Replies

Yep Global Warming

I would bet a Pizza and a Pitcher of beer that we could spend our entire GNP on nothing but producing CO2 for the next 10 years and it wouldn't change world climate at all.

All plants are basically CO2 sponges, the Oceans are CO2 sponges.

What we can't do is change the output of the Sun, I say lets start working out a crop rotation schedule for Antarctica.

TT

There are a lot of plans being examined for changing the amount of energy that hits the Earth from the Sun. Some of them may turn out to be more economical or technically feasible than CO2 reduction (which is impossible without getting every nation on board anyway).

It doesn't matter if plants, and ocean ecologies are CO2 sinks or not. They are clearly not soaking up as much CO2 as we are producing. I defy you to find a single climatologist that thinks otherwise. What matters is to what extent CO2 is responsible for warming, and to what extent reductions in CO2 can lead to cooling vs. other more economical methods.

I don't know much about climatology, but I'm disheartened by how politicized the science is on both sides. The public perception of science and scientists as relatively unbiased, and unprejudiced is taking a beating. I don't think that is a good thing however global warming plays out. To think that policy should always be dictated by political bent and not by objective solutions robs us of all facts and reduces us to a set of knee jerk opinions.

What we can't do is change the output of the Sun, I say lets start working out a crop rotation schedule for Antarctica.

That is the rational thing to do. There is no proof that warming is caused by human activity. There does seem to be evidence of warming. The right thing to do is plan for a warmer future, not destroy the economy in a futile effort to "stop" global warming. Leftists see this as an opportunity to attack and destroy the U.S. economy.