Mafoo has a few very valid points.
I, nor he, nor anyone argue that the climate isn't changing. We know it's getting warmer, and stranger in many areas of various countries.
The issue is (from my point of view) that the debate is so intricate, complex, and interwoven into many possible contributors, to peg it to exclusively to man-made contributions shows (to me) that they really don't know what they are talking about, and are trying to reduce pollutants for very selfish goals, rather than for scientific ones.
Our environment is affected by dozens, if not hundreds of factors which do include man-made pollutants. The question is, and should always be, which ones have the largest effect on the environment.
Take Co2 emissions. If Co2 emissions are the leading cause of global warming, why are we working so hard on removing humanities carbon footprint when nature is responsible for 20 times the carbon footprint on earth?
What if it is sunspot activity, and it takes a few years for the effects of the sunspots to build up change, and we begin to get plunged into colder temperatures for decades? It wasn't long ago that scientists were espousing the fact that our pollutants were cooling the earth down, not warming it up.
Ect, ect, ect.
Like Mafoo, I feel that we DON'T know what's going on, if it's sunspots, Co2, methane, the spaghetti monster, or something else. Science, I thought, was based on hard data, and took years to develop proper modeling, but it seems that countries have jumped the gun, and are doing things to damage economies, and transfer wealth, rather than help the environment just to be good stewards of the earth. To me, this is no different than atheists ragging on fundie Christians proclaiming the apocalypse and rapture are near, and to radically change their ways - they are preaching fire & brimstone to force change, rather than promote change.
And until that change is ready - more efficient solar arrays, better renewables, ect - forcing the change won't help. Most renewables aren't to the point that they are cost efficient or effective in what they do, despite the fact they are being rapidly adopted. What if windmills change global jetstream patterns if we use them as our primary source of energy? Is that any better than adding Co2? What if solar arrays absorb too much energy from the sun, and cool the planet down because that energy was meant to heat the earth? Just a few thoughts for you to think about.
Personally, I am as pro-renewable as the next person, and greatly for reducing our pollutants. However, I'm not for doing it when it hurts people severely to force the change, and also when there are better ways of doing it....If the governments of the world really wanted to help the environment, then we'd increase our space funding tenfold, built a Dyson device at the Lagrange point, and/or the moon, and be done with it. Until then, we're only going to hurt our own people for these possibly selfish goals.
And for the record: Cap & Trade WILL raise the average person's energy costs in the USA. The estimated impact in regions that rely on coal and other energy sources will jump by $350/yr per household. That's going to cause a lot of issues, which may offset any gain we get from reduced Co2 emissions.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
