Rick Monteverde wrote: > Stephen wrote: >> I don't understand why you seem to feel humans have no > control over human-generated carbon dioxide. > > > > How you got that I don't know, but please don't tell me. Of course > we can control (dramatically reduce) it, for instance by shutting down > our economy and sharply curtailing personal liberty. That's the solution > of the socialists who have hijacked a sweet little environmental > movement concerned with things that really matter, and turned it into > the giant global warming hoax. We could also reduce it as an incidental > byproduct of nuking up, or by achieving and implementing a LENR or > similar technology breakthrough. I'd hate the first, *very* cautiously > accept the second, and we'd all love the third. > > > > Here is an excerpt from a document signed by thousands of scientists > primarily to refute the lie being circulated that scientific debate is > over and there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of AGW: > > > > "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon > dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the > foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere > and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial > scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce > many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments > of the Earth."
Sounds like a confession of faith to me. > > I'm not in the mood and I have no free time to start accumulating > content for the forum on all the evidence out there, searching, cutting > and pasting, citing references, and then having it all tossed back in my > face as the threads deteriorate into the non-sequiturs and silliness you > get when arguing with True Believers. Yes, I know exactly what you mean. It's like when someone says that humans only contribute 0.4% to the Earth's CO2 load which is pretty insignificant, and someone else takes the time to look it up and finds that what's actually meant is that humans are causing a 0.4% rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration *every year*, and that the net rise in global CO2 levels since the start of heavy human CO2 generation has actually been at least 35% ... and the person who made the 0.4% claim to start with just ignores the larger numbers and says anyone who thinks that there might be a problem is just a "true believer". Yup, I understand exactly how you feel about folks who disregard the evidence. > Makes me gain even more respect > for what Jed and others do for LENR/CF. > > Didn't expect such closed mindedness on a forum where being on the short > end of scientific consensus on controversial subjects is well known to > most of the participants. > > > > I share the position held by a significant minority of scientists when > I see and understand the logic of the case against AGW as superior to > that which is presented in favor of it. I also see the undesirable > political conspiracy promoting it. It's clear that many of the active > posters here don't share those views yet, but I have more than just a > suspicion that someday they will. > > > > - Rick
