Steve_American wrote: Godstud here admits that he has never heard of a solution that he can support and that he thinks will work.
I never said that.
Stop making up lies. Your "viewers" can see it, too. It does not help your argument when you make false accusations of other posters. The only suggestion you've made is rationing, and so that's the only "solution" I could respond to.
Steve_American wrote:All he does is try to block action. I accept that my take will scare some people into inaction. However, we already have a lot of inaction. We need bold action now.
Scaring people is more likely to make people become inactive, or even negative. You can't incite panic and expect reason and logic. You cannot have bold action without a plan.
Steve_American wrote:2] I have asserted that every action that might work to reduce the burning of carbon fuels, must seriously restrict the "freedom" of almost everyone who lives in an advanced industrial nation.
That's false. Governments can have incentives(tax breaks, for instance) in place to encourage reduction of fossil fuel usage. They can create cheaper renewable energy sources and create better infrastructures in cities for public transportation. They can invest in nuclear energy. These are solutions to the problems(none are instantaneous, however), and screaming, "The sky is falling!", is not one of them. It's counter-productive.
Steve_American wrote:However, I assert that we must take that risk because we must cool the planet to buy time to reduce CO2 in the air.
Reducing Co2, according to who? Are you sure that CO2 is the problem, or are there other more significant factors, like simple pollution? Some people say it's methane that's the big problem, but then they discovered that is is re-absorbed over 20 years.
You do realize that, at the current rate of CO2 increase of 2 ppm/year we will increase temperatures, but let's not forget that only a few million years ago we were
at those temperatures(5C higher than now). The Earth thrived at a 10C increase, millions of years ago(1,000 ppm CO2). 1,000 ppm, incidentally, is harmless to humans, as this is the average CO2 level indoors.
Please note: CO2 increases
will help plant growth, and crop yields already grow by over a 1% point every year.
Will ACC affect humans all over the world? Without a doubt. How we deal with it, remains to be seen, and the best way we can do that is to bring humans all up to a level playing field in terms of resources. People in 3rd world countries aren't concerned about ACC when they are struggling to put food on their table. They deal with the immediate reality around them, and not the future potentials and scenarios. ACC is a 1st World problem, in terms of "reaction".
We're not all on the same page, and can't be until a lot of things change. We're going to have climate problems over the next few decades, but we'll deal with them, and improve.
late wrote:One of the classic propaganda techniques is to create the appearance of a controversy when no controversy exists.
What controversy? You're babbling.
late wrote:So... does it matter if you are kook, or just a paid troll?
Are you stupid, or just willfully ignorant? What I am saying is pretty clear, if you stop and think for a few seconds.
Fear-mongering is not a solution to AGW.
“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson