Originally Posted by
Sheepman
We have 2 choices.
1. Do nothing about CO2 and hope it's not important.
2. Try to prevent increasing atmospheric CO2.
If CO2 isn't important and we choose option 2, what do we loose? Maybe a reduction in our standard of living having to pay for new sustainable technologies to reduce our dependence on oil, gas and coal? Who feels confident enough to depend on dwindling resources to heat their homes and grow their food, when those resources are being supplied from other nations whose politics is inevitably self interested?
Given a few spare months with nothing else to do, I'm sure I could almost convince myself in the arguments of one side or the other in this debate. But like most people, the studying is something I leave to those who have devoted their lives to research. There has to be trust that their motives are genuine. Obviously that's not been helped by the recent revelations.
For those people who don't believe global warming is occurring (easy enough to believe based on short term data), are the massive reductions in polar and glacial ice purely down to irrelevant local weather changes? Of course the planet has gone through huge climate changes in it's history, homo sapiens has never previously been in a position to affect such changes.
Greg
Bookmarks