The debate over global warming continues to rage. I have taken the position that the global warmists are a confused lot to say the very least. What I have been seeking is a coherent set of logical conclusions to explain to me beyond a doubt the the variations in global climate can be documented and proven scientifically to be the fault of man before man is expected to destroy himself economically thereby eliminating his ability to finance the development of newer more efficient and ecologically beneficial sources of energy. However, every time I get into a “discussion” of the topic, it goes something like this:
This fella Jim at The Motley Fool is taking someone else to task for doubting the validity of evidence presented to justify all the demands of Kyoto and the activists. Jim is challenging the contention that before the average Joe will accept the sacrifices needed, he has to be convinced beyond any question that it is indeed the fault of man and man can reverse the forces of nature to fix it all. And, if we did, natural global warming would cease as well. Of Jim’s LONG rebuttal, he cites this as over-whelming evidence of one of the main things we can do to thwart global warming in the US:
Your second implication is equally wrong. Europeans, for example, use a lot less energy than we do. Heck, just going to diesel alone for autos makes several years’ worth of cuts in greenhouse gases and pollution; no dimunition of lifestyle there.
OK, I’m a fan of diesel, but for a different reason ( less reliance on fossil fuels ). But, no sooner than Jim makes that argument in support of lessening the impact of global warming, we get this:
In addition to 3,000 deaths from lung cancer alone, diesel soot also contributes to an estimated 15,000 hospital admissions, 27,000 nonfatal heart attacks, and more than 400,000 asthma attacks each year, concludes the report, published by the Clean Air Task Force.
The Environmental Protection Agency is scheduled to begin enforcing diesel rules in 2007 that will force new trucks, buses, farm equipment, and heavy machinery to use particle filters and cleaner fuel technology. The rules are designed to cut total diesel emissions by 90% over the next several years.
This is just yet another example of the muddled argument that is global warming.