RobertV2

Nice try. Your paragraph about methane is easy to believe. Later you say "It certainly is not an existential crisis." I disagree. If you had said, "It is not certainly an existential crisis" then you'd have a chance of being right. G****l w*****g is a serious problem. I'll say a little more about it in some other comment.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

***The question is which came first: G****l W*****g creating the greenhouse effect or the greenhouse effect creating g****l w*****g? On this point, there is no scientific consensus. But the media won't report on this and still continues to use fear to promote its l*****t narrative. It certainly is not an existential crisis.

>>>Actually it was shown a long time ago from the Antarctic ice cores, that g****l w*****g precedes high CO2.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

***Nobody could tell you anything that you would listen to, your head is full of everything you need to know
>>>Nobody could tell you anything that you would listen to, your head is full of everything you need to know

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

***When you’re on a hell bound train you should at some point think about getting off it.
>>And yet, ewe are still a democrat.

RobertV2

You've got some valid points, but these are small potatoes compared with the big problem.

People who try to pollute less, on an individual level, are doing the honorable and right thing for individuals to do; but we _also_ need coordinated effort at higher levels, such as in national governments.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

I have to admit , it’s easier to not believe it.
I don’t know. I don’t claim to know.
Do you think we can keep going the way we are forever ?
At some point this whole thing will peak , if it hasn’t already, and it’s all down hill after this. Nothing will matter more than trying to breathe. One minute you have air to breathe , the next minute you don’t. What do you do. Turn a knob someplace?
Plant something that exudes oxygen ? Or
Should we let your kids and grandkids worry about.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Huh? What? You want national governments to control your life?
Dude, I'm done with you. I'm out.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Aren't they?

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

What are you doing to create a smaller carbon footprint? What are your solutions?

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

A serious problem is not an existential crisis. What are your solutions?

RobertV2

Yes this (or something like it) is problematic. However, there are some big "low-h*****g fruit", "no-brainer" kinds of partial solutions to pollution that we should be working on anyway. For example, we should be expanding solar and wind and other low-polluting energy industries and regulating highly-polluting industries to greatly reduce their pollution.

The political world _does_ (as you seem to indicate) pursue national advantages at the expense of global well-being. But this is not all the world does; in some ways we do work toward global well-being; and there is hope that good honorable efforts can overcome counter-productive ones. The thing NOT to do is give up.

RobertV2

Archie is "done with" me and "out". I'll reply in case anyone else is reading:

To say that a government should do a thing does NOT mean that a government should "control your life", as if to regulate one thing were equivalent to regulating all things.

Governments regulate. Get over it.

For example: A great number of people feel (rightly) that murder should be outlawed. It is to say that government should regulate what one person is allowed to do to another person at the point of "to k**l" or "not to k**l". To say that a government should do this thing should not provoke an outrage about government trying to "control everything".

When one has a reasonable argument, go ahead and say it, but don't just immediately reduce the entire issue to an absurdity.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

We are not going the same way forever. Those of us who lived in Los Angeles in the 1950s, 60s, 70s had to put up with choking smog and air pollution. One simple device did much to clean up the AQMD basin; catalytic converters! A device that added a couple of hundred dollars to the cost of a new car. New York City had massive traffic jams and pollution from horse manure in 1900. Automobiles replaced horses and cleaned up the situation. Kerosine lanterns replaced the use of whale oil that decimated whale populations. Coal replaced burning wood and decelerated deforestation. There are more trees in North America now than there were 100-200 years ago.

We need to encourage research and entrepreneurs that will come up with new technologies and possible solutions because they will benefit all mankind, regardless of where they originate from. Actually, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. These started with the first humans that climbed out of the trees to live in caves and hunt. e have been changing the physical environment since the beginning of time. North America was not the raw vast untouched virgin wilderness that most people imagine it was before Columbus' arrival in the Western Hemisphere.

The best thing we need is for politicians to step out of the way and create incentives for new technological innovation instead of trying to mandate and dictate solutions or increase taxes through cap & trade schemes. Nothing the government does is efficient nor cost-effective. It is estimated that if all the countries of the world would allocate 0.1 percent of their annual GDP toward research we could mitigate all these problems with sensible tradeoffs from new technology. The worst polluters are totalitarian governments.

Do you mow your lawn? Eat Vegetables? Etc, etc, etc.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

This is exactly what you have done, reductio ad absurdum, through faulty analogies, strawman, red herring arguments, and false dichotomies.

RobertV2

Is it possible that this Original Post is intended as a mere joke? It doesn't look quite that way; it looks like there's something sincere in it.