Quote from: Ray on January 25, 2017, 08:50:23 PM
Perhaps the problem with such an argument is the failure to understand at a fundamental level the definition of what is wrong. How do we ultimately determine what is wrong, or what is right?
That IS in fact the heart of the matter.
Good! Maybe we can now progress in the discussion. Deciding what is right and what is wrong, or what is moral or immoral, is often a complex process of weighing a number of interacting factors, rather than blindly following a simple set of rules like the 10 Commandments.
Often the situation is so complicated that even large groups of modern scientists consisting of numerous disciplines, as is the case with Climatology which involves about 20 or 30 different scientific disciplines, admit they do not
fully understand the processes they are studying.
That we should attempt to take care of the planet upon which we evolved and to which we owe our existence, is a very sound proposition which I don't think any rational and sane person would challenge.
The problem is in the decisions about the most effective ways to tackle this issue. Demonizing CO2 is an interesting political strategy which might in fact turn out to be the best approach. The burning of all types of fossil fuels results in the emission of significant quantities of CO2. Whilst the burning of natural gas results in lower CO2 emissions than the burning of coal, the CO2 emissions from natural gas are still significant. Therefore, if one demonizes CO2, calls it a pollutant, bestows upon it the properties of being able to cause disastrous changes in climate, then this approach might eventually result in a complete paradigm shift from fossil fuels to renewables.
However, there are so many potential negative consequences of demonizing CO2.
(1) A rise in the price of energy, plus a fall in the income of people in certain poor countries who rely upon the sales of fossil fuels, might trigger wars and various conflicts, loss of life of innocent women and children, increased starvation and so on.
(2) If it turns out to be the case in a few decades, after continuing research, that a rise in CO2 levels really does produce a significant global warming that can be quantified with greater certainty, we might congratulate ourselves for our successful paradigm shift towards renewables.
On the other hand, if it were also to become clear some decades into the future, that we were entering into another glacial period (whether Big Ice Age or Little Ice Age), we might regret not having the protection of the warming effects of CO2. (Oh! My Gawd! If only we'd listened to those rational skeptics.
)
(3) As I recall, the scare about increasing food shortages as the global population increases, predated the scare about rising CO2 levels.
One of the positive effects of increased CO2 levels, which can be observed with much more certainty than any negative effects that it might have on climate, is its effect on increasing plant growth.
A doubling of CO2 levels reults in a 30-40% increase in the growth of most crops (everything else remaining the same, including the amount of water). In dry areas where crops are often water-stressed, the same doubling of CO2 levels can have an even greater fertilization effect, increasing growth by 60% or more.
Pre-industrial levels of CO2 were apparently around 280 ppm. Current levels are around 400 ppm. If CO2 levels continue rising we might reach double the levels of pre-industrial times in a few decades, say 560 ppm. Plants will love it. If they were sentient beings, they would hug us.
Also, imagine the total value of the increased crop production globally, over the next 40 years or so, due entirely to the increased CO2 levels. It would be worth many trillions of dollars; perhaps equivalent to the entire national debt of the USA.
