Nuggin writes:
So, what you have left is this: "We don't know if humans cause 1% of the CO2 or 99% of the CO2, therefore we should do nothing"
In your haste to make an enemy, you have failed to discern the true fact of the matter. Last time I checked, THAT is:
Nuggin writes:
RETARDED.
Perhaps you could have made an assessment on my stance on immediate action, if you had enough data to do so. Sadly you didn't, and this has led you to a FALSE CONCLUSION. This is an excellent example of what I was really talking about.
If we hastily make important decisions (and luckily, yours wasn't), we will suffer long term effects.
Nuggin writes:
If humans were responsible for .000000000000001% of the CO2 we should STILL stop releasing mercury vapors into the air. We should STILL stop stripmining the entire state of WV. We should STILL stop handing hundreds of billions of dollars over to terrorist nations. We should STILL strive to have cars that get more mpg. We should STILL find ways to make jet more effecient.
I don't think there is anyone on this planet that isn't interested in creating a cleaner, safer, and more efficient form of energy. We HAVE been making endeavors in Fusion, Solar, Wind, Hydro, and Geothermal, technology. For now the only alternative until these technologies become TRULY more cost effective (rather than subsidy dependent) is decreased energy usage. In developing countries, and the United States, this is easier said, than done. It is possible though.
Nuggin writes:
If humans are adding ANY CO2, and you KNOW that they are, to the system - then we should strive to reduce our input.
Perhaps we should. Obviously complete CO2 output removal would be impossible though, as I am sure you know.
Nuggin writes:
If humans are removing CO2 sinks FROM the system, and you KNOW that they are - then we should strive to replace them.
Again, perhaps we should.
Nuggin writes:
It's THAT simple. It doesn't matter if we're solely responsible or partially responsible, or simply exasperating the situation.
Is it really THAT simple? Your usage of 'thought ending statements' belies a lack of hard evidence in your court.
I would hardly consider a micro-climate, let alone the GLOBAL climate 'Simple'. My suggestion would be that we learn how negative, or even beneficial our actions may be for the impacted climate. I would say that to oversimplify the situation could very well create an even greater problem.
An excellent example would be using a "the sky is falling" technique, as some environmentalists do. What do you think will happen in 10 years if everyone looks around and sees very little different that day, than it was yesterday?
This event will obviously discredit the ENTIRE movement altogether within the general populace, who last I checked are running this country.
We should be more concerned about hard, compelling facts, than sensationalist efforts to cow the majority into bending to our whim. We should be more concerned with taking PERSONAL action in minimizing energy usage that relies on high pollutant fuels, such as oil, or coal. We should be more concerned about teaching our children how to think with their minds using deductive reasoning, instead of heading the fear in their hearts.