[BenV]

I say that not from a climate perspective, but a sustainability perspective. Anything we do to reduce co2 emmissions will be the result of greater efficiency (a good thing) or less reliance upon unsustainable fossil fuels(a good thing).

Should it also turn out that we protect our environment in the process (even if we ignore warming, there's ocean acidification to consider) that will also be a good thing.

Reducing co2 emmissions, therefore, would be a good thing.

[norcalclimber]

I say that not from a climate perspective, but a sustainability perspective. Anything we do to reduce co2 emmissions will be the result of greater efficiency (a good thing) or less reliance upon unsustainable fossil fuels(a good thing).

Should it also turn out that we protect our environment in the process (even if we ignore warming, there's ocean acidification to consider) that will also be a good thing.

Reducing co2 emmissions, therefore, would be a good thing.

We should look to developing sustainable technology, fossil fuels will clearly not last.  Equating that with limiting CO₂ simply wrong though.  CO₂ is primarily released by nature, not humans.  Humans only account for ~3% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, the other 97% is natural.  Pollution should clearly be limited, but CO₂ is a gas necessary for life on Earth not a pollutant.

You also have to pay attention to the "new" technology as well, since many times it turns out the new "green" solution is worse for the environment than the original technology.  Look at the subsidization of solar technology, it sounds like a perfect idea on the surface doesn't it?  Solar panels are expensive, but sustainable so with a little government help we can move toward sustainable living.  Government subsidies around the world for solar systems have helped to create a massive solar market, and a shortage of polysilicon.  The production of polysilicon produces 4 tons of toxic silicon tetrachloride for each ton of polysilicon, which in the US for instance must be recycled.  The recycling process is extremely expensive though.  China has joined the polysilicon market, and at least one of the polysilicon factories decided to just dump the waste...near a school, and homes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html to read the story.

My point of all that, and how it relates to CO₂ legislation, is that we should always think before we leap and any CO₂ legislation is based on poor assumptions and not nearly enough science at this point in time.

[Madidus_Scientia]

Humans only account for ~3% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, the other 97% is natural.  Pollution should clearly be limited, but CO2 is a gas necessary for life on Earth not a pollutant.

It's the 3% that tips the balance. If CO2 output is greater than intake, it doesn't matter how small the percentage is, it will accumulate.

And it depends on how you define pollutant.

Not nearly enough science? It is fact that CO2 levels are increasing, and that increasing CO2 levels will increase greenhouse effect and ocean acidification. It is not a poor assumption that reducing CO2 output will dampen these effects.

[litespeed]

BenV - Remeber the rules. "Family Friendly" discourse. I will not report you as an abuser however, since I have family members who behave much as do you! For instance, my brother-in-law has a strange predilection for the dangerous dog breed known as Akitas. Dogs 101 on Animal Planet reports half of all Akitas end up in shelters, and they will drive up your home insurance rates. My brother-in-law obtained his insane Akita from a shelter, I believe.

He should have known better for the simple reason several previous 'well behaved' Akitas killed all the neiborhood cats, raccoons, and Four H project animals and wounded some expensive doggie pets for miles around. Akitas were, after all, bread to hunt down Japanese bears. His dog bit me twice down to the bone when I visited a year ago. I poured rubbing alcohol on the wound with a bandage and let it go at that.

However, my brother-in-law, far from being concerned or appologetic about the matter, got all huffy and defensive about his dog. I told him I was afraid of the dog, and unless he got a muzzle for the thing I would go stay at a motel. After much weirdness he subsequently muzzled the dog after which it became big time submissive to ME. Layed on its back and wizzed, in fact. My brother-in-law was perplexed.

So, why are you so defensive about this or that Atteburogh guys video? The video was the worst sort of simple minded embarrassment the likes of which are generally seen only from algore. You should be apologizing to forum members simply because you continue to aid and abet and continue to inflict this dog of a video upon the members. And you don't even get Fox News.

Seriously, do you have much in the way of higher education?

[BenV]

So when your lie/repeated mistake is pointed out you proceed to question my education? Note how I didn't comment upon the video itself, in fact, I'm not even sure that I've seen it. I commented on the fact that, despite having been previously informed of your error, you continued to make what is either a foolish mistake or a misleading lie.

So you repeat your previous errors and have the audacity to question my education?  Nothing I said was in any way non-"family friendly", so feel free to report me to the moderators, I'm sure they will appreciate it.

Coincidentally, that's the second time you have been directly offensive to me.  The next one will result in you being banned.

[litespeed]

BenV - Please list and NUMBER my lies and I will take time in the next couple of days to consider them. I am perplexed by your accusations and if you put them all in a nice list I might understand what you are talking about. For instance, in what way have I lied about the video that you are not certain you even have seen? I believe the video is inconsequential. Thats all. Go view the video and give me your assessment of its probative value. That would be a good start.....

[BenV]

Are you intentionally not reading my posts?  It was pointed out to you some time ago that the Attenborough in the video you refer to is not, and has never been, an actor. You continued to refer to him as such.  Madidas pointed this out to you, and I opined that it was either a lie or a mistake.

So was it a lie, or a mistake?

The content of the video, which I have never commented upon, is entirely irrelevant.

[litespeed]

Not an actor? He clearly gave quite a performance in that video. You should look it up! But you are right. I incorrectly referred to him as a sonorous Shakespearian actor when in fact is is a sonorous narrator for his TV nature films.

Which is actually worse. It is worse because one does not expect an actor to be much of a scientist. However, I have now reviewed this guys credits. He should have known better then to make such a silly video clip. It does not add to his reputation.

[BenV]

But do you see the problem I have?  You referred to him as an actor earlier, and were corrected.  The fact that you later referred to him as an actor again suggests that you aren't taking on board what people are saying to you, or that you did so on purpose to misrepresent his opinion.

[JimBob]

I think this thread has run its course. It is blatantly obvious by now that lightspeed seems to perpetuate his own opinion when clearly shown that the facts differ from his personal opinion.

I am therefor locking this thread.

Persistence to not discuss the hard science and refute evidence with evidence, will be assumed to be evangelizing and be dealt with accordingly.