Even If Global Warming Were Real, Why Destroy Civilization to No Avail?
It seems I just can't get away from all the global warming alarmists who have decided to take it as more of a religion.
One of my challenges is that I run a think tank, and folks often try to join our group stating that they want to help heal the planet, from the effects of global warming which are they say; are being caused by mankind's emissions of CO2.
Well, I have news for you, not only is that not so, but it is rather naïve to believe that it is, and therefore someone who can't reason the argument correctly, should probably not be in a think tank at all in my view.
For instance, 97.
5% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from nature, not from mankind.
Further, CO2 is nothing more than a trace gas, and there really isn't all that much in the atmosphere compared to the likes of hydrogen and nitrogen and what have you.
There's just a very small amount of CO2 overall.
And might I add that it doesn't affect very much, and it doesn't nearly trap as much of the ambient heat from our Sun as you might expect.
In other words; it's a false argument.
Nevertheless, let's say global warming were real and it really was being caused by mankind's CO2 emissions.
And let's say for instance that the 1.
6 degree F that the surface temperature of the landmass has increased over the last 60 years all the suddenly does go hyperbolic on us.
Now none of that is true, but let's say it were? Well, if that were the case, the last thing that humans should do would be to destroy their energy infrastructure in trade for unreliable energy sources such as solar and wind.
Many people say that solar will become more efficient over time, but I would submit to you that it is already 50% inefficient.
This is because half of the time the Sun doesn't shine, it's dark, it's called nighttime, you might've heard about it.
Secondly, it takes more CO2 to make the concrete that supports the base of the towers holding the wind turbine blades and generators then that wind turbine generator would offset 15 years running at 30% optimum, which is pushing it because most of these wind turbines need 12 miles per hour of wind to maintain a viable amount of energy.
Further, the wind doesn't blow all the time - obviously we know that, therefore, it too is unreliable energy.
Lastly, I would like you to remember this quote, because I think it sums up the real problem here.
The global warming alarmists want to shut down fossil fuels and destroy our energy infrastructure to save the environment.
But if global warming were real, and it really will cause all those catastrophes in the future, then destroying our energy infrastructure would be the last thing we would want to do: "You can't turn off the oven and stoves in the kitchen just because it's too hot in there, while expecting those in the dining room to be happy with their promised meal.
" - Lance 2011 - Think
One of my challenges is that I run a think tank, and folks often try to join our group stating that they want to help heal the planet, from the effects of global warming which are they say; are being caused by mankind's emissions of CO2.
Well, I have news for you, not only is that not so, but it is rather naïve to believe that it is, and therefore someone who can't reason the argument correctly, should probably not be in a think tank at all in my view.
For instance, 97.
5% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from nature, not from mankind.
Further, CO2 is nothing more than a trace gas, and there really isn't all that much in the atmosphere compared to the likes of hydrogen and nitrogen and what have you.
There's just a very small amount of CO2 overall.
And might I add that it doesn't affect very much, and it doesn't nearly trap as much of the ambient heat from our Sun as you might expect.
In other words; it's a false argument.
Nevertheless, let's say global warming were real and it really was being caused by mankind's CO2 emissions.
And let's say for instance that the 1.
6 degree F that the surface temperature of the landmass has increased over the last 60 years all the suddenly does go hyperbolic on us.
Now none of that is true, but let's say it were? Well, if that were the case, the last thing that humans should do would be to destroy their energy infrastructure in trade for unreliable energy sources such as solar and wind.
Many people say that solar will become more efficient over time, but I would submit to you that it is already 50% inefficient.
This is because half of the time the Sun doesn't shine, it's dark, it's called nighttime, you might've heard about it.
Secondly, it takes more CO2 to make the concrete that supports the base of the towers holding the wind turbine blades and generators then that wind turbine generator would offset 15 years running at 30% optimum, which is pushing it because most of these wind turbines need 12 miles per hour of wind to maintain a viable amount of energy.
Further, the wind doesn't blow all the time - obviously we know that, therefore, it too is unreliable energy.
Lastly, I would like you to remember this quote, because I think it sums up the real problem here.
The global warming alarmists want to shut down fossil fuels and destroy our energy infrastructure to save the environment.
But if global warming were real, and it really will cause all those catastrophes in the future, then destroying our energy infrastructure would be the last thing we would want to do: "You can't turn off the oven and stoves in the kitchen just because it's too hot in there, while expecting those in the dining room to be happy with their promised meal.
" - Lance 2011 - Think
Source...