Since there is ZERO chance of reducing CO2 emissions, should we all just kill ourselves now?

There is no good reason to kill yourself but...

Warmers have got to be the most irrational of any of the conspiracy theorists these days. CO2 levels in our atmosphere are NOT increasing at an alarming rate.

Fact is that over the last half a century that we have accurate measurments the rate of increase averages aprox. 1 ppm per year. (part per million)

One ppm per year is tiny. And this considers the fact that some years like this year we have volcanoes that spew millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

For man to actually effect the climate by reducing carbon emissions is an irrational expectation. Because, the amount we could reduce would basically not effect the climate to a measurable degree.

This is one of the main reasons you find that prominent Warmers like Al Gore will not debate. The facts just do not stack up in their favor.

No, This marks the problem with the greeners trying to "educate" people. They are not trying to educate people, but scare them into doing what they think needs to be done. CO2 is a problem, but even the over-estimated increase in temps given by most scientists amount to nothing more than a 3 degree rise as seen in the IPCC report. A 3 degree rise will cause problems, but will not end humanity on this earth. Even so, most of the computer models have been overestimating the change in temps caused by CO2. They do so because they pretend like the Earth is an unstable environment that is easily changed, so they put positive feedbacks to make a 1 degree change in CO2 actually cause a total 7 or even 12 degree change. This is just silly. The Earth has been hit by large meteors and managed to come back into balance. That is not the sign of an unbalanced Earth. If we work towards some of the technology that we already have, like nuclear, electric cars and geothermal, we can reduce our impact and be good stewards of our environment. Overall though, the impact of CO2 is not one that will destroy humanity. We have seen a some total increase of 0.74 degrees over the last 100 years, with half of that coming before 1950. The idea of runaway global warming currently stand as nothing more than a hypothesis, not even a theory.

Paul,

You don't like being called a Nazi, but you are so like a Nazi as well. Misuse some good science (like they did with evolution) to justify a totalitarian government. Even your method of dealing with dissenters is not much different then their initial methods.

Ohh, don't like being called a Nazi, even though I can point to some similarities? That is probably because you are not like Nazi's in their general hatred of others. Neither are skeptics anything like Holocaust deniers. Your argument that we are, is just sad.

Further Paul,

Whether you realize it or not, even many AGWers on this site think more highly of me (which is not highly at all) then they do of you. It is because while they make a decent argument that they just call us deniers, because we "deny" science, with no insinuation of the holocaust deniers, you make them look like fools for even making that argument. AGWers, tell me if I am wrong about this.

I guess if the (it's not happen stance) is not working for you

you could switch to the (it's to hard to fix) stance and the extremely silly lets (kill ourselves) stance, which I think you will find yourself pretty much alone in.

One of the major financial costs of changing to an electric car system is not the cars but the infrastructure, China and India don't have this problem as they don't have a massive oil infrastructure already in place and could just as easily have an electric system, China is already making moves in that direction and have an electric vehicle ready to go

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/02/...

And it's not a 100,000 dollar sports car but something that will be competitive against an ordinary car in terms of cost.

Other simple changes have already slowed parts of our Co2 emissions, just a few years ago CRT computer monitors were predominant worldwide, they have now been largely replaced by LCD's which on average use only 25-40% of the power, that is 100s of millions of monitors (worldwide) the same is true of ordinary TV's the change had little to do with being 'green' but people wanting new technology and that technology getting as cheap or cheaper than the old technology. That is going to happen with electric cars as well just as LCD TV's were 8-10 thousand dollars not so long ago and are now far cheaper than any of the very few CRT TV's you can still buy.

Solar, Solar thermal, geothermal and wind power all work and don't require ongoing fuels (which have to be purchased) Solar energy is less efficient than fossil fuel but it is (as an energy source) free forever.

Even coal fired power plants, with current technology, can be made cleaner this system is about to be trialed here in Australia using Mallee trees which are drought resistant and will grow just about anywhere, converted to pellets and burned directly in the power station it is pretty much carbon neutral compared to coal which is a 100% carbon addition.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/c...

No one involved in this seems to be talking about killing themselves either.

No, I tend to believe that there are more drastic measures that could be carried out that would indeed reduce CO2 emissions, but for several reasons, the world's nations and these nation's governments and peoples are taking a more passive approach in order to see at what point we begin to actually make a difference. We may not have to take drastic measures if we don't have to. So therefore instead of taking a fatalistic approach, you and I should be more interested to watch and see what happens in the next few years. Perhaps things shall indeed improve...

Mankind accounts for about 3% of all the world's CO2 emissions. As you know, plantlife likes CO2 a lot. The state of paranoia about our planet is based on limited data and ulimited creativity! The fact is there simply is not enough data and definately enough data collecting resources all around the world and oceans to say one thing or another. Good science is based on postulations based on observed fact and not a few models based on the "what if" branch of bad science.

Keeping your house tidy and clean is a good thing. However, if a volcano erupts or we have a tsunami or just a bad storm like Katrina etc, there is nothing mankind can do. Mankind is a puny little creature with a large brain and an out of control imagination.

However; we can all contribute in our small way to keep our back yards tidy and neat so our kids won't play on bits of broken glass and rusty nails, and their friends can do the same when they stop over and all their pets will be clean and well loved and looked after. That would be nice eh!

Relax Seebob, the Iceland volcano has already put out more CO2 than man has done in a hundred years. And it shows no signs of letting up. Al bought a $9 million seaside estate, so he is not worried about the oceans rising.

I am betting their will be NO measurable change in atmospheric CO2 (unless the warmists cook their books again). Even tho all that CO2 is being shot up into the upper atmosphere.

The Warmists scam is about to be exposed once and for all.

There goes the taxes for their one world government. Don't let them make dupes out of every one.

No.

1,000 ppm CO2 would probably be far worse than 700 ppm CO2. If we have the chance to cut eventual CO2 from 1,000 ppm to 700 ppm, then we should take it. The risk of feedbacks taking warming beyond our control rises pretty sharply for each degree of warming we get.

We're pretty much definitely going to cut emissions to below business as usual, and we should do that.

Imagine your house is on fire and you've found out that you can't put it out, but there's loads of stuff inside. With your suggested approach you shrug and let all your stuff burn down. With my approach, even though you can't save the house, you might save your pet dog, the photos of your parents, birth certificate, passport and collection of rare books.

I'd say you're better off saving something, rather than letting it all burn.

Yes

NO, we can develop alternate energy resources. Look at Germany, Denmark Norway, Spain, and if your that depressed, Nuclear. As soon as a Fusion Nuclear power plant gets running then it will not be a problem

Things the global warming crowd (thruth deniers) cling to in order:

* Global cooling hasn't occurred during the past decade.

* Climate gate doesn't matter because they had good intentions.

* Failure of EVERY climate model to accurately predict the current downward global temperature trend doesn't mean they are wrong.

* AGW is a proven fact.

*CO2 is at all time highs

* Global temperatures are at all time highs

* The artic will be ice free in 2010

I think the sad part is climate change is happening, the global warming community is just to obviously political to use good science.