|
luker4459 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I hope you're right
grastog1313 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Epic - You're right, but the irony is that the ultimate threat to bank accounts is unabated warming if CO2 is not mitigated. In fact, though, the global community has recognized this and begun to act. It's now clear we will inevitably transition from an economy dependent on fossil fuels to an era reliant on alternative energy, with those who embrace the transition likely to prosper long term, despite transition costs. Conversely, those who resist are likely to be left behind.
epicfailure210 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Hmmmmmm.... economic hardship, or the next apocalypse?Well, when you put it that way, I don't want to be the douche who puts the fate of humanity on the line for the sake of my bank account.
bcfp090 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
"The science literature universally recognizes..." Not to pick on you in particular but people should investigate how current journals are handling the submission of climate change articles. It is an eye-opener.Basically, skeptics say it's hard to bet heard. And that's how a consensus seems apparent. A good example of this is scientists pointing out obvious flaws in the CGM models. These types of papers have no chance of getting published. People should research this area as well.
bcfp090 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
"..almost all scientists.." I hate arguing statements like this but you should really do some research on this issue.
grastog1313 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
The science literature universally recognizes CO2-driven anthropogenic warming, but to understand why this is based on evidence, not fashion, one needs to know the literature. I realize most viewers don't have access to the journals, but the wikipedia "Global Warming" article is a good starting point to discover the nature of current evidence. By itself, scientific consensus, while important, is not the last word, and it's why I suggest that viewers start reading the source material themselves.
tpstrat14 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
To strengthen your point that "people can be wrong", Copernicus was right and he was a MUCH smaller minority than today's scientists that don't buy into global warming. In fact, if you research the history of scientific discoveries, you'll find that many of the correct ones faced contemporary opposition. Your "new and improved" argument holds even less water than your first one. Give it up, your thinking is flawed.
tpstrat14 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
What if we're being lied to? What if the media is spinning everything to get us to demand one world government to "fix the environment"? If this is true, then whether or not we are, in fact, causing global problems with our environment is irrelevant. Now that it is in the government's hands we can be assured that, if there is a problem, it will not be fixed. ARGUMENT DEBUNKED
tpstrat14 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
say a supreme creator put us on the earth. you may not believe this, but according to your argument, you may be wrong. given this possibility, i would say that God would be very upset with us all trying to change our own fate. in other words, if the natural environment is going to go to crap, that is God's "yes or no" decision, not ours. maybe putting our faith into the government to fix "the problem" (if there even is one that we can fix) isn't such a hot idea. what an arrogant jerk
grastog1313 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
The actions needed to address anthropogenic warming, gigman, are now considered by almost all scientists to involve a combination of mitigation (reduced CO2 emissions) and adaptation (protection against warming that cannot be halted). For some very specific and detailed assessments of mitigation measures, visit AR4 WG3. The current Poznan international conference is wrestling over both the adaptation and mitigation commitments the nations will need to make in the next few years. |
