Why do you argue this way?
Link with some scientist saying what the "end result of climate change will be." please. One doesn't have to be The Amazing Karnac to know what will happen, overall, to the planet if CO2 levels keep rising at the rate they've been rising - even if one can't predict whether California in 2027 will be in flood or drought.
Who is arguing that "every human method of causing CO2" should or could be stopped immediately?
Define "not slow down climate change at all", please. There are huge lags in the system - science tells us that (e.g. the multi-hundred year average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere). That's why it's important to quit delaying implementing sensible policies. What we do now will affect what the planet looks like in 20, 50, 100 years.
1) We can do many things at once.
2) Mitigation is easier when the problem is smaller - meaning we need to dramatically cut our emissions before thinking about things like dumping SO4 in the atmosphere to counteract CO2.
3) Taxing carbon to have it reflect its real impacts (with sensible rebates to people who have no choice) is a much simpler and smarter way to approach the problem rather than, say, invading Canada to take over their farmland.
4) If you think the proposals thus far are expensive, tell me about your plans to replace Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Norfolk, etc., etc.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
My statement is that the scientists have little or no fucking clue predicting what the end result of global climate change will be.
Link with some scientist saying what the "end result of climate change will be." please. One doesn't have to be The Amazing Karnac to know what will happen, overall, to the planet if CO2 levels keep rising at the rate they've been rising - even if one can't predict whether California in 2027 will be in flood or drought.
I also know if you shut off every human method of causing c02 immediately half the world population would likely die in short thrift and it would not slow down climate change at all.
Who is arguing that "every human method of causing CO2" should or could be stopped immediately?
Define "not slow down climate change at all", please. There are huge lags in the system - science tells us that (e.g. the multi-hundred year average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere). That's why it's important to quit delaying implementing sensible policies. What we do now will affect what the planet looks like in 20, 50, 100 years.
Mitigation is what we need to be looking at. Crop distribution. Population shifts etc.
1) We can do many things at once.
2) Mitigation is easier when the problem is smaller - meaning we need to dramatically cut our emissions before thinking about things like dumping SO4 in the atmosphere to counteract CO2.
3) Taxing carbon to have it reflect its real impacts (with sensible rebates to people who have no choice) is a much simpler and smarter way to approach the problem rather than, say, invading Canada to take over their farmland.
4) If you think the proposals thus far are expensive, tell me about your plans to replace Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Norfolk, etc., etc.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.