You don’t have to accept that man-made Co2 emission is the largest contributor to global warming, to aknowledge that it’s part of the problem, and something we ought to try and bring down.
The anti-global warming argument seems sloppy, and without any unity: some of them deny that global warming is happening at all, the others just argue that it’s not caused by man, some admit that we contribute to it, but aren’t the primary cause, and there are a couple who even say “yeah, but the cost of industry is worth it”.
So which is it?
It seems that the evidence is overwhelming in suggesting that the world is heating up, and even if you don’t buy into the argument that we caused it, you ought to be concerned. If you believe it was caused by people, the solution is clear: stop causing it. If you believe it’s part of a natural cycle, then shouldn’t your people be formulating some sort of long-term disaster plan, or at least advocating for that, since we could potentially end up with some serious land-mass underwater, and wild weather patters wreaking havoc on agriculture and geographically vulnerable areas?
The fact that the “deniers” haven’t taken a pro-active approach to taking on the challenges of “natural” global warming, leads me to believe their attitude is just flat-out denial, and an unwillingness to change or adapt to the world as it is.
If the global warming is natural, then there’s nothing we can do about it, and we’d batter start restructuring that which in our society will be impacted by this change, right?[/quote]
You raise two points - first - is the planet actually warming? Well, since the data on this is contradictory at best - better data is needed. Indeed, since 1998 the calculated global average temperature has been declining. This is why the “hysteria” about global warming was changed to “climate change” because even the advocates for AGW had to acknowledge something was wrong with their models. In addition, we need historical comparative data as well, and this is the hard part. That is why the Medieval Warming Period is so critical to the debate - the avergae temperatures were much warmer than today and yet - no catastrophy . . .hmm
Second - IF (and that is a mighty big if) the planet is warming dangerously - did mankind cause it - so far the data proves exactly the opposite - human co2 produciton has continued to increase - but there has not been a corresponding increase in temperature. Here again, the causal link is at its very tenuous and even if it were linked - the amounts produced by human activity are irrelevant by scale to the actual production of greenhouse gases by the planet itself.
So - should we “panic” and destrpy our economies to prevent a hypothetical based on speculation backed up by assumptions? NO! Should we continue to improve our machines, food production, keep our environment clean and find more efficient means of producing energy - YES!
Can we stop a natural cycle - NO and we don’t even know what direction the cycle is going in . . .
Here a hypothetical right back at you - for the sake of argument, let’s say that mankind has caused global warming and we do all of the things suggested and more and reverse gloabl warming (in effect, creating global cooling)- what do we do when the planet starts to inevitably cool? - start polluting again? . . . an ice age is much worse than a warm period . . . . I hope this highlights what a complete farce this whole concept of AGW really is . . .