are humans causing global warming?

[rose-colored-coolaid]

I was thinking maybe we needed to break this argument up into its various pieces to determine where we really disagree, because we don't seem to be getting anywhere here.

1) Are global temperatures rising? I think the consensus here is yes, but correct me if you disagree.

2) Do so-named greenhouse gases (in sufficient quantity) actually increase global temperatures? Measurably so? Follow-on should we worry (for non-GW reasons) about CO2 sequestered in the ocean? My answers are yes, yes (but estimates are often exaggerated), and unsure with a slight lean towards concerned.

3) If 1&2, are humans the primary (or at least a significant) source of CO2? I say yes again.

4) Is global warming a problem? Here's were I will actually break with convention. I think so long as the changes are gradual enough that life will adjust. In fact, higher temperatures might just increase overall biosphere diversity. Tropical regions usually have significantly higher biodiversity (amazon) compared to more temperate areas (Washington state).

So, to summarize my opinion. I think the evidence is stronger that GW exists and that human activity is a significant part of that change. I think we're better off nipping this in the bud as best as we can, but I'm not terrified by what will happen if we don't. A temperature increase of even 5 degrees fahrenheit won't destroy the world.

[Robroy]

[Notabull]

"I think we should ditch those and instead put a $2 a gallon tax on gas."

Agreed. Of course, the tax should be phased in otherwise it would never be acceptable and would never get voted in. Perhaps 50c every year until we get to where we want to be, and additional increases to ensure it never goes below $4 again. If we force too many people to use less gasoline, that might have the perverse effect of reducing the price and we're back to SUVs again.

The critical thing about this tax is deciding where the money goes. It absolutely must NOT go into any kind of general fund. We don't want to rely on this money, as the whole point of it is that it should decrease over time and eventually go away. Funding education from a gas tax is a stupid idea.

Instead, the money should go towards funding alternative energy research, tax incentives, etc. For example, we could pick the 10 biggest problems facing alternative energy roll-out, and put out absolutely massive prizes for US companies (with US resident employees) to solve those problems. Part of the money should go towards a tax credit for the poor, as they will otherwise experience the brunt of this taxation in a regressive way.

My 2 cents...

As to whether humans are contributing to global warming. The answer is "no". End of story. Thanks for listening.

[Robroy]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

Not to nitpick Robroy, but I thought you were in favor of the "6,000 year old earth" position. But the global warming introduction you posted starts by positing that the earth has warmed 5 degrees celsius in the last 18,000 years.

[Robroy]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[jon]

And to take it just a little bit more off topic, do you think Adam had a belly button?

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[Robroy]

[Robroy]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[Ouch!]

Fact is, little can be done to reduce CO2 emissions regardless of their impact on the environment. CO2 isn't just an incidental result of human activity that you can get rid of with smokestack scrubbers. Rather, it's an inherent product of the combustion of carbon-based fuels such as coal and oil. The only practical way to produce less in the short term is to use less organic fuel. (Long term we'll switch to nukes, solar, wind, and other non-carbon-emitting energy sources, plus biofuels, where the carbon in- and outputs are a wash. In addition, carbon sequestration technologies may enable us to pull excess carbon out of the atmosphere.)

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060407.html

Okay, it's from a couple years back, but it kind of sums up the debate.

[jon]