Global ""Warming""

[CZroe]

To what extent?

1. Ensure Natural Gas overtakes Coal.
2. Start a National Nuclear Project, to immediately build dozens of modern plants.
3. Provide R&D into Solar with the intent of mass production later this century.
4. Provide R&D into Fusion with the hope and a prayer of mass production sometime next century.

At a minimum we have to do steps 1-3. Simply cutting our CO2 emissions by half or even three fourths will do _nothing_ to address Climate Change, as radiative forcing would still be increasing non-stop.

I didn't say that I supported it for climate change reasons. I support it for diversification, stability, and self-sufficiency along with the obvious benefits to air quality (the type of "pollution" was not specified).

 

[tracerbullet]

See this chart makes no kind of sense. The warming rate between 1900-1940 is roughly the same as the warming rate between 1960-2000 even though the amount of carbon increase was tiny between 1900-1940. In addition, what is with the flat region between 1940-1960?

You're kidding, right? I'm not sure since I don't read P&N often. This is just data. Maybe it was man, maybe it was natural, maybe it was man negating natural or vice-versa.

Since man controls the climate apparently, it appears that all we have to do is repeat that time period.

Ahh, great example of a straw man argument. But - was that on purpose?

 

[Vic]

Waste and inefficiency doesn't make us wealthier.