Scientists can't predict the weather two weeks from now, but we are supposed to believe that they can predict it 20 years from now with infallible precision?
Of all the potential causes of global warming - the natural ebb and flow of the climate, sun activity, bovine flatulence , etc. - we know for certain that human pollution is the only cause?
Is it possible that human pollution is only partly responsible for global warming?
Do we even know if it is reversible at this point, assuming we caused it in the first place?
We are supposed to upturn our economies for that? While letting the really big polluters such as China escape any costs for it?
Even if there is global warming . . . so what? It will take thousands of years to reach the 23 feet of ocean rising Al Gore claims will happen, and the oceans have risen mere centimeters in the last century or so. Are humans now suddenly incapable of adapting to climate changes that have occurred many times before throughout our development as a species?
Global warming has indeed occurred innumerable times before, at levels far higher than we are experiencing now. And yet . . . how did the polar bear as a species survive?
Here is the real question: how do we know this isn't some scam by radical environmentalists to destroy capitalism by other means? It isn't as if they haven't used scare tactics and specious theories before . . .
4 comments:
It could even be asked whether or not the climatologists can predict even the "general" weather conditions 20, 50, 100 years, or even 6 months from now.
I would also like Al to explain what the Eden state of the earth should be? Are we talking worldwide southern California weather or the Sahara or the jungle?
It might help to point out to Al that the sun is earth's source of heat and energy. Maybe we should look at reducing the sun's energy output to regulate our temperature.
Ken, you are so right. The radical enviros are not after a solution to global warming per se, just more rationale for their commie vision for mankind...
The radical enviros are not after a solution to global warming per se, just more rationale for their commie vision for mankind...
And speaking of commies, why aren't the radical enviros going after China, which has been building CO2-producing coal-fired power plants by the hundreds, and will soon pass the U.S. (if they haven't already done so) in total CO2 emissions?
Just another question for you, Al.
In response to all the questions raised:
1) No. But no one says it's precise anyway. Predicting weather is different from predicting climate: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
2) No, we are of course not the only factor. But the natural ebb and flood of GHG and warming is being severely disturbed by human influences. It is not just burning of fossil fuels, it is also the cutting of forests, disturbing the natural uptake of CO2.
3) Yes. Human pollution is only partially responsible. But it does create certain feedback effects that drastically change the amount of natural warming by affecting other greenhouse gases and the creation of more greenhouse gases (google climate feedback effects).
4) No, we do not know for certain it is reversible, but mitigation is always possible. But are you willing to take the chance of doing nothing?
5) First of all, the majority of China's emissions are caused by producing goods for developed countries. They are therefore essentially our emissions. (And on per capita basis, the US and Canada are the major emitters.) Second, investment in renewable technologies could also create economic growth. It is not all that dismal. Third, if you do not act, it can quite potentially create an even steeper economic downturn (assuming that acting costs us wealth in net terms).
6) The difference between the current warming and historic (natural) warming is that the current one takes place over a much shorter timescale, thereby not allowing ecosystems the time to adapt. Sea level rise is very uncertain, but currently meltwater is forming a lubricant under the Greenlandic and west-Antarctic ice-sheet, and if slipped into see, these could cause an additional 12m of warming. With quite some certainty, sea level rise of 55-88 cm can be expected by the end of the century (not including glacial melt, but just warming of oceans).
7) the polar bear as a species did not exist millions of years ago. Where is your primary education?
8) This is just sad. You are very under-informed of the whole debate, as is usual for the people shouting 'conspiracy! conspiracy!'. I suggest you do some more research and try to understand the whole debate before you make such ridiculous claims.
Hope this is of help to readers.
Post a Comment