Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers 2003

I don't think that there is much we can do about it EITHER way. While I don't discount the possibility that global warming is caused anthropogenically, or is at least exacerbated by anthropogenic activity, I do feel that the evidence is not real compelling AT THIS TIME. OTOH, I also am not sure what knowing this for a fact will do for us. The population of this planet continues to grow at a largely unchecked rate. These new arrivals need heat in winter, fires to cook their food, and eventually, as second and third-world infrastructures catch-up to the first-world, energy for their cars, electric lights, etc. Until then, Chinese peasants will continue to burn coal and coke for their fires, Brazilian farmers will continue their slash and burn tactics on the rain forests because that's their only source of livelihood and there is nothing on the horizon that could change either situation in the next 50 years at least. In fact, these greenhouse gas emissions are, if anything, going to get a lot worse before they get any better. Do you agree? While at this moment, we Americans use more resources per capita than any other nation, the rest of the world is rapidly catching up with us. How can anything be done? We could help by abandoning our cars, but since there is no infrastructure that can replace them, its not likely. Changing over completely to hydrogen to either burn (produces no greehouse gases) or convert to electricity using fuel cells is probably 50 years off, and still that would only affect the contribution by the developed nations while population in the underdeveloped nations along with their increasing energy needs continue to grow at unprecedented rates.

Again the question comes down to population. If there is too much greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere to keep the climate "stable", then the reason is that there are too many people here with energy needs. There can be no argument that I'm aware of that says that a smaller world population wouldn't significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse emissions. If you know of one, please explain. Negative population growth through financial penalties is also the easiest of all the proposed global warming remedies to implement. No new technology is needed, no changes in infrastructure, just laws limiting the size of families. If each couple, starting today, could only have ONE offspring, The current world popualtion would be about halved in less than 100 years. This is a lot easier to do than it will be to get over a billion Chinese to stop burning coal and coke or getting Brazilian farmers to stop burning the rainforests at an alarming rate. Meanwhile, we can continue to work on technological "fixes" as well, which, when coupled with lower populations, will result in significantly lower greenhouse effect. Will this reverse global warming? If its anthropogenic, the answer is "maybe". If its wholly natural, the answer is an emphatic no.

-- George Graves The health of our society is a direct result of the men and women we choose to admire.