Gore and Suzuki have earned all of the abuse that they've received. Unless your idea's about conservation include Lear jets, 12 cyl diesel busses and 15,000 sq/ft homes, then Gore and Suzuki are the antithesis of what "to do".
And yet they're still speaking truth to power, it's a lot more than most do.
fator-in the proven frauds that they are and you have the recipe for the perfect eco-a$$hole
Proven in what court?
So what... Don't want 'em, then don't but them.. It's not that hard.
If people were given a viable choice I'm sure they would take it. But like the dinosaurs tying up most of the the ecological niches preventing the greater success of mammals the fossil fuel sector used its position to delay or block rival technologies. I think most people would love living in a house that first off used less energy and produced most if not more than its needs. same for vehicles that run on alternative technology, the lucky few that actually got their hands on GMs EV1 loved them and many were heartbroken when GM literally killed the program after they got California to back down from its zero emmission laws. A prime example of whta I'm talking about as the pertoleum lobby was also involved in that fight
Know what else interferes with long wave radiation? air-borne particulate in any form... that said, I suppose that the EPA should outlaw dust, volcanic emissions and forest fires...
I doubt you even know what you're talking about. Particulate material in the air provides condensation nuclei for water droplets in cloud formations. The greater number of small particules create clouds with a much greater number of smaller droplets reflecting more
short wave incoming solar radiation. Thus global warming would be even more severe if it wasn't for particulate air pollution. We're stuck in a tough situation of if we clean the air up regarding particulate pollution we're removing a large masking force on global warming perhaps as much as 1 degree celsius. It's called global dimming.
CO2 molecules absorb the long wave(infrared) radiation emmitted by the earths surface warmed by solar radiation. Some of this long wave radiation is intercepted by greenhouse gases thus making complex life possible on earth in the first place. Add more greenhouse gases- CO2, methane, ozone(at lower altitudes) and nitrous oxide and the overall capacity of the atmosphere to hold energy goes up. It's basic thermodynamics, nature doesn't just abhor a vacuum, it abhors a gradient(whether it's temperature, pressure or concentration) and all that new energy will seek an equilibrium state, which is why we get climate change.
What's that you say? You can't tax volcanoes or fires?
No but we should be taxing the hell out of fossil fuel companies to pay for conversion to green tech and to pay for the long term costs associated with climate change. I think a 50% surtax on profits would be a great start.
It's also attributable to the highly successful fire prevention programs that have had an effect of artificially allowing those forests to grow beyond their natural life-time... Forests don't grow forever Cobalt_Kid..
I basically grew up in the industry so you don't need to tell me about it. Fire suppression helped create an enivronment favourable to the beetle but they simply wouldn't exist in much of the range they currently occupy now in BC without climate change. The beetle don't attack a stand in one massive wave(or they didn't used to) it's a multi-generational infestation. In the past with longer harsher winters there would be a small percentage of any given stand hit by beetle attack which would then be wiped out by the next harsh winter preserving most of the stand. That control is gone now. In recent years I've seen beetle successfully attack and overwinter in pine with a three inch butt, that simply would have been possible two decades ago. The tree and its' thin bark wouldn't have offered enough protection from the cold.
Whereas fabricating a problem that can't even be defined ensures that it will never go away either.
All science has some uncertainty to it, are you going to stop using electronics because of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle or Feynmans path intergrals which basically define how uncertain the universe is at its primary quantum level?
Climate Change science has a great deal of uncertainty because the changes going on now are unprecedented in history and have occured only infrequently on a geological timescale. There's no fabrication going on, direct temperature recordings going back more than a century indicate we're in a period of warming starting around 1980. Lose of glaciers, sea ice and increases in severe weather events are all evidence of the system moving to a new equilibrium(which is what climate change is). It means that the Earth is already starting to be a significantly different place to live than it was just a couple of decades ago.
Think about it; CO2 is considered a pollutant/toxin.... Life on Earth is CARBON-BASED!
CO2 in the form of a massive amount of free molecules in the atmosphere can be considered a source of heat pollution. Locked up in geological formations they're inert, burned and introduced into the atmospere and humanity is altering the environment on a geological scale... more than a geological scale in recent terms as we're far outstripping volcanism as a source of new atmospheric CO2.
