reasons you would expect.

Some changes in the climate may be globally for the better. That's very possible. However, the status quo, as set has been established with the climate as we've been experiencing it for the past hundred years. While a warming or a cooling or a whatevering MAY make the planet as a whole more useful to humans, it would likely have localized negative impacts on the status quo. Our species may do better on average, but the 1st world nations (that's who we care about, right?) would likely do worse, as their infrastructure, especially the infrastructure supporting agriculture (which is much more established) would need to adjust to meet whatever the new optimum is.

Change never favors the established status quo. We live in, and really only care about, the 1st world nations...

victor809 wrote:

How can I be "wrong" about saying that we simply don't know.
Because we don't.

I'm literally shocked that the whole "climate" issue has been able to maintain a foothold this long.
From the New Ice Age in the 70's to Global Warming in the 90's and now just CHANGE. As if the climate wouldn't be changing without us.
I want clean air for my kids and theirs. I saw Wall-E. I know what will happen to the human race.
But the media has sold false and misleading information as "facts" and good people like our pal Brewha are so convinced that they point fingers and call names to anyone who simply asks the questions that need asking.

tailgater wrote: