HAMBURGER AND CYCLOPS, YOUR CALL HAS BEEN ANSWERED MORE THAN ONCE ALREADY, BUT HERE IT IS AGAIN. READ IT AND DON'T CLAIM EVER AGAIN IT IS NOT BEEN ANSWERED.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Hello, calling all those who claim that implementing programs intended to slow or halt Climate Change: in what ways will this lead to the deaths of people, and destruction of our society, as has been claimed?
Cycloptichorn
I will try to explain a simple concept one more time. First I will liken it to the following.
A man has been diagnosed with a cancerous tumor by Doctor #1, wherein he says he will soon die if the growth of the tumor was not halted or reduced significantly very soon. So Doctor #1 prescribes a bandaid to treat the tumor.
Doctor #2 says that he sees a growth, but his knowledge of these types of tumors indicates that it will likely not grow much more before receding again, and that this type of tumor is no threat or little threat to the patient. He also says that to eradicate the tumor or significantly reduce it immediately would require a very severe type of treatment in the way of heavy doses of radiation or chemotherapy, and that in the doses required, there is a much higher chance of the patient dying than if nothing was done at all. Furthermore, he does not see any point in applying a bandaid, because although it does not harm the patient, it also does nothing to eradicate the tumor.
The strident environmentalists and pro-global warming people are like Doctor #1. They believe the situation is serious, but their solutions do nothing to cure the problem. They proclaim, as you do, that the treatment is not going to harm anyone. I agree with you completely, if the treatment is so mild, such as building more efficient cars and power plants and so forth, as we are doing already. I am also in favor of that for more reasons than global warming, I can assure you of that. But my point is that this path is only a bandaid.
If the situation is as dire as stated by many, then the fix will need to be chemotherapy or radiation, in other words not just trying to be somewhat more efficient, but would require the shuttting down of CO2 production, thus shutting down power plants and stopping cars, trucks, ships, and airplanes on a wholesale basis. Such would obviously be catastrophic in terms of the economies of nations, and the havoc that would be produced in the way of famines, wars, etc.
This is basic logic. Look at Kyoto and the graphs. Look at the world and the trends in production of CO2. This is nothing more than common sense applied to reality.
By the way, I agree with Doctor #2. There is no doomsday from CO2, but for crying out loud, for those that think there is, at least admit to the correct treatment for the disease you claim.
