Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield
As for "not up to debate" is where I have trouble. There is debate on this question as we have covered in Mr. Suns role in the process. Science has still not accounted for the centuries of climate change both up and down. I would wager it was not due to the volume of CO2 alone or what caused this volume to wax or wane. Until that time I remain skeptical.
Also govt. being the answer is also questionable. This assumes that all other parties other than govt. are totally greedy and suicidal and govt. only operates on the most honest of levels. My take on this is govt. sees a way to achieve more control over our lives and get more tax money in the process. We have a long history of govt. "good intentions" and their results. I give you the 'great society' programs for a shining example. I like your caveat that nothing should be done unless CO2 proves to be the culprit. The can we take a 20% chance to not do something just in case it is true is bogus at best and disingenuous at least. You could use that argument to set up a police state etc.
Again, thanks to all who have civilly contributed to this thread.
Happy 4th, AKL  |
I think you misunderstood what I said was not up to debate. CO2 will rise in temperature if it finds IR light to absorb, no question about it. I can show you an IR spectrum of CO2 to prove it if you so wish.
The real argument lies in what you mentioned about the role of the sun, and on top of that the abundance of other gasses in the atmosphere having a role. In addition, the real reason CO2 poses a problem is because it absorbs a certain type of light that coincidentally is emitted by all living things (night vision is basically a camera that detects IR light). This means a population increase would also contribute to global warming. And lastly, how all of this will contribute to global warming as numbers. Will we see a 5 degree Celsius increase (this would be enough to do major damage) or .01 degree increase? You are most definitely right, CO2 is not the only culprit; many people (including me) believe it is the one that is most controllable.
On the government, I also do not want an overbearing government; there are real dangers in giving too much power to such a corrupt institution. However, I also believe that there are certain things that cannot be governed by the private sector. For instance, having a private army would not be efficient, neither would having a private public transportation system. I think the government would be most efficient in running regulations on the environment, because as of now it does not make financial sense for the private sector to change on their own. Businessmen aren't corrupt, but they are definitely maximizers.
I try to stay civilized about these debates. I think rational people should be able to discuss ideas without getting into a fight.