Jaysun, I said i disagree with your logic not your take home message. You are correct in that arsenic or anthrax can be identified as a problem. The problem is global warming is much more complex issue involving literally billions upon billions of interactions.
The fact is we really do not understand how our actions affect the atmospheric environment, too many factors involved. However even a small shift in global temperature can have profound effects upon the agricultural economy, desertification for example happens pretty regularily in regions of heavy human exploitation.
And your correct in stating that global warming is just a theory. There aren't many facts in science as a whole and global warming is about as far from fact as any theory. However, it is also not a fact that anthropogenic astmospheric alteration have NO serious ramifications. I'm not saying we should go out and spend trillions of dollars on global warming research but we should be mindful of how we are impacting the earth. That 1/100,000,000,000 of a % of SOx or NOx can possibly have a disproportionally huge impact. We just don't know.
Jaysun, I said i disagree with your logic not your take home message.
Please accept my apology. I can get over zealous concerning this subject. I see the environmental movement as very detrimental for the most part. The Soviets recognized it as a useful "social change" tool. Incidentally, did you know that Momar Qaddafi wrote a book on the subject? This was, of course, prior to his recent spurt of rationality.
However, it is also not a fact that anthropogenic astmospheric alteration have NO serious ramifications. I'm not saying we should go out and spend trillions of dollars on global warming research but we should be mindful of how we are impacting the earth. That 1/100,000,000,000 of a % of SOx or NOx can possibly have a disproportionally huge impact. We just don't know.
Agreed. My problem is that your reasonable and responsible stance on the situation bares no resemblance to the stance taken by the great unwashed. There's a surprising number of people out there that would have loved for us - and still advocate that we do - submit ourselves to the Kyoto sham. These are the same people that seize the rights of private land owners for the sake of insects and rodents. These are also the same people that have evidently been given powers not afforded to most elected officials. Who touched each of their shoulders with the tip of a sword and granted them such authority? My stance on the matter is this: if I spend 20 million dollars preparing to mine iron ore in some remote location, and someone demands that I be stopped for the sake of 20 salmon, they should only be able to stop me by effectively purchasing those salmon. In this case it would come out to roughly 1 million dollars per fish. I bet they'd think twice then - but that doesn't stop them from subjecting others to the same type of deal. I've paid for salmon of my own and that's why I loathe the environmentalist.
Guess I'm chasing rabbits now. Sorry. I don't know what else to say, so
Here's a catchy little hippie ditty that we'll all recognize.