flacaltenn
Diamond Member
The earth is experiencing a small upward tick in GMAST (global mean aver. surf. temp).. PART of that is probably due to GHouse gas emissions. But the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory are no where NEAR settled science and there are a host of interests that have conspired to scare and lie about the science.
When in fact -- since the 80s when the original apocalyptic predictions came out and started the panic -- most ALL of the science and projections has been consistently toned down.. Year by year, predictions and models get revised. And they are ALL coming DOWN from the panic levels. NOT going up..
It's because "climate science" was in diapers in the 1980s.. Barely had a satellite up worth a damn.
No, they're not settled science. For me personally the point here is that we know that we can control things to a certain extent, but that if things get out of control, we're fucked.
There are two choices. The first is to wait until things have gotten out of control, and we're fuck, the other is to try and deal with the potential problems before they may happen.
For me it's a no brainer to do the latter.
GW theory has about 1/2 dozen hypotheses. I accept ALL of them except for the ones that lead to the Earth destroying itself over a 2degC change in surface temperature. Furthermore, I firmly believe we would not SEE that 2degC until WELL into the 22nd century.. America has ALREADY, thru Free Market innovation, and IN SPITE of govt/world obstacles, reduced it's CO2 emission back to the 1980s levels.
So if those initial scary estimates are NOT gonna happen, what panicked prescription do we write based on more tethered scientific analysis? Also with the realization that the climate community is lately VERY quiet about making monthly NEW scary predictions. They are learning to THINK and analyze, before they write press releases.
And NO -- Spending a couple $Trill on giveaways to 3rd world countries is NOT gonna fix anything. Science and engineering will eventually "fix things" that NEED to get to fixed. Because there are truly NO REAL alternatives today to fossil and nuclear and hydro that don't require a roll-back of economic life as we know it.
Why do you accept all except those which give you something you don't wish to see?
Why do you believe it will take until the 22nd Century to see those rises?
The US has reduced its CO2 emissions by buying products from places like China which have seen a MASSIVE increase in CO2 emissions. Do you know about PM2.5? Probably not. Go to China and you'll soon learn.
Beijing Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)
Beijing right now is at 400. Over 50 is considered not good. Over 300 is considered Hazardous. Basically Beijing's PM2.5 (basically small particles so small they get in your lungs, often made up of things like car exhaust pollution, etc) is 8 times the level it should be at.
All so America can "thru free market innovation" reduce it's pollution levels. Go figure.
So, because you THINK, based on nothing more than what you want, therefore it WON'T happen. Sorry, I can't see that logic.
Science and engineering will fix it all? Well, not necessarily. Do you know why Europeans buy smaller more fuel efficient cars and why companies make them? Because governments increase the taxes on fuel.
So, you want technology to make things better, but you don't want to force the situation where they actually have to make things better. That's a little contradictory.
PM 2.5 or any other particulate is NOT Global Warming. In fact, they have a cooling in the atmosphere. And GW is NOT about pollution either. If you conflate pollution with CO2 and GW -- you've got a LOT of catching up to do on the science. And the misrepresentations. AND the reason why I believe we would not see over 2degC consistently til 2100 or beyond. IF things continued the same.
If you're confused about pollution and GW -- it would most likely be a waste of time to explain that "belief"..
No, I didn't say it was global warming.
It's pollution which impacts human beings and their lives. It causes cancer, it causes respiratory problems, it causes problems. The US has merely managed to ship the problem off to other countries.
However Greenhouse Gases are also being produced by such countries at the same time as pumping out fine particles.
I'm not confused at all. You seem to think that if someone deviates from your thin line that it's because they're confused.
It's because "they" ARE confused. And "they" are putting out stories and propaganda to connect CO2 with "carbon". To pretend that these things are one and the same. They are not. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. DESPITE what the EPA says.. Most any person schooled in science knows that.
A large part of man's "CO2" footprint is domestic cattle and land use. No particulates involved. And the shift to Nat Gas --- STILL produces CO2, but much lower particulates. And most Western Autos are now pretty free of particulates. You do NOT solve these problems the same way.
CO2 is the result of perfect hydrocarbon combustion. Which means the more the efficient the burning the more CO2 is produced and less pollution. When they slapped catalytic converters on cars, the particulate and pollution went down -- but the GH gas emissions went UP !!!!
I'd LOVE to see 100 new nuclear plants built this decade in the US. We need about 40 anyways to replace the aging ones. Then you could close coal plants, tear down the dams and free the salmon, AND you'd be fixing any GW emissions and cleaning the air at the same time. Want to sign on to THAT? Or are you MORE afraid of nuclear power plants than you are of GW and pollution put together??