[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by example1

This would require enormous federal spending, in order to protect, say, all of Miami and New Orleans, low-lying areas of Texas etc., What makes you think that people will come together to ensure that those protections are taken in time? Why would you wait to make the necessary adjustments, fighting me tooth and nail instead of just saying "you know what, one way or another, this is going to be a problem... we should address it intelligently now, while there is still time, rather than waiting until we have 5 years to build levees to protect large American cities"? Even if the answer only IS building levees then let's get started. If we can't STOP global warming then what can we do to mitigate it's effects?

New Orleans has been below sea level for a long time before global warming. It has been vulnerable for a long time. The reason why I fight you tooth and nail is because Florida may not flood. In fact at the projected rate of 1/15th to 1/4 inch per year for the next 100 years I don't think we are in danger of losing Florida. I fight you tooth and nail because we could spend billions and wreck economies around the world and these problems might occur anyway and we will be left with less money and resources to address those problems as they occur. What you are proposing in no way guarantees that Global Warming with its dire consequences will still not occur.

Originally Posted by example1

The 1.5 billion cows on earth are not wild cows. They exist for our consumption in the form of hamburgers and steaks. We choose how many cows there are.

This is where I start to get scared by the Global Warming issue. If they start coming after my burgers and my steaks, I will form my own militia and black ops units.

Originally Posted by example1

I hope you're right, I hope that natural processes just happen to coincide with a tremendous increase in our CO2 production, as a species by thousands and thousands of time. I hope that the ice melt of 50% just coincidentally coincides with the superadvancement in CO2 production starting roughly in the 1950s.

I thought you were afraid of the consequences of the warming. If Global Warming people are right about the consequences, they will occur whether or not man is a significant cause. I don't doubt that the planet is in a slow warming trend. I am extremely skeptical whether man can stop it and I am extremely skeptical that gradual climate changes will have any catastrophic consequences. If the Polar Bear dies out, because it cannot adapt, I think civilzation can bear that price. Pardon the pun.

Originally Posted by example1

I won't get into a discussion with you about whether it is arrogant to believe that humans can make massive changes to how the earth is. We have directly contributed to the extinction of species, we have been able to conquor each piece of land, we are able to survive on any of the land in this world. We have a significant impact. We go to great lengths to clean up after ourselves, for good reason. The world would be a much grosser place if we did not. The lack of effects you see is at least due in part to the great social investment we have made to clean up after ourselves. It's not because we can't impact the environment. That's the kind of naive view point people had before rivers caught on fire and before we got rid of coal plants in major American cities.

I never said that man could not affect his environment. That is very different from affecting Global Climate. We can polute streams, lakes etc. and we can pollute the local air. Weather pattern and global climate are another matter entirely. If we are affecting the climate, we cannot measure our effect in any reliable manner.