Global Climate change - which do you hope is true (read on)?

Question

1) Man is contributing to climate change by producing too much green house gases and if we conserve and find new forms of energy we can slow this process and avert a environmental catastrophe.

2) Man is not responsible for climate change. The sun is warming up the Earth and the other planets so there is no way to prevent the inevitable global catastrophy, but as least we can prove that Al Gore is wrong -WOOOO HOOOOO!

Answer 1

Gonna be pretty quiet in here...good on ya! Amazing, isn't it...that people would rather it be an unfixable situation than have a Democratic be right about something? It speaks volumes about how badly the political discussion has gone in this country. Its no longer discussion...its a one way tirade of namecalling and intollerance...from both sides!

Answer 2

I think this question is very revealing. This IS the AGW position - this IS why people sign up to it. We have no freaking CLUE if we're a proximate cause, but if we are we can do something about it and it's better to believe that we have the power to do something about it - it's more positive.

You admit that what is real and what isn't real is of no concern to you - for the rest of us it's a matter of trying to see what is and isn't there, but for you it's a matter of seeing the world in a way that validates you as the center of it.

Problems with this are:

A) If it's natural or mostly natural, then it will likely subside, just like it has done the other three times this has happened since the Bronze Age, with no such "catastrophe" occurring.

B) There's no "we" - there are individuals and there is the state, and the political question is when can the state come in and sharply curtail otherwise free, productive activity? The problem we Libertarians have is that Al Gore et al don't seem to think this is even a legitimate question. "Oh, you're funded by the oil companies" - - I'm not, but even if I were, they're simply trying to make a living participating in mutually voluntary exchange, and so are commuters, etc... It's not "us" and it's not "us changing our ways" it's YOU dictating to everyone else that they MUST change their ways to something less convenient and more expensive - of COURSE they don't want to do that or hear that. Would you?

So there needs to be some REASON behind such limits and there needs to be some burden of proof that the reason is rational. ESPECIALLY when the people clamoring to be empowered to set those limits have sought this power for countless OTHER reasons, including the exact OPPOSITE reason, not too long ago, and when a lot of those people have a track record that is spotty at best (remember Monsanto butterflies?). And trying to re-write those other three warm periods out of the climate history, that's detracting from your credibility, not adding to it.

Wherever you set that burden, it hasn't been met. A bunch of UN-picked scientist/activists huddled up and declared victory. The fire-and-brimstone predictions have been made scarier. The only "evidence" supporting the CO2 blanket theory is the cooling stratosphere - THAT makes sense - but that's also been happening only since Clinton's first term - meaning you still have no tangible evidence linking us to the first 80 years and 70% of the warming thus far.

Answer 3

I'd go with:

3) Man is not responsible for climate change. The sun is warming up the Earth and the other planets so there is no way to prevent the inevitable. The Earth has warmed and cooled many times in its lifespan, and it is still here. Humans will adapt and everything will be OK.

And algore is still a liar who buys his carbon credits from himself to make all the libs think he's a cool dude WOOOOO HOOOOO.

Answer 4

exciting. i come across it complicated to evaluate the information whilst maximum of political factions submit archives on their web content. an in depth buddy is a chemical engineer and has accomplished very much of analyzing on the priority and believes there is something yet consensus. His take is this is a techniques greater complicated than the medical community knows. isn't it wonderful how some human beings call it a actuality? i don't recognize of something medical that became into not a actuality sooner or later and fiction the subsequent. it rather is consistent in technology. i think we would desire to constantly act in a in charge thank you to maintain our planet clean because of the fact it rather is the appropriate component of do. no person is for pollutants, and that i think of many human beings have become greater conscious of chemical compounds, etc that are purely risky. Al Gore would not recognize greater suitable than any scientist, and he's getting funds from it. If he have been a Republican, each and every liberal on right here would blast him as a profiteer, so because it particularly is a reason it rather is skeptical. we will see. the main mandatory subject is oil dependency. we are enriching our enemy, and we ought to alter into self sustaining.

Answer 5

personally, hope does not enter into it for me. If I allow hope to enter the equation, it will corrupt my analysis of the situation.

Geological and Astronomical evidence suggests the current warming trend is extra-terrestrial in origin, and has its roots is solar EMF, Terran EMF, galactic and system cycles, solar sunspots, solar half-life, solar winds, solar variance, solar polar changes, terran magnetic pole changes, cosmic rays and the effects on the upper atmosphere, vulcanization, and oceanic magma displacement.

I do disagree with you labeling it a catastrpohy though. In the Renissance, when it got as warm and warmer than now, life expectancy gained, food production gained, sickness dropped, and the global quality of life increased.

Global warming allows for greater harvest cycles. As more water is absorbed, we have more rain. North Africa was once the breadbasket of the Medeteranian, rather than the desert it is now. More rain will return that to the world. The Nile once ran through the what is now the Sahara desert, as well as running N/S. Perhaps warming and the ensuing rain to follow will re-plain the Sahara and have the Nile run westwad again.

The human race improved its overall lot last warming cycle. I think it will again. I also think it arrogance to assume that the earth temperature is constant to the whims of our times. The mini-ice-age, the year without a summer, the Renissance, the Clovis Spear people of Europe, etc....all show the progress of people related to climate change.

Answer 6

I basically see Global warmist as the new religious nuts they see man as the center of the Universe and we control everything on our planet very similar to religious zealots.

As for global warming my solution is to adapt to whatever climate changes there is because when it comes down to it if nature decides it going to kick our butts there is not a damn thing we can do about it, no matter what this new movement says ex the recent Tsunami and Katrina

Answer 7

You left out 3) The Earth is going through a natural process that has already happened several times in the last several millenia.

The Earth will adapt. So will mankind.

Answer 8

it's pointless to "hope" about climate change. It's obvious that we are affecting the climate. Just look at the temperature difference between your downtown area and a suburb or rural area 50 mile away. You'll often find that it's about 5 degrees.

So why is it so unbelievable that we're affecting the climate?

Answer 9

As Caesar once said " the story's of my death are greatly exaggerated". It has yet to be proven that any catastrophe is in the making. Secondly even those that say humans are responsible say there is nothing we can do to stop it. So your question is moot.

Answer 10

Go ask Limbaugh or another objective and talented scientist for your answer, mate.