Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostwriter
To put multi billions of $$$ into a effort such as Cap and Trade when it is now being shown that the science may have been faulty at best and fraudulent at worse would be a "crime". Clearing up pollutants such as sulphur etc. is a different task then trying to reverse what may be the natural progression/variance of Earth's temperature. I would bet that the Sun (via Sunspot activity) may have more of an effect on global temperature variations than what we humans can possible achieve via carbon dioxide emissions.
|
Would you really "bet" that? Because millions of anti-Global-Warming political, social and scientific minds would love for that to be the case, and NONE can prove to any degree that climate and environment changes (such as melting polar ice caps, glacier loss, ocean temperatures, increased tornado activity, etc.) are naturally occurring or are in any way part of a "natural cycle".
Sure, science can't prove exactly how global climate is being affected by man. However, we can't hand-wave away changes - seriously. Do we really think that nature is some sort of magic sponge that can soak up man's activities, no matter how destructive? I'm fine with claiming some of the more extreme members of the scientific community aren't worth listening to, but that's the truth regardless of which direction their views may skew. Cap-and-trade has problems of its own, but none are really related to global warming - it should be judged on its own merits, and not the demerits of a few agenda-driven douche bags (on either side).
Just because we can't currently understand the mechanism, that doesn't mean nothing is happening. And just because a group of researchers spent a lot of time using charting techniques and data manipulation to make their findings look better doesn't mean the entirety of global climatic change is in any way a farce.
Hybrid Mode
