[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

* The climate problem challenge is associated with ' anthropomorphic carbon' not 'some' of it. So, in that context I disagree with him.

The same mistake you make with regards to weeds vs crops is leading you to incorrect conclusions here, too.

That mistake is assuming everything Gaia provides is in perfect quantity, and that any alteration of that by 1 species (us) must be a change for the worse.

You believe (correct me if I'm wrong) plantlife will proliferate with increasing CO2, but only "weeds", as vegetation valued by humanity will diminish.

Now here (correct me if I'm wrong), you're assuming any amount of CO2 nature emits is the perfect amount, but any amount humans emit disrupts the perfect amount Gaia has provided for her world.

I just don't think many people have such faith in the perfect Gaia religion.

* The idea that you could do anything meaningful about starvation, on a planet of increasing population, while food production is falling challenges logic.

40,000 people escape abject poverty every day, so the evidence is contrary to your notion that things are getting worse. Preventing people from starvation is easy, because all you have to do is give them food. That's a lot easier to do than turning down the outdoor thermostat.

* I thought you told us that you have libertarian leanings? The thought that you would accept any intrusion by big government into free market capitalism seems like an about-face.

Where am I advocating for an intrusion by government into the free market?

My default is liberty, but that doesn't mean I oppose all authority. It means that when there is sufficient doubt as to whether we're better off imposing on liberty or not, then don't. It's similar to my default in criminal law, that people are innocent until proven guilty.

* Increased atmospheric carbon isn't creating another 'green revolution' quite the contrary. The trees which would be sequestering carbon are being killed by insects of a warming world, and have become, any many cases, 'fuel'.

Do you have a reference for a global decline in tree growth?

* Commercially produced 'plants' are being destroyed by climate-related events.

Do you have a reference for a global decline in commercial plants?

* A decline in the fisheries produces the same phenomena, by default , as overfishing.

For the sake of argument, we accept that premise. Is it easier to solve the problem of declining fishery production by lowering the outdoor thermostat, or directly improving the habitats in which these fisheries operate?

* I recommend that you speak to a botanist that's researched extinction, and see how quickly a tree could possibly adapt to a geometrically-warming world. We're talking about 'rapid' warming, never experienced while humans have been on the planet.

Ah yeah, I should just talk to one of my many friends who are extinction botanists.

* You can plant a plant wherever you choose, however it's not guaranteed to grow there anymore.

That's why Gaia gave us our big brains, so we don't go planting things in stupid places.