|
jlf1961 -> RE: John Oliver puts climate change deniers (fido) in perspective (5/19/2014 8:56:58 PM)
|
First I suggest you look at this report.
Now before you start quoting the petition of "scientists" disagreeing with the AGW argument, I must point out that of the 31000 names on that list, less than 10 percent were in the earth sciences field, most were doctors, and in other fields that have no intersecting fields of study on climate change.
Then you have the most respected scientific groups on the planet supporting climate change as being caused, in a large part by human activity.
97.7 percent of climatologists and those in the earth sciences field agree on the causes of climate change, what is having the biggest impact on the accumulation of greenhouse gases, including one that was formerly in the employ of the Koch brothers trying to debunk the climate change argument.
And if you had bothered to even try to understand the function of the ocean's Thermohaline circulation, you would see clearly that the recent severe winter weather actually supports the climate change argument.
And yes, in the past CO2 levels have been higher, considerably higher. However, this has not been the case since the end of the dinosaurs. In those periods of high CO2, the oceans have been higher, the earth's temperature had been much hotter (there was a rain forest at the south pole) and life was a lot harder. One more point, the mammals that were around during the last of these periods were about the size of mice.
There was even a few periods when oxygen levels in the atmosphere was much higher. During these times there were spiders 6 to 10 feet across, scorpions 12 feet long, some species of reptiles and no mammals.
Now, strangely enough, efforts that would mitigate the rise in CO2 have been met with protests from the tree huggers. You see, back in the seventies, a botanist created through cross breeding hard wood trees that were fast growing and could be a sustainable timber source and they thrived in areas that had been clear cut in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century.
Tree huggers cried fowl because the land that was little more than scrub brush and a massive wild fire hazard had become the homes of various critters and planting these trees would remove their habitat. NOw most of the critters were along the lines of field mice, and other small mammals nothing on the endangered list.
Then there are some oil producing crops that could be used for bio fuels that would not impact food production, hell the farmers could grow it in fields the government is paying them not to grow food crops.
Pot plants, stems and leaves, not the buds, produce an oil that the University of Louisiana burned in a turbine powered truck. Pound for pound, pot produces more oil than most other plant sources.
Multi fuel engine technology has been around for god knows how long. I recently bought an ex army 6x6 that will burn gasoline, kerosene, diesel, alcohol, aviation gas, etc.
Hellmuth Walter developed a turbine that ran off hydrogen peroxide for German Uboats in WW2, The war ended in Europe before these got into service, but experts agree that those sube would have been a game changer.
The diesel engine was originally intended to be fueled by vegetable oil.
In other words, there are alternatives to fossil fuels, there are ways to naturally process the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and there are scientists who are trying to develop cost effective ways to mechanically scrub CO2 and other green house gases out of the atmosphere.
The oil companies have the facilities that would be necessary to process plant oils into usable fuel, hence they will still make money, and oil is not going to last forever. So why not switch over now before there is a crisis point? Even if you dont believe in climate change, the fact that oil is running out cannot be ignored.
|
|
|
|
