Are you sure you grasp what support CO2 emissions reductions means?

Just a note, Dana didn't answer the question in his link. He just went off on a tangeant about ocean acidification. That is what an alarmists is left with when his other theories about warming have died.

AGW is a mechanism to obtain power. I am not saying that everyone involved is part of a big conspiracy but you would have to be completely politically ignorant not to notice how politicians are attempting to use AGW to increase taxes and increase the size and intrusion of the federal government into our lives. For those who think increasing taxes on domestic supply of energy is going to make us more independent need to take some basic economics. It will have the same effect it did when Carter did it. It will make us more dependent. It will harm the econmy and reduce jobs. Alarmist's (e.g. Dana) suggestion of 100 dollars a year per family is fantasy and completely off base. Their ignorance of economics is similar to their ignorance of science.

There was a study that proved that wind power was our safest alternative to fossil fuels.

I get what you are saying. If one problem isn't solved, there are still the others that may have been reduced. The problem with you logic is that we have already gotten the earth at a warm enough temperature for methane to be released from the Arctic; other stuff like CO2 or that breaks down into CO2 and H2O also. So, unless we can stop the warming the acidification will still happen.

Acidification is just a by-product, the long-term warming itself is still there.

I'll try to oversimplify my position on the issue.

I know for a fact that I can survive one hell of a lot longer in a garage full of cigarette smoke than one filled with the smoke of a coal plant or car exhaust.

Carbon monoxide, I know, but I think you get my point.

Just exactly how hardy is the planet? Can it take a multi-century blast of Industrial Revolution emissions (that has grown exponentially since we figured out how to mold metal) without taking a proverbial kick to the crotch?

As a life long backpacker I've seen how the back-country has felt the effects of our pollutants even when I was a hundred+ miles away from any major city.

There is probably only so much the planet can take and still do the stuff that we need to be done to survive comfortably.

"The whites too shall pass - perhaps sooner than other tribes. Continue to contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. When the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses all tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the eagle? Gone. Where is the buffalo? Gone. And what is it to say goodbye to the swift and the hunt, the end of living and the beginning of survival."

Chief Seattle 1855

Are you sure you grasp what it means? Problems A to G are all interrelated. Global warming not a cause, it's a symptom of CO2 pollution. CO2 pollution also is not a cause by itself like it was natural or something, it's a symptom of humanity using artificial leverage in the world to take more than what she can supply. This only looks like prosperity my friend. Oh sure, since it's lasting more than one generation of humans it looks like real prosperity, but when the climate goes haywire and the oceans die and the food and water and energy run out we will be awakened from this dream very quickly. We need to move from trying to live the illusion of an open ended existence to the reality of living within the limits of sustainability. What that actually means, I don't even know. But is sure as hell doesn't look like what we are doing now. As others have been saying for some time - we can learn to respect the limits or have them enforced upon us. A mass of humanity is rushing towards a bottleneck caused by over-population and over-exploitation of resource. We need to do everything we can as quickly as possible to help us mitigate the effects of that bottleneck. Empower women, make birth control ubiquitous, and make it so that we can live on as few resources as possible, all of them sustainable. Eliminating fossil fuels and moving to all renewable energy is a good start.

edit:

Great bit of sarcasm from New Deal.

edit:

I don't post here expecting to change minds; I post as a counterbalance to the nonsense. Your arguments don't make any sense to me. I don't believe you grasp what is going on. I've seen enough of your posts that I also don't believe you are looking for real dialogue. Or maybe you do understand what is going on - and that would make you just another hack in the world spreading FUD.

CO2 and rising temperatures are symptoms, not a cause. Attacking symptoms does not solve problems if the root cause goes unaddressed.

So rather that speaking in gloomy hypotheticals, what exactly is the downside of clean, cheap, abundant, renewable perpetual (as in, we'll always have it) energy? And what is the downside of taxing carbon to get there?

It's overwhelmingly abundantly absolutely clear that we will never get there without government mandate.

The really interesting part is that all government has to do is level the playing field. Stop subsidizing fossil fuels and start subsidizing renewables. When dirty energy costs just a little more than clean energy - ordinary initiative will do the rest.

So, you want to have a real dialogue about root causes?

Yes, it is called COMMUNISM. The GOVERNMENT will tell us how much oil and gas we use! and what kind of heaters to use and what kind of cars, etc. I THINK a law has been proposed but I'm not sure. I heard part of That moron Al Gore's talk with Katie Curric on CBS Nightly News sometime earlier in the week.

If a solution was tailored to exactly fix several different problems, and one of those problems was shown to be misunderstood, then of course that solution should be reexamined and modified as necessary.

Though other than AGW and ocean acidification I can't think of a single good reason to reduce carbon emissions...

Absolutely: CO2 reduction means population reduction, otherwise known as mass-murder. That is precisely the real agenda. The oligarchs pushing the AGW and "cap-and-trade" swindles couldn't care less about protecting the environment, they just want to impose totalitarian policies on the population, and reduce our numbers, so that what remains of the "wretched masses" are easier to control.

Take the so-called "smart meters" for example: this is a totalitarian device! What a "smart meter" is, is device that reaches into your home on the day that there's going to be a brownout (because the radical, neo-Malthusian, neo-fascist environmentalists refuse to build generating capacity), and shuts off your air conditioner, so that you can sit and swelter for the sake of "Mother Earth" (e.g., the depraved fetishes of Al Gore, Prince Philip, and related criminals against humanity).

Naturally though, that's just a "trial balloon," so to speak. The eventual goal is to impose a global e-currency and international financial dictatorship on the world. This is to be tied to a computer chip implanted in every human being, so if you get out of line, the ecogarchy can just shut off your chip, and you starve to death.

None of this is speculation; it is all on the record. What's really amazing is how the devout Warmists deny these facts, and instead opt for incoherent babbling about "conspiracy theories."

I would keep policy X until a better policy, or policies, came around that were fiscally and socially responsible.

That depends on whether there's a better way to solve problems B-G. But I already answered this question in the link below regarding CO2.

For example with ocean acidification, cap and trade is still the best solution, and it's the second-largest problem. The only question if AGW is somehow magically wrong is whether we need to reduce emissions as rapidly to address ocean acidification. If not, cap and trade can easily be modified to have less stringent GHG emissions reductions goals, so it's still probably the best solution.

*edit* is James trying to break the record for the largest number of attempted "liberal" insults in one answer?

"Dana didn't answer the question in his link"

Yes, I did. The fact that you deny ocean acidification doesn't change the fact that it's happening due to human CO2 emissions. Work on your reading comprehension, jim.

"CO2 reduction means population reduction, otherwise known as mass-murder. That is precisely the real agenda."

Yes, we AGW proponents all secretly aspire to be mass murderers. That is possibly the best denier argument I've every heard. Brilliant. Give that man best answer.

Unfortunately Mike you will never break through in discussing these issues with a liberal, they are basically incapable of what could be termed rational thought. You might as well try and discuss physics with a group of extreme liberals at your local bar during a football game. Unfortunately less than 25% of all people born are rationally capable of logical though and many of these are messed up by liberal educations that are so boring and illogical they tend to drop out and just take a job like I did after dealing with some extreme liberal idiots that ran the school I went to at the time.

Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_200...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.h...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....

http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmosphe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum