kowenicki said:
vlad321 said:
kowenicki said:
vlad321 said:
kowenicki said:
vlad321 said:
kowenicki said:
Now everybody (all scientists) accept that we had a very warm period in the middles ages.. vineyards in england.. etc etc. and that was followed by a very cold period round about 1600(little ice age).
So if those extreme climate conditions werent caused by man then why does this one have to be caused by man?
There are various explanations, I think having read all of them that "man made" is the least compelling.
We can neither stop it nor cause it imo..... only learn to live with it. |
Are you saying CO2 in the air doesn't affect the climate, or that there is no CO2 in the air?
|
I'm not saying either of those things.
|
Then I don't understand. Youc an't deny humans are outputing ipressive amounts of CO2 in the atmsphere. If you think humans have nothing to do with it, you either disagree with that statement, or the statement that CO2 causes climates to change.
@Football
Then I don't see why we're arguing if you didn't dispute it, probably just my fault.
|
CO2 production... I can deny exactly that.
Well, we (humans) account for 3% of all CO2 production on the planet (the other 97% mostly from decay) and as a result we are responsible for adding 1% to the amount of CO2 already there. The Oceans also add more CO2 as a result of geowarming than we ever would.
Natural variations are the biggest cause by far....
Now out of all that to suggest the human CO2 is the main driver is a leap imo.
|
We don't know just how much that has an effect on climate. I am sorry, but I'd rather stopdoing something with unknown consequences than leave it to chance. Now if you can accurately tell me "our CO2 does will have no big negative effects, FOR SURE" then I would agree with you that no precautions should be taken. Otherwise, leaving it to chance, is a very bad idea. Unlike human teenagers, the humans don't have parents to fix shit up for them, so let's not act liek retarded teenagers about this stuff.
|
The usual response then.... as soon as the science is thrown in then it becomes "but can you prove this 100%?"
Nobody can prove a negative and nobody can be 100% certain.
I also couldnt prove I wouldnt die of bird flu or swine flu and I also cant prove that god doesnt exist, but sensible science suggests a good and considered response to both of those.
More and more science is now being published, that was reviously brushed under the carpet as the real inconvenient truth, that says co2 is the result and not the cause of global warming.... it has nothing to do with human input and everything to do with cyclical climate change caused by many factors including solar activity.
I do think we should take care of the environment, for the RIGHT reasons.... not because of a lie told with big fanfare by a failed, pseudo intellectual, politician from the states and not because the west has an interest in beating down developing nations.
|
Yes, and while I agree, I couldn't give a shit if someone proves if god exists or not. Meanwhile, fucking the climate over is just a slightly bigger gambit. Just saying "can't decide to fuck it" is how idiot teenagers act, somehow I don't see that as a good thing when it comes to the climate of the only planet we can currently inhabit.
