Ask A Question
 
Irishman
Junior Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 29
Rating: 0ApplaudCriticize
Posted 2 Years, 5 Months ago #1
USHCN Temperature Record of the Week: Manitowoc, Wisconsin
The topic has been locked.
javaquant
Junior Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 25
Rating: 0ApplaudCriticize
Posted 2 Years, 5 Months ago #2
According to the site CO2 is good for all; and they make connections to CO2 in the atmosphere that they say can't be done by linking CO2 and Global Warming = amazing:
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/energy.htm

Energy, Carbon Dioxide and Earth's Future Pursuing the Prudent Path

C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
The topic has been locked.
klauss
Junior Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 29
Rating: 0ApplaudCriticize
Posted 2 Years, 5 Months ago #3
<snipped?

It isn't so much the trace amounts we're talking about that are the problem. Under a 2XCO2 scenario, the temperature is only expected to rise by about 1C. It is the feedbacks produced by the CO2 induced temperature increase that are going to further enhance the warming. It is at this point that H2O and methane will start to have an impact. The Idso's conveniently neglect that important point.

Again, their argument is fallacious from the get-go. They seem to make the 'lushness' argument without doing a lot of thinking. The whole purpose of the exercise is the realization that getting from where we are now to 'lush' will involve tremendous change, both for human beings and their economies, but also for the planets flora and fauna, a lot of which may not survive. For the Idso's to blithely make statements of the kind they do above is sheer hubris on their part.

It also is dishonest to suggest that we need to eliminate fossil fuels. That would be stupid. What we do need to do is use them more appropriately. Personally, I don't have a problem spending less on heating my home. I don't like wasting my money.
The topic has been locked.
masyukk
Junior Boarder
Blog Posts: 0
Forum Posts: 34
Rating: 0ApplaudCriticize
Posted 2 Years, 5 Months ago #4
When you look at global statements like this the issue is only China and India, everything else is small change. China is getting a lot richer. India is getting richer. Thus, such meta statements, although giving the impression that they are talking about the entire globe, are true, but true only because of two large countries with massive populations.

Arguably South America and Africa are getting poorer, and India and Southeast Asia richer.

josh halpern
The topic has been locked.

Spread the Word!

Four out of five users would recommend us to a friend. Shouldn't you?
Link to Us    Tell a Friend

Related Posts:

The Content on this site is provided for general information purposes only. Your use of the Content, or any part thereof, is made solely at Your own risk and responsibility. By entering this site you declare you read and agreed to its Terms, Rules & Privacy.
Copyright © 2006 - 2010 My Greenpeace Buddies