bdbdbd said:
Well, there are evidence that support man-made climate change (keep in mind that until lately, the talk have been warming, not change, so at least something has made change in opinion) and some that does not support it and some that disproves it. Majority of the scientists, however, are in support of climate change. ALL the evidence does not need to be disproved, just enough to have the majority of scientists to think it's not happening - and then it's not happening. Socioeconomy plays a large part in emissions. Even if you spend more in countries with high welfare, everything is produced with less emissions. When economy grows, there's money to spend to invest in clean energy, while the lack of cheap energy is holding back growth. It is better to produce energy with a more pollutive energy source to have cheap energy and faster growing economy that can invest in cleaner energy sources. Worst thing you can do is public funded subventions to expensive "clean" source of energy that, not only, is holding economy back (because of higher taxing/less money to spend on public services), the energy used as extra source when the need is the highest, causes emissions. Ot's somewhat easy in Norway because of virtually all energy you need, and then some, can be produced by water power, whereas most of the world isn't so lucky. |
You are right, I didn't mean literally all. Should've written a substantial enough amount that it suggests we are wrong.
Norway will soon enough be connected to the European power grid, so whatever excess electricity we produce will be exported to other countries. I don't care too much about individual countries though, it's the net global effect that matters, and in that regard, Norwegian hydroelectricity won't influence it much. We do export a substantial amount of oil and gas though....
Anyway, my post wasn't really related to how we should solve the problem. It was more related to how there most likely is a problem in the first place.
PS: For all those peop saying he is technically right because nobody knows 100% for sure, the same is true for all science, but we don't just throw it out the window because if it. We will throw it out the window though if it is disproven or replaced by another model with superior predictive capabilities (say, Einstein's theory of general relativity replacing Newtonian gravity. Though Newtonian physics are still utilized a lot because, while it isn't completely accurate, for most uses, the difference is so tiny that it is negligible).
