Posted by Jeff Id on May 15, 2010
I’m not sure people realize that blogging is more about reading than writing. Sure, I do enjoy the privilege of placing my thoughts on line for discussion with a lot of smart people, so there is a measure of talk, but from a functional perspective, blogging is mostly reading. By the time you get around to writing something, you’ve already spent hours looking at papers and data and are a little spent. Like many of you, I’m a thoughtful person who spends much of his time staring blankly at a wall (or computer screen) having constant quiet consideration in my head.
Recently, my reading has led me to the opinion that many (if not most) people in the skeptic world seem to prefer we do something about CO2 emission. My opinions haven’t changed one bit and probably won’t in the next 15 years but if we look at the fact that no damage has been shown from CO2, massive warming hasn’t occurred at the rates predicted in the models and none of the predicted disasters have come true, why would we still want to limit CO2 production?
In all honesty, I simply don’t understand what would lead anyone who is skeptical of the warmist predictions, to the decision that action must be taken.
However, there are many who consider themselves to be lukewarmers. In my reading, lukewarmer doesn’t mean anything beyond a recognition of the radiative physics of CO2, it guarantees nothing in atmospheric response but there are many less experienced people who assume differently when they read “lukewarm”. I can’t assume the title myself because it doesn’t seem that we know how climate responds to added heat capture of CO2. Lukewarmers (and I) expect some warming from CO2, however many of them enjoy discussion of limitation policy. I’m legitimately curious about this position and the rationalization of the position. There isn’t anyone here who I would describe as thoughtless and maybe someone will change my mind on whether we should pursue limitation policy of some kind.
So if you are for a strategy of accelerated limitation of CO2 output through some form of government intervention, from the most severe to the most moderate version, I’m genuinely curious why you hold that position, and what your rationale for it is.
This thread is therefore,
- Why we should limit CO2
- What your preferred method for limitation is
and if you’re interested,
- Why it’s better than doing nothing.