Manbird wrote: 
I call shotgun!

  If you have some nuclear waste or gene mutating experimental food products I'll trade and sit in the back.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
I like to sit in the front because it's like a roller coaster

 ScottN wrote: 
agreed, 100%

 oldslabsides wrote: 
My personal belief is we passed the tipping point before the subject was even much in dialogue.  The planet, as we live today, simply cannot sustainably support 7-8 billion peeps.  To me, it's a no brainer to think that dumping trillions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually over a couple of centuries won't have significant consequences.  Add to that all the other insults to which we have subjected our only planet and you have an inevitable future disaster.

 steeler wrote: 
Monsanto
 
 
 
just sayin...

We're all on a bus hurtling toward a cliff and all we can do is argue about who sits where.

 kurtster wrote: 
Actually, I believe commercial agriculture, contributing about 40% of green house gas emissions from animals and the energy it requires to provide food, shelter and processing of them.  We feel entitled to our beefsteaks and pork bellies and chicken pies, but they're not cheap as energy consumers. I just heard a speaker on this.  I wish i could cite the source.

Overall non-agricultural energy will much more difficult to cut because of the diversity of need, imo..

 steeler wrote: 

We are a long way from dilithium crystals and even with those, wars are still fought over securing them.

Energy production is the largest controllable producer of CO2 which is what this debate apparently centers on ?

Working with that premise, using less is the better way to go with our available technology ?

What is the next greatest possibility without reanimating Tesla ?

Super conductivity.  Lossless energy transmission.  We need to figure out if it is commercially viable.  If it is, we can cut our needs in half ( a guesstimate for conversation purposes).  I would like to spend resources on that end.

And once again, we have thorium as miami keeps reminding us.  We have fixes on the shelf that no one someone is willing not letting us use.  
 

Bill Gates could be a real hero if he spent some of his dough supporting thorium.

 mzpro5 wrote: 

 mzpro5 wrote: 
No, we are capable of making it better, and we should have started years ago.

We can make it better if we took some harsh actions that nobody is willing to do, like taking public trans, getting rid of plastic water bottles, cleaning up our rivers and air and stopping companies from spewing, mountain topping, dumping shit in the water, etc.

 kurtster wrote: 

I'm not sure it is accurate to term this as an attempt to change the climate from its natural progressions. Rather, it is an attempt not to have man-made activities negatively impact those natural progressions.

You are correct in stating that the science in this subject area is, shall we say, evolving.  The scientific reports I have read state this repeatedly and in no uncertain terms.  That is how science works, and why it takes so long (relatively speaking, since most of us tend to measure things in terms of our lifetimes).

That said, we do have examples of where scientific research and technological advancements have resulted in our ability to better predict and warn of natural disasters such as tsunamis.  I say this because it seems to me a natural progression (pun intended) that we attempt, through scientific research, to better understand how nature works and how we might be able to solve potential problems.  You have recognized that impulse has been with mankind from early on, although I certainly would not equate the scientific research and technological advances of today with human and animal sacrifices.            

 drsteevo wrote: 
You are correct, we are not capable of solving the problem.

Just capable of making it worse.

 drsteevo wrote: 
Thank you for summing up so well what I have been trying to say.

To the bolded, that is why I'm advocating working on things that we can affect, like solid waste pollution.

To the general readers, I have never denied there is warming.  I have never advocated polluting.  I guess it can be said that I do because I don't have a problem with using hydrocarbons for fuel.  If that's the way it rolls then so be it.  We don't live in a perfect world, and nothing can make that happen.  But every time someone turns on a light, they pollute.

As new technology comes on line, let's use it.  We are currently shutting down 6% of our electric generation capacity this year, by closing functioning coal burning plants.  No grandfathering clauses are allowed.  We are cutting off our noses to spite our face. 

We are presently in an economic mess.  The only way we are getting out of it is with the use of cheap energy.  Government has been ineffective at fixing the economy so far.  It has to be fixed in spite of the government.  We do not have the luxury of turning off cheap power right now.  After we get things better economically, then we can start to address these things on a broader scale.  Everytime we raise the price of energy, we set ourselves backwards from an economic recovery.  The choice is the stone age or prosperity broadly put.

And again, 5 minutes of one volcanic eruption can undo 1 Trillion dollars of government spending.  Then there are the cycles of the Sun.  Does anyone want to tackle this one and say why risking 1 Trillion dollars we don't have is worth it ?

Humans have been trying to influence the weather since the beginning of time.  Humans have been sacrificed.  Animals have been sacrificed.  'Gods' have been worshipped in the same persuit.  Science has tried.  All have failed to have any lasting influence.  Suddenly we believe that politicians / government can succeed where all else has failed ?  That's funny.

 kurtster wrote: 
I'm having a hard time with this bit right here.  What exactly are you saying here?  I have a few guesses, tell me which one is right.

1) we've cleaned up air pollution in the U.S. and climate change extremists still say there is a problem, so it must be bunk because we cleaned up air pollution.
My response to this would be that the air pollution we've addressed as a nation in the 70's and beyond was focused on 3 things: acid rain, smog/particulate matter, and ozone depletion.  None of these efforts were focused specifically on greenhouse gases or addressing climate change.  This is a comparison of apples to oranges (one type of air pollution over another).
2) It doesn't matter that the U.S. addresses climate change because the rest of the world is screwing it up and we can't do everything.
This is definitely a global problem.  However, as one of the largest users of fossil fuels in the world (I said one of, not the only), it is our duty to do our part to reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change.  You seem to be arguing that if China won't do anything we shouldn't either.  Where is the compassion for what we leave our children in that self-centered scenario?  Maybe our country should do what is right for once, not just what serves our apparent comfort?  Acting as if our effort would be futile because not everyone has bought into the idea is bunk.  Every effort can help.  Everyone needs to do their part.  Saving those slivers of aluminum foil during WWII wasn't much when it was just one household, but when everyone did it it added up.  

And what happens when all the island nations (such as MIcronesia) are downed out of the places they live?  What will happen when there are large migrations of people due to sea level rise?  Who will offer them sanctuary when their land is gone?  Governments are already debating this point, by the  way.
3) it's natural and we're screwed regardless of anything we do so we shouldn't bother trying.
We can affect the amount of greenhouse gases we're dumping in the air.  Scientists have linked these gases to climate change (just like they link CFCs to ozone depletion in the 70s).  Just because you don't necessarily understand all the science doesn't mean that it is wrong.  The climate is showing definite proof of warming (look at Greenland) at a rate even faster than the models predict.   These gases have been shown to trap heat, if we reduce them we should be able to reduce the affect of climate change, or at least slow it down somewhat to give us more time to adapt.   I think this is the ultimate in pessimistic views and condemns our children to even more misery.  

So many people believe in so much that science has given us: cancer treatments, computing technology, vaccinations, water treatment - the list goes on and on.  Whenever it is beneficial people believe in science and accept the odds of whatever it is (the odds that certain cancer treatments will work, the odds that what is left in the water after we treat it will not significant lower your life expenctancy). Regardless of whether they understand the science behind it.   However, the minute science says you need to change your ways because the way we're living is having a negative impact that will affect all of us, suddenly science is bad, it is unreliable, it is biased, it is tainted.    

 

 Umberdog wrote: 



Just a joke though it has been overly warm here since at least April and we really had no winter in NE Ohio. Believe me I know about climate change.

 mzpro5 wrote: 
Maybe YOUR climate. 70% of the country is in drought. I don't think that's true of the last few decades. Of course it might pass, like dust bowls; once we learned not to strip the earth of her balance of nutrients and minerals. For every comfort we take from Nature, there is a sacrifice. If we don't make that sacrifice... well, Lao Tzu said it best, "Heaven's net casts wide. Though it's meshes are course, nothing slips through." The same can be said of Nature.

P.S. Or maybe you were just being sarcastic. It's hard to tell in writing.

I have no idea what y'all are talking about. It's been hotter than hell here and dry here for months.

There ain't no damn change in the climate.

:)

 drsteevo wrote: 
It is natural for humans to develop technologies, but this is where I draw a line. Anything we do with our technologies is unnatural. It's not a direct effect of Nature, but a secondary effect; an effect of our nature. This is just semantics, however. We may not be able to stop tornadoes, earth quakes, tsunamis, or droughts, but we can certainly learn to take care of our earth and prevent oil spills, polluted air and water, and nuclear waste dumped into the future's lap. Or maybe we can't; maybe we're not as great as we thought we were.