[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Well, I've been to college Shortcut and from what I can see, you may need a life-coach more than another class. I will say it's heartening to see that you're more compelled to defend your scholastic integrity than a vulnerable globe. Progress. After all, It's one thing to be in a movement, you musn't forget about taking care of yourself. I'm proud of you Shortcut. No. Seriously. You're a winner in my book.

Until then, I'll be looking forward to our Global Cooling discussion in 2020.

Originally Posted by me

It's all right, baby. You were getting mauled pretty badly anyways. If you completely ignore the topic for just a couple more posts, throw in a few weak insults to try and distract everyone's attention, you can retire in peace, with your "pride" intact. Fire away...just remember, whenever you want to get back and start actually trying to respond to digs like

Well that's weird: when it comes to an trillion-dollar invasion of Iraq you would rather not focus on the evidence that casts doubt, but on the evidence that affirms guilt; but when it comes to doing anything at all on climate change, you would rather focus exclusively on the evidence that casts doubt – even though this evidence is an order of magnitude less conclusive than what you dismiss in the case of Iraq!

I'll be here...waiting to smack you down, again and again.

Keep ignoring my points...one more insult, maybe two, and you can quit with self-effacing dignity, content in the fact that you've had the last word....

greg

[Macrobat]

Scotsman.com News - UK - It's official: global warming is guff

Cattle Contribute to Global Warming

Cattle produce more global warming gases than cars

LEAD digital library: Livestock�s long shadow - Environmental issues and options

Just to bring another angle to the debate

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't get it. The first article says that agriculture accounts for 36% of greenhouse gases (while being only 7% of land). That's not even the majority.

Anyway, it says they produce methane. Shouldn't this be the answer to our energy crisis? Has anyone seen Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome? Flatulence as energy worked great for them!

[black bear theory]

cows are in no way human controlled? are cows burning down rainforest so they have room to graze?

this only advances the anthropogenic case for warming.

are humans producing CO2? no! cars do that.
are humans responsible for methane? no! it's the cows!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Guns don't kill people. I kill people.

Though it does make sense to target the actual cause; if cows are the vector, then (automobile) emissions standards become pretty unimportant.

[black bear theory]

they're both vectors. one is just slighly bigger than the other.

[Sky Captain]

Termites produce 50 billion tons of methane a year. That's right with a "B"...Billions.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Scotsman.com News - UK - It's official: global warming is guff

Cattle Contribute to Global Warming

Cattle produce more global warming gases than cars

LEAD digital library: Livestock�s long shadow - Environmental issues and options

Just to bring another angle to the debate

Are you presenting those as arguments against the argument of human caused global warming? And, you do realize that the first article (short of the title) doesn't actually say "global warming is guff". Rather, it argues that the cattle industry is more responsible for global warming than other sources of human influence on global temperature.

[Sky Captain]

Yet the leftist mantra is that SUVs are the cause.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Yet the leftist mantra is that SUVs are the cause.

It's rather old news that cars aren't heavy contributers of green-house gases and that cattle in a heavy contributer. I remember learning that in my Climatology class over 10 years ago.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's rather old news that cars aren't heavy contributers of green-house gases and that cattle in a heavy contributer. I remember learning that in my Climatology class over 10 years ago.

While they aren't heavy contributers, they are certainly significant contributers. The focus on them is because it is something we can easily change. There is no reason why North American cars have some of the lowest fuel economies in the world, other than cultural/societal reasons. Why should China's cars have much higher fuel economies than ours? That's stupid, and lazy on the part of our car manufacturers.

greg

[tie]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Termites produce 50 billion tons of methane a year. That's right with a "B"...Billions.

Wow, a capital B?! I heard it was 10 Gazillion. With a "G"!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by black bear theory 

are humans producing CO2? no! cars do that.

Ummm... ...yes, actually. Unless they're no longer breathing.

Why does everyone assume "methane" when they talk about cows and global warming? Lung capacity in a cow is huge (far, far larger than, say, a Range Rover engine), and they're chucking out CO2 every time they breathe out.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

While they aren't heavy contributers, they are certainly significant contributers.

There's nothing easier in this World than choosing not to eat that burger. Really.

So until all you global warming cultists put your money where your mouth is and go veggie, I won't be parting with my car.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why does everyone assume "methane" when they talk about cows and global warming? Lung capacity in a cow is huge (far, far larger than, say, a Range Rover engine), and they're chucking out CO2 every time they breathe out.

"Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2." (link)

I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds impressive. (Billion with a B!)

Wikipedia is slightly more informative; "When averaged over 100 years each kg of CH4 warms the Earth 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2."

Generally, global warming supporters don't argue about cows because that would be conceding the point that global warming is real, and has human causes. You're an exception. (In this forum, I guess it is more important to show that the other guy is illogical than to make a coherent and logical argument yourself.)

Serious environmentalists talk about cows, cars, nuclear power, ... -- there's no single fix for this problem.

So until all you global warming cultists put your money where your mouth is and go veggie, I won't be parting with my car.

Cultist? I resent that. Anyway, I don't eat beef. (But I do fly a lot, so I'm still contributing significantly. [But I conserve energy at home. (But I drive to go diving. [But I walk to work.])])

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Scotsman.com News - UK - It's official: global warming is guff

Cattle Contribute to Global Warming

Cattle produce more global warming gases than cars

LEAD digital library: Livestock�s long shadow - Environmental issues and options

Just to bring another angle to the debate

That's why I'm a vegetarian. Agriculture has been warming the earth for 8,000 years. This is nothing new, but the world--read: American--appetite for beef is a major contributor to global warming.

How, though, that makes global warming "guff," I'm not sure. Surely, this is simply more evidence that human activities--because it's only humans that allow such a doltish species as cows to be so successful as to graze on 1/4 the surface of the earth--are changing the climate.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

There's nothing easier in this World than choosing not to eat that burger. Really.

So until all you global warming cultists put your money where your mouth is and go veggie, I won't be parting with my car.

Done. I've been a vegetarian for 3 years because of its environmental impact. So, in the spirit of your challenge, let's do a 1 to 1 trade-off. I gave up meat, now you give up the car.

Another vegetarian want to step forward and get one more car off the road?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

While they aren't heavy contributers, they are certainly significant contributers. The focus on them is because it is something we can easily change. There is no reason why North American cars have some of the lowest fuel economies in the world, other than cultural/societal reasons. Why should China's cars have much higher fuel economies than ours? That's stupid, and lazy on the part of our car manufacturers.

greg

they are too significant.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Cultist? I resent that.

Well, tough. The global warming movement most closely resembles a religion/cult in the manner in which most of its disciples act.

You even have the witchhunts against SUVs (even those which pollute less than the average family car which the accuser is driving around in).

It's all crap - just a fashion which governments are promoting because it happens to coincide with their plans to control the sheeple.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Done. I've been a vegetarian for 3 years because of its environmental impact. So, in the spirit of your challenge, let's do a 1 to 1 trade-off. I gave up meat, now you give up the car.

Right, since I've been veggie 20 years and you want a one-to-one trade-off, I'll give the car up in 17 years. And if you want to catch up for a true one-to-one you'd better stop flying (and I mean all of it) and start planting lots of trees.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, tough. The global warming movement most closely resembles a religion/cult in the manner in which most of its disciples act.

LOL. I really need to put a smiley in my signature or something.

Unlike a religion, there's strong scientific evidence for global warming. Which I guess you concede? You don't seem to have any problems with the science -- it is just particular people you know?

So do you think the government should act to reduce our impact on the global climate? Clearly, our policies should be based on the science, and the "cultishness" of environmentalists should be irrelevant.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Unlike a religion, there's strong scientific evidence for global warming. Which I guess you concede? You don't seem to have any problems with the science -- it is just particular people you know?

It's not that fact that global warming exists - it's the fact that the GW congregation thinks mankind is causing it and can actually do anything about it.

We've had these temperature peaks and troughs for millions of years but all of a sudden this time it's our fault and we can do something about it. How arrogant is that?

All I see in the congregation is anti-car hippies (and figure the time-line between the 60's and our current leaders), control freaks, useful idiots, folks with their noses in the trough and various other freedom-hating lefties.

Originally Posted by tie 

So do you think the government should act to reduce our impact on the global climate?

No. It's not within any government's mandate. Cultural change? Sure, no problem with that. Legislative changes? No way.

Check this crap for an example of the idiocy I'm on about.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's not that fact that global warming exists - it's the fact that the GW congregation...

I knew I smelled a rat. GWs behind all this?!? Figures. Harumph. Does GW have a degree in climatology?

I really thought I was beat down on all this and that it had been affirmed that global warming is manmade. All I've got to say is;

- Find an efficient way to farm to avoid the effects of cow manure. I'm eating meat and drinking milk and while I feel bad that cows have to defecate, they have to defecate.
- Bring go-cart looking Hybrids down to at least the cost of an Audi A4.
- Figure out where the billion or so will work next decade, until then, no one in leadership wants anything to do with this assured unemployment liability.
- Ensure the cheaply thrown together, "environmentally-friendly" trash bags aren't three times as costly as the good ol' sturdy trash bags I'm used to and...
- Get tomorrow's weather correct

Until then, I look forward to the Global Cooling thread in 2020.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I knew I smelled a rat. GWs behind all this?!? Figures. Harumph. Does GW have a degree in climatology?

I don't know that it's possible for Global Warming to have a degree in climatology.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's not that fact that global warming exists - it's the fact that the GW congregation thinks mankind is causing it and can actually do anything about it.

Have you not been arguing that cattle are a major contributer to GW? Are global cattle populations at natural levels, or are they elevated due to our taste for beef?

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Figure out where the billion or so will work next decade, until then, no one in leadership wants anything to do with this assured unemployment liability.

The government will support everybody.
There will be no working class, we'll just tax the rich.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Have you not been arguing that cattle are a major contributer to GW?

Yes, but only as a counterpoint to all the hippies who think I should change my lifestyle (SUV, no meat) while they don't bother to change theirs (no SUV, meat).

Basically "log in your own eye, hippie" sort of thing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes, but only as a counterpoint to all the hippies who think I should change my lifestyle (SUV, no meat) while they don't bother to change theirs (no SUV, meat).

Basically "log in your own eye, hippie" sort of thing.

So, you don't really believe cattle are a major contributer to global warming? But, to be fair, it's entirely possible that the hippies weren't aware that you were doing something about global warming.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you don't really believe cattle are a major contributer to global warming?

Yes. But then so were the velocoraptors, probably.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

But, to be fair, it's entirely possible that the hippies weren't aware that you were doing something about global warming.

And that's the problem. They're (hippies and governments) applying "one size fits all" solutions to the "problem".

Why should some fat bazzer in government tell me that I can't drive my SUV while he's sitting there munching on burgers? Why is some stupid hippie in a 2.0 Ford Mondeo (< 32 mg) telling me that I'm wrong to drive my SUV (~ 32 mpg)? I can almost guarantee that my carbon footprint is less than theirs, but I still get it in the neck.

And all said and done, I actually like climate change and extreme weather. Who the hell decided what was right and then set about imposing it on all of us?

[Macrobat]

Livestock emissions alone account for nearly one 5th of the greenhouse gas production on Earth.

Livestock a major threat to environment

Theodd thing is, people are starving all over the world, and greenhouse gasses are actually better for agriculture. Kind of a Solomonic conundrum.

And Helmling, it would be interesting to speculate how much greenhouse gas emissions emanated from the VAST herds of Bison which proliferated COMPLETELY without any input from man put out while nearly covering the entire central plains of America, would it not? There were herds on record taking more than an hour and a half to pass wagon trains heading West.

Reference.com/Encyclopedia/American Bison

That's an estimate of 60-100 million head of Bison in the 19th Century, compared to a current US cattle population of 35.3 million. Sort of shoots all that pontificating dead in the foot, eh?

http://www.ngdc.wvu.edu/projects/map...ttlecensus.pdf

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's not that fact that global warming exists - it's the fact that the GW congregation thinks mankind is causing it and can actually do anything about it.

But you were just arguing that it was cows? Cows, cars or power plants, they're all under human control.

Yes, but only as a counterpoint to all the hippies who think I should change my lifestyle (SUV, no meat) while they don't bother to change theirs (no SUV, meat).

Basically "log in your own eye, hippie" sort of thing.

Oh, that didn't work out so well, then. Sorry.

The standard economic prescription for externalities is to charge for them. I don't care if you drive your SUV if you are willing to pay your share. Cow emissions should be easier to control than car emissions.

And all said and done, I actually like climate change and extreme weather. Who the hell decided what was right and then set about imposing it on all of us?

Not everybody likes hurricanes. Not everybody likes droughts, particularly starving people in Africa. But perhaps the economic benefits outweigh the costs. All the economic reports I've seen have said that the costs will far outweigh the benefits. So "who the hell" would be the ever-dreary economists, in my book.

Also, there is some religion, or moral sway, to it, in my book. I don't think it is right for the US to be causing famines in Africa. (Yes, an exaggeration, but the US is the largest contributor of greenhouse gases, both total, per capita, and per $ of GDP. And Africa has enough problems.) I think we should try to leave the earth as we found it for the next generation, and global warming will and is causing massive extinctions. These are irreplaceable losses. Finally, as a patriot, I think the US should be a leader and should be marshalling allies, instead of pretending science doesn't exist, trying to sabotage agreements among other nations, and letting our car mileage numbers drop below those of China. These aren't just dollars and cents reasons, but I'm not ashamed of them.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

The standard economic prescription for externalities is to charge for them. I don't care if you drive your SUV if you are willing to pay your share.

And this is exactly my point. I don't care if you eat meat provided that it attracts the same levels of taxation per CO2 measure produced as my SUV does. If you're willing to pay your share, so to speak.

And of course, nobody ever mentions the fact that the World population has doubled in the last century. Perhaps the intended beneficiaries of the solution are actually a large part of the problem?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Theodd thing is, people are starving all over the world, and greenhouse gasses are actually better for agriculture. Kind of a Solomonic conundrum.

This ignores several logical rebuttals, such as "climate change and extreme weather caused by greenhouse gases is actually quite hard on agriculture." Remember, modern agriculture is an extremely specialized enterprise, and has been adapted for thousands of years to the specific climate where its found. To suddenly start making climates change and become more "extreme" won't help agriculture at all.

(Besides, recent estimates put 65% of all agricultural land on earth as showing some form of significant degradation. We can only "grow" so much.)

And Helmling, it would be interesting to speculate how much greenhouse gas emissions emanated from the VAST herds of Bison which proliferated COMPLETELY without any input from man put out while nearly covering the entire central plains of America, would it not? There were herds on record taking more than an hour and a half to pass wagon trains heading West.

That's an estimate of 60-100 million head of Bison in the 19th Century, compared to a current US cattle population of 35.3 million. Sort of shoots all that pontificating dead in the foot, eh?

Uhhhh...shoots what pontificating? We know what greenhouse gas emissions were like hundreds of years ago, and thousands of years ago. They were lower than today. In fact that can be turned into an argument for your opponents; if there were 100 million head of bison a couple hundred years ago, far in excess of today's North American cattle population, why are GHG levels so high considering North America is perhaps the largest emitter in the world?

greg

[Macrobat]

The pontificating about "Americans' apetite for beef." Please feel free to check your righteous indignation at the door. And - since you seem mathematically challenged - the vast buffalo heards existed as few as 130 years ago.

Not to mention that you have ABSOLUTELY nothing to back up that claim, since the reporting did NOT exist 130 years ago for you to have real, empirical evidence. You simply spout it and expect everyone to believe it because it "sounds smart." Okay, your eminence, post us up them GHG levels from 1830-1868.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And this is exactly my point. I don't care if you eat meat provided that it attracts the same levels of taxation per CO2 measure produced as my SUV does. If you're willing to pay your share, so to speak.

And of course, nobody ever mentions the fact that the World population has doubled in the last century. Perhaps the intended beneficiaries of the solution are actually a large part of the problem?

Okay, it sounds like we completely agree. This is why many economists like having a CO2 emissions market, and international agreements like Kyoto are also to regulate CO2 emissions (I don't know that it had any provisions about SUVs in particular). I don't understand why you are opposed to government action. The longer we wait, the more extreme solutions will need to be.

I don't really understand your second paragraph. Do you mean Americans? Or are you referring to China and India (large, rapidly expanding economies)? Africa?

The pontificating about "Americans' apetite for beef." Please feel free to check your righteous indignation at the door. And - since you seem mathematically challenged - the vast buffalo heards existed as few as 130 years ago.

What is your point? Give me some math, I can take it. Are you claiming that the greenhouse gas emissions figures used by scientists are wrong?

It would be interesting to speculate how much greenhouse gas emissions emanated...

Why speculate? We know. I'm sure you can look it up somewhere or figure it out yourself. But you aren't going to convince me that humans don't cause global warming based on pure speculation.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Okay, it sounds like we completely agree. This is why many economists like having a CO2 emissions market, and international agreements like Kyoto are also to regulate CO2 emissions (I don't know that it had any provisions about SUVs in particular). I don't understand why you are opposed to government action.

Because governments are, by and large, idiots. I can guarantee that the average person's CO2 producing meat eating won't be hit with an equal tax to my CO2 producing SUV driving.

Originally Posted by tie 

I don't really understand your second paragraph. Do you mean Americans? Or are you referring to China and India (large, rapidly expanding economies)? Africa?

I mean... ...perhaps half the population of the planet needs to die out (from famine, etc.) in order to solve the problem - and that by taking measures to ensure that this doesn't happen is perhaps storing up all sorts of problems for the future. Harsh, but perhaps true.

[ink]

But Macrobat, your argument makes no sense.

If there were MORE Bison 130 years ago than cattle today, and the CO2 levels were lower THEN, and we accept that the CO2 output of a Bison is roughly the same as the CO2 output of a cow, how does livestock pose any threat to levels now? If any conclusion could be drawn, it's that the CO2 produced by cattle TODAY is a factor of the petroleum used to manage the herds (feed, fertilizer for food, farmer's lifestyle, market transportation, etc.); ie, it's caused by automobiles and industry. The same activities that are commonly associated with vegetarian products (ergo, a vegetarian still contributes roughly the same amount of CO2 as an omnivore).

A naive conclusion might be that cattle numbers have an inverse relationship with CO2, if one uses this Bison argument.

(strong emphasis on "if one uses this Bison argument")

Quick! Make more cows!

[ink]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I mean... ...perhaps half the population of the planet needs to die out (from famine, etc.) in order to solve the problem - and that by taking measures to ensure that this doesn't happen is perhaps storing up all sorts of problems for the future. Harsh, but perhaps true.

That will happen, if we can't solve the problem with technology.

[Macrobat]

Ink, again, PROVE the CO2 levels were lower then - please do, please show us all those detailed meterological datum compiled by the Apaches, Commanches and Sioux, Maybe President Grant empanelled some obscure "Blue Ribbon Panel" to which whose data you have unique access.

BTW, I wasn't using a "Bison argument." I wasn't arguing at all, simply asking a question as to WHY there wasn't a correlation.

In other words - if you WANT people to listen to you, stop condescending to them.

[ink]

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The pontificating about "Americans' apetite for beef." Please feel free to check your righteous indignation at the door. And - since you seem mathematically challenged - the vast buffalo heards existed as few as 130 years ago.

First off, these aren't "buffalo." Buffalo are in Africa. You are talking about bison.

Secondly, the bison had been hunted almost completely to extinction by the early 1880s. As as for your mathematical skills; for you to state that these huge herds existed 130 years ago is misleading and false – while there were some large herds still around at this time, they had been dramatically reduced from their numbers in the 18th century, and before.

Not to mention that you have ABSOLUTELY nothing to back up that claim, since the reporting did NOT exist 130 years ago for you to have real, empirical evidence. You simply spout it and expect everyone to believe it because it "sounds smart." Okay, your eminence, post us up them GHG levels from 1830-1868.

*sigh*

From my very first post....

Oh, no shi† eh? Like these short-term temperatures, or these short-term CO2 levels, or these atmospheric constituent levels,

greg

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Because governments are, by and large, idiots. I can guarantee that the average person's CO2 producing meat eating won't be hit with an equal tax to my CO2 producing SUV driving.

I mean... ...perhaps half the population of the planet needs to die out (from famine, etc.) in order to solve the problem - and that by taking measures to ensure that this doesn't happen is perhaps storing up all sorts of problems for the future. Harsh, but perhaps true.

So? Somebody has to solve the problem. It will cost more not to solve it than to solve it. Calling environmentalists cultists and governments idiots is avoiding the issue. Give me a serious proposal for solving the problem that does not involve any government intervention.

Half the population needs to die out? I doubt it. For example, the US has ~1/20 the world's population and emits 25% of its CO2. Europe is better but not by much. So eliminating ~1/10 the world's population will cut emissions in half. On the other hand, we could wipe out all Africa and barely make a dent in CO2 emissions. I guess you are suggesting wiping out everyone outside the US and Europe? Come on, be serious, we're talking about global warming here, not armageddon. This is a fixable problem.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Ink, again, PROVE the CO2 levels were lower then - please do, please show us all those detailed meterological datum compiled by the Apaches, Commanches and Sioux, Maybe President Grant empanelled some obscure "Blue Ribbon Panel" to which whose data you have unique access.

Arctic ice cores contain perfectly preserved air samples dating back hundreds of thousands of years. Just like the fossil record, certain depths represent certain years.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Arctic ice cores contain perfectly preserved air samples dating back hundreds of thousands of years. Just like the fossil record, certain depths represent certain years.

There is some debate over the exact accuracy of these measurements when you start going back in time a long ways. However, there is almost zero debate whatsoever over the relative accuracy of measurements during the time period he's talking about.

Again, ample evidence of a complete lack of knowledge on the topic.

greg

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, tough. The global warming movement most closely resembles a religion/cult in the manner in which most of its disciples act.

You even have the witchhunts against SUVs (even those which pollute less than the average family car which the accuser is driving around in).

It's all crap - just a fashion which governments are promoting because it happens to coincide with their plans to control the sheeple.



Right, since I've been veggie 20 years and you want a one-to-one trade-off, I'll give the car up in 17 years. And if you want to catch up for a true one-to-one you'd better stop flying (and I mean all of it) and start planting lots of trees.

Oh, give me a break. You know, I love Michael Crichton as much as the next guy, but I don't live my life in fear of velociraptor attack and you shouldn't use the plots of his books as arguments in your day to day life, either.

There's no cult. Yeah, some groups slap bumper stickers on Hummers, but that's hardly got anything to do with the mountain of scientific evidence pointing toward anthropogenic global warming. I mean, really, drop the excuses and the rationalizations and just look at the facts.

We've liberated a huge amount of CO2. We've cut down a huge amount of the world's trees. We're having an impact. No rational human being can reasonably deny that.

What will that impact be and what should we do about it? That's where the discussion belongs, but pretending that it's not happening--that's just silly.

Almost as silly as a story about nanorobots that take human form.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Almost as silly as a story about nanorobots that take human form.

They might.. This is another area where the government needs to take more action. Ever read Diamond Age? Scary stuff, perhaps Senate Republicans should call Neal Stephenson in for some hearings on the urgent threat. Bush should invite him to the White House for a chat.

(Why is our government turning to science fiction writers instead of scientists to decide our policies??)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

So? Somebody has to solve the problem. It will cost more not to solve it than to solve it. Calling environmentalists cultists and governments idiots is avoiding the issue. Give me a serious proposal for solving the problem that does not involve any government intervention.

1) Governments are idiots.

2) Most people who take notice of the current climate change fashion do resemble members of a cult.

Originally Posted by tie 

Half the population needs to die out? I doubt it. For example, the US has ~1/20 the world's population and emits 25% of its CO2. Europe is better but not by much. So eliminating ~1/10 the world's population will cut emissions in half. On the other hand, we could wipe out all Africa and barely make a dent in CO2 emissions. I guess you are suggesting wiping out everyone outside the US and Europe? Come on, be serious, we're talking about global warming here, not armageddon. This is a fixable problem.

Fact 1) The World's population has doubled over the last century.

Fact 2) Every single reasonably healthy adult person on the planet has a lung capacity exceeding the engine size of a Range Rover.

Fact 3) Every one of those people generates CO2 simply by breathing, even when "off" (sleeping).

Fact 4) Range Rovers don't generate CO2 when they're "off".

Yet people like the UK government (climate change cultists) charge you extra for driving a Range Rover (over a "normal" vehicle) while actually paying you (family tax credit) to produce mobile CO2 manufacturing units (kids).

Doesn't make any sense whatsoever - just like a cult.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Oh, give me a break. You know, I love Michael Crichton as much as the next guy, but I don't live my life in fear of velociraptor attack and you shouldn't use the plots of his books as arguments in your day to day life, either.

I think you missed the point somewhat.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

There's no cult. Yeah, some groups slap bumper stickers on Hummers, but that's hardly got anything to do with the mountain of scientific evidence pointing toward anthropogenic global warming. I mean, really, drop the excuses and the rationalizations and just look at the facts.

We've liberated a huge amount of CO2. We've cut down a huge amount of the world's trees. We're having an impact. No rational human being can reasonably deny that.

See? You're acting just like a member of a cult. No rational human being this, mountain of scientific evidence that... ...taking the facts which support your argument and ignoring those which don't.

Isn't it funny how most global warming action advocates always seem to be of the political left, and always seem to be proposing that the solution to the problem is generally doing away with the components of society which the left has always hated?

[Sky Captain]

Which are objects that represent the sucessful.
Like SUVs.
It's not about global warming. It's class warfare.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Fact 1) The World's population has doubled over the last century.

Fact 2) Every single reasonably healthy adult person on the planet has a lung capacity exceeding the engine size of a Range Rover.

Fact 3) Every one of those people generates CO2 simply by breathing, even when "off" (sleeping).

The irony is that you're also part of the cult. You're make some excellent arguments for human-caused global warming.

[Sky Captain]

Human caused? Partially.
But SUVs are not the sole perpitrator. As the environazis would have us believe.

Time for population control.