bouzane said:
thranx said: I dont deny "climate change", you know they have changed the buzzword after the data didn't fit. But I dont think humans are the cause of it, or can do much to change it. To me it would be better to focus on pollutants and how they harm our body(something that actually hurts our health and we can change), vs global warming/climate change (something that probably isn't caused by us, but rather the sun, and something we can't actually fix or change) |
Sorry but global temperatures and solar cycles have been heading in the exact opposite direction for about 40 years now. Additionally, you can not blame the Milankovitch cycles either because while there is a clear correlation between them and climate, they too have been going their seperate ways since the 60's. As far as I can tell the recent spike in greenhouse gases is the most probable cause for the extremely rapid and unusual disturbance in global climate and none of the alternative explanations make any sense. It merely seems to be the most logical conclusion as far as I can tell.
|
with temperatures cooling and rising, ice caps growing and shrinking, and green house gasses only going up, it doesnt seem very logical to me. Not to mention logical does not mean its correct. Especially if we are going to try and make massive changes to our economy to try and fix it. Like i said, we should focus on real issues we can fix, like actual pollution that causes human health problems.
Edit: Not too mention, how much can all this data be trusted. have we not had several times now readjusted the numbers because it was found that the scientist or people working at noaa were using projected data instead of actual? That is what happens when science goes from being science to being a cause, and than a tool used to bludgen businesses. they have too much at stake to be wrong now so they use data that works for them. its been turned into almost a religous like following, instead of one based on cold hard facts.