snipped to get to the point:You also can't argue with conspiracy theorists. Any evidence to the contrary will be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.
I mistakenly thought some science was involved here. We've taken billions of pounds of CO2 that has been locked in the earth for millions of years and have released it into the atmosphere. Saying that the earth is too big to be affected by 7 billion people or that it's part of a natural cycle when there is nothing natural about burning fossil fuels that have been trapped underground for millions of years is to completely deny any reason or science. The fact that one party argues it's baloney based on a couple of graphics and then another argues it's all a giant conspiracy says a lot about the level of scientific reasoning here, or lack of it.
I personally studied the effects of rising CO2 concentrations on the ambient air temperatures in college. It related to greenhouses. There is a very clear positive relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. Through human activity we have increased the CO2 levels by burning fossil fuel - that is undeniable. To deny that we have impacted our environment is to deny our very role on this earth. It is mind boggling that anyone can look at the very basic science involved and then deny that we can impact the earth's climate. It's like folks who claim cigarettes don't cause cancer, it's all fun and games until someone they know dies from it.
Your grandchildren will not think kindly of you as they deal with the consequences of climate change if you try and pretend it isn't happening and want to prevent any efforts to try and mitigate it's effects.
Tony
There are so many straw men in your response to my post, but I'll bother to address just one:
"To deny that we have impacted our environment is to deny our very role on this earth."
WHERE did I deny that? Further, WHERE did I deny that anthropogenic CO2 isn't factor in climate change? Simple, I didn't and DON'T.
The HUGE profit motive described is NOT a "conspiracy" theory. If you don't realize that lobbying effectively owns governments and their policies, you haven't been paying attention.
Also, please answer my question - will it be cheaper to adapt to warming or suffer the HUGE economic costs of MAYBE some mitigation mostly ALONE - two of the biggest polluters, China and India, weren't even included in the Paris Accords, accords which in themselves were a
bad joke which would result in <1% of the claimed needed reduction of CO2 in order to prevent an
UNCERTAIN future temperature rise?
Once China and India crawl up the technological ladder they will become more energy efficient due to the
profit incentive to do so. Also,
UNLIKE US, China is putting major efforts into developing the advanced reactors I mentioned in a post above, India also but to a lesser extent. The same natural progression toward energy efficiency
will also continue in the more developed west.
