It seems that no one from the c*****e c****e believers side has yet piped up, so here goes.

1) Yes, c*****e c****e is completely natural, has been going on forever, and will continue going on forever... and probably in cycles of some sort. That does not mean that humans haven't, or can't, modify the process. Everything we do has an impact somewhere on something. Don't you think cutting down forests to create farmland has an effect on the local ecosystem? Don't you think turning deserts into irrigated farms has some impact on water levels somewhere? Nothing is ever "free;" there is always a "cost" somewhere. Even hydroelectric power has an environmental cost/impact despite the total amount of water going from higher ground to lower ground being the same. It really comes down to the relative impact of the human meddling. So for hydroelectric power, water flow at the dam site has been changed dramatically, but probably has little impact on the flow volume one mile downstream. However, the size of the reservoir created behind the dam may have a huge impact on the environment, including large amounts of methane coming from decomposing vegetation in the water. You can Google this if you don't believe me.

2) There is plenty of evidence that greenhouse gas emissions have increased with industrialization. It is also believed that increased greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere may cause increases in the average temperature of the earth. This relationship is not yet completely understood, and climatologists have been honing their models as more data becomes available. It is logically tempting to conclude that we can slow the rate of g****l w*****g by reducing our burning of f****l f**ls, but there are still many variables and factors that we don't understand that could make this relationship significant... or not. But one thing is certain: wh**ever natural c*****e c****e was happening BEFORE humans started pumping out greenhouse gases WILL BE ALTERED by human activity; and it may be good, or it may be bad; but denial of human activity having an impact is simply foolishness.

3) I have explained in many other posts that, discounting nuclear, ALL of our energy comes from the sun. F****l f**ls are simply solar energy that was absorbed by plants millions of years ago and stored as oil or coal. Even hydroelectric power comes from the sun evaporating water from the oceans, lifting it to higher levels as clouds in the atmosphere, and dropping it as rain on the highlands where it runs downhill back to the oceans... and through a dam or two along the way.

4) Every "thermodynamic engine" has 3 main components: energy in; useful work output; and waste heat output. It matters not if we are talking about a gasoline engine, a diesel engine, an electric motor, or even a muscle contracting in your body. What does matter is the efficiency of the energy conversion process, because less waste heat means less energy input for the same amount of useful work, which is what we want from the system. When comparing internal combustion engines to electric motors there is no contest -- electric motors are WAY MORE efficient. So do you burn a lump of coal or a gallon of diesel at a power station to charge a battery that then drives a motor in a car, or do you burn that lump of coal in your Stanley Steamer, or that gallon of diesel in your Audi? If the efficiency of burning f****l f**ls at a power generating station is greater than burning it in a car, then electric is the way to go IF we can reduce the losses and inefficiencies between the power station and the car. Technology is certainly moving well in this area.

5) So what about airplanes? Even if clean hydrogen-powered jet engines are still a long way off, that is no reason to not clean up our act in every other possible way that we can. If your neighbour jumped off a cliff, would you do the same? We can certainly give up all air travel right now if you are willing to spend days of travel time getting from A to B. And you could ask yourself whether it is actually more efficient from a f****l f**l perspective to have 400 people driving cars from New York to Los Angeles over a week vs flying in a 747 in a few hours. Are you happy to wait 3 months for your Wayfair/Amazon purchase to come by sea container, or do you want it in 3 days?

To summarize, there is nothing that humans do that does not have an impact on something, including climate. If we suspect that there might be a way that we can preserve this earth in its present state -- i.e., reduce the rate of what is perceived to be a detrimental change in its state -- then should we not give it a try?

It seems that no one from the c*****e c****e believers side has yet piped up, so here goes.

1) Yes, c*****e c****e is completely natural, has been going on forever, and will continue going on forever... and probably in cycles of some sort. That does not mean that humans haven't, or can't, modify the process. Everything we do has an impact somewhere on something. Don't you think cutting down forests to create farmland has an effect on the local ecosystem? Don't you think turning deserts into irrigated farms has some impact on water levels somewhere? Nothing is ever "free;" there is always a "cost" somewhere. Even hydroelectric power has an environmental cost/impact despite the total amount of water going from higher ground to lower ground being the same. It really comes down to the relative impact of the human meddling. So for hydroelectric power, water flow at the dam site has been changed dramatically, but probably has little impact on the flow volume one mile downstream. However, the size of the reservoir created behind the dam may have a huge impact on the environment, including large amounts of methane coming from decomposing vegetation in the water. You can Google this if you don't believe me.

2) There is plenty of evidence that greenhouse gas emissions have increased with industrialization. It is also believed that increased greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere may cause increases in the average temperature of the earth. This relationship is not yet completely understood, and climatologists have been honing their models as more data becomes available. It is logically tempting to conclude that we can slow the rate of g****l w*****g by reducing our burning of f****l f**ls, but there are still many variables and factors that we don't understand that could make this relationship significant... or not. But one thing is certain: wh**ever natural c*****e c****e was happening BEFORE humans started pumping out greenhouse gases WILL BE ALTERED by human activity; and it may be good, or it may be bad; but denial of human activity having an impact is simply foolishness.

3) I have explained in many other posts that, discounting nuclear, ALL of our energy comes from the sun. F****l f**ls are simply solar energy that was absorbed by plants millions of years ago and stored as oil or coal. Even hydroelectric power comes from the sun evaporating water from the oceans, lifting it to higher levels as clouds in the atmosphere, and dropping it as rain on the highlands where it runs downhill back to the oceans... and through a dam or two along the way.

4) Every "thermodynamic engine" has 3 main components: energy in; useful work output; and waste heat output. It matters not if we are talking about a gasoline engine, a diesel engine, an electric motor, or even a muscle contracting in your body. What does matter is the efficiency of the energy conversion process, because less waste heat means less energy input for the same amount of useful work, which is what we want from the system. When comparing internal combustion engines to electric motors there is no contest -- electric motors are WAY MORE efficient. So do you burn a lump of coal or a gallon of diesel at a power station to charge a battery that then drives a motor in a car, or do you burn that lump of coal in your Stanley Steamer, or that gallon of diesel in your Audi? If the efficiency of burning f****l f**ls at a power generating station is greater than burning it in a car, then electric is the way to go IF we can reduce the losses and inefficiencies between the power station and the car. Technology is certainly moving well in this area.

5) So what about airplanes? Even if clean hydrogen-powered jet engines are still a long way off, that is no reason to not clean up our act in every other possible way that we can. If your neighbour jumped off a cliff, would you do the same? We can certainly give up all air travel right now if you are willing to spend days of travel time getting from A to B. And you could ask yourself whether it is actually more efficient from a f****l f**l perspective to have 400 people driving cars from New York to Los Angeles over a week vs flying in a 747 in a few hours. Are you happy to wait 3 months for your Wayfair/Amazon purchase to come by sea container, or do you want it in 3 days?

To summarize, there is nothing that humans do that does not have an impact on something, including climate. If we suspect that there might be a way that we can preserve this earth in its present state -- i.e., reduce the rate of what is perceived to be a detrimental change in its state -- then should we not give it a try?

With all the buzz lately about electric cars and trying to eliminate the internal combustion engine in hopes of controlling c*****e c****e, lowering our carbon footprint, etc., it seems to me that we have pretty much ignored another major factor and that is all the jet fuel being consumed daily, especially at high altitude. Not only do these aircraft literally consume tons of f****l f**l on a single flight, much of their exhaust is dumped into probably the most fragile part of our atmosphere. Multiply that by the number of daily flights worldwide and this has to be something that really needs to be considered if we really think we can control or reverse c*****e c****e and yet we never hear much of anything about it even being a pollution issue.

Anyway, I doubt that we will ever be able to develop electric jet engines (but what do I know) and this issue is just getting bigger by the day and that isn't going to change anytime soon. While I am all for trying to control pollution where reasonably possible, I do have to question why this isn't a bigger issue than it seems to currently be. Any comments?