Quote from wjk:
OK big Dave. This article by Weart (from Discovery of Global Warming) gives a pretty good history of CO2 studies over a considerable time span (1820âs to present). I have agreed with you that man has played some role.
Some? The average car puts out something like 40 tons of CO2 in its lifespan. A ton of CO2 is a very, very large volume of CO2. There are millions and millions of cars.
Anthropogenic warming would be supported in the later stages of this writing. You may have already read it. It looks at the back and forth of the debate over history.
Thanks, I'll have to read it at some point.
My questions are as follows.
Do you believe Americans are putting more or less CO2 in the atmosphere then say, 10, 20, or 50 years ago?
No idea, I assume more but my beliefs aren't relevant to the conversation at hand.
Do you believe that it has been proven that CO2 changes alone will have the greenhouse effects the worst case scenarioâs paint?
Over what time frame? Because if you look at a long enough time frame, then yes. CO2 keeps building up, and that's been proven beyond doubt, and CO2 molecules absorb infra red radiation.
I believe the true debate is not the increased CO2, but what the true effect will be. This getâs back to my question regarding the amount of collected data to determine prehistoric CO2 levels accurately over millions of years.
There have been a variety of ways found to determine CO2 levels, although no one has found it necessary to determine them over "millions" of years. Tree rings, ice cores and so on can go back thousands of years.
And the big question. If Americans agree to go along with reasonable measures, how do we get China and other emerging polluters on board, as they are much more concerned about their economies than pollution?
Leading by example was the way we used to do it. People want to be on the cutting edge, getting the newest fanciest thing, such as a hydrogen car.
Now? We don't lead by example, we look at other countries and whine that they have to do something too, even though the threat is reduced by our actions even if we were to act alone.
Do you support the Kyoto treaty and cap and trade measures?
Interestingly, it was a Republican idea -- back when the party wasn't a catastrophe. Free market solution to trading carbon.
Do you support free market incentives to solve the issue over severe government restrictions?
Kyoto is a market solution. The only reason that the Republicans are currently opposing their own market solution is due to oil interests, something which you and I both know that action to wean off oil will be required eventually. We can defer it a bit, but we have to diversify energy supplies from oil eventually.
The last question is what I was really looking for when I entered this thread.
Back at you.
