With 7 billion people on the planet, looking to be 10 by mid-century or earlier, we simply cannot afford to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed by maybe a third of that population, much less bring it to everyone. If we attempt to do so, we will blow the carbon dioxide content of the planet through the roof in very short order, and then we will truly find out who is right and who is wrong — but is there really any doubt about the answer to that?
Even if every one of those 7 billion could do all you are doing, I do not believe we could come close to meeting even the modest limits of the Kyoto Protocol — and that presumes that all the big carbon producers who have refused to sign actually were to sign on.
The Kyoto Protocol doesn’t even attempt to define a reduction in human greenhouse gas emissions beyond 1990 levels. Those are still insufficient to stabilize the CO2 level in the atmosphere; they will only slow the CO2 increase, at best, by half — and that assumes emissions actually are decreased, not simply traded around the planet as a commodity.
The question thus becomes: what level of civilization can be maintained without increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases to the tipping point? And as a corollary, what population will we be able to support when we reach that civilization? And methane is merely one contributor to atmospheric warming, and though more potent than carbon dioxide, it is nowhere near being the most important. Beef production is an entirely separate issue, and here, it is merely a red herring.
I do not see the logical reasoning to extrapolate from observed change and make the leap of monkey to man or that we both share a common ancestor. I think monkeys have their own lineage and humans have there own as well.
For one there is convergent evolution which produces the independent appearance of the same genetic trait in different lineages. This has great implications for common ancestry and allows a good foundation from which to conclude there were many original kinds of representative forms of life. From which biological evolution diversified out into what we see today.
I do not think there was a single tree of life from which we all share one common ancestor, but that there were many common ancestors that represented the kinds of life we see today. In other words many base patterns and many biological processes-polyphyletic not monophyletic. Thus through an observed limit of biological evolution we will only see phenotype expression change which is also known as speciation when geography is involved, not a complete and radical alteration of fundamental genotype.
I have stated a mechanism for emergence of genetic similarities in independent lineages, without the assumption or conclusion of common ancestry. And obviously this could even produce common chromosome numbers as well from anatomically similar animals developing within like environments, but that do not need necessarily to share a common ancestor. It is not a common ancestor, but a common design of natural mechanisms producing a design toward reflection of the designer, namely intelligence. Does the nature paper take into account convergent evolution?
No, not deceiving… Catchy line but I have never heard anybody use that. Does he take into account convergent evolution? There may not be very many here who understand convergent evolution. Perhaps you might take a few minutes to explain what it is, how it works, and how common it is?