Fat hurts wrote:
PIO! wrote:
Sorry, but gonna have to mostly take Hardloper's side on this. Some of his assertions are off but the overall thrust is more correct than not (barely).
1) One should always choose words that shed more light than heat on the topic at hand. "Dirty" air is a term that veers toward the latter. CO2 is not "dirty". It is part of the natural atmosphere. We are certainly increasing CO2 levels quite dramatically and this is unquestionably changing the Earth's climate. But the term "dirty air" is rather silly and does not help us have an informative discussion.
2) "Do you support dirty or clean air" is most certainly not the central question. The important questions revolve around what the costs and benefits are of mitigating actions taken in the near future. To talk about "Are you for or against 'dirty air'?" is simply childish.
3) Bringing Al Gore into the discussion, like talking about "dirty" air, sheds more heat than light. It is not helpful in any way.
4) It is certainly true that the assertion "It's a lot cheaper to stop polluting and at least slow global warming than it is to continue dumping garbage into the air and letting global temperatures go through the roof." needs some proof to back it up.
But
5) The notion that we will simply run out of fossil fuels and therefore we will not have to do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is naive at best, more likely disingenuous.
6) There are substantial risks that we are taking in essentially running an experiment on the only atmosphere that we have. Potential large scale changes in climate and hydro-cycle patterns across continents strike me as far more important than sea level changes. Positive feedback loops from the defrosting of the permafrost (very large carbon source), methane seepage from ocean floors . . . could potentially result in nonlinear changes that we would have a hard time predicting, ameliorating or adapting to.
In summary: Talk about risks, rewards, costs, benefits. Recognize the potential for large scale risks far more serious than a few thousand people (or even a few million people) killed by insect born diseases. And try to stay away from heat and come into the light. :-)
It's dirty air versus clean air. It really is that simple, and yes, childish. It's so simple even a child like Hardloper can understand.
I'm being intentionally unscientific here. If you want the science on this, go read the science.
But we all know what the science says. It says we need to stop polluting the air. End of story.
My knowledge of the science involved vastly exceeds your own.
My desire to use childish rhetoric on complex issues ("free energy", "dirty air") is exceeded by yours. Indeed, my own interest in having childish rhetoric dirty the air here (pun intended) is zero. You would be more effective, more honest, and overall a better person if you joined me at the zero interest level.