Climategate

[steelish]

Global leaders have been meeting on the subject of Global Warming...aka Climate Change.

Here is my theory/belief:
This planet has a natural life cycle in which the climate fluctuates. Our time on earth has been a mere blip on the horizon and we haven't been keeping data long enough to determine if we are truly having an effect on the planet's life cycle in a negative way. I think we should step back and do a lot more research. It will be thousands and thousands of years before we can determine with any reasonable conviction that we indeed can cause changes in the natural cycle. I feel the entire Cap and Trade is a huge mistake designed to take money from the more "affluent" nations and spread it to third world countries. This is not a "fix". This will not solve anything except to make the affluent countries poorer while the third world countries remain poor still.

Where do YOU stand on this issue?

[Thorne]

This planet has a natural life cycle in which the climate fluctuates. Our time on earth has been a mere blip on the horizon and we haven't been keeping data long enough to determine if we are truly having an effect on the planet's life cycle in a negative way.

I used to think this way, too. But evidence is increasingly pointing to the fact that mankind is, at the very least, making a natural situation worse. Possibly much worse.

I think we should step back and do a lot more research. It will be thousands and thousands of years before we can determine with any reasonable conviction that we indeed can cause changes in the natural cycle.

The problem here is that we don't HAVE thousands of years! The problem is happening NOW. The future is just around the corner. It's even possible, as some are claiming, that we have already passed the "tipping point" and that there is little or nothing we can do to stop it. The best we can hope for is to lessen the effects and prepare for the consequences.

I feel the entire Cap and Trade is a huge mistake designed to take money from the more "affluent" nations and spread it to third world countries. This is not a "fix". This will not solve anything except to make the affluent countries poorer while the third world countries remain poor still.

I agree with you here. In fact, virtually any government sponsored and controlled "fix" is probably a bad idea. Any time you have politicians and industrialists climbing into bed together, you know that they are NOT the one's who will get screwed.

[steelish]

I used to think this way, too. But evidence is increasingly pointing to the fact that mankind is, at the very least, making a natural situation worse. Possibly much worse.

What's the evidence? Forgive me for being obtuse, but I've never seen/heard concrete evidence proving anything one way or another

The problem here is that we don't HAVE thousands of years! The problem is happening NOW. The future is just around the corner. It's even possible, as some are claiming, that we have already passed the "tipping point" and that there is little or nothing we can do to stop it. The best we can hope for is to lessen the effects and prepare for the consequences.

The future has ALWAYS been just around the corner. In the late 70s, they claimed the next Ice Age was coming...DANGER, DANGER! (it didn't happen) Then they said the planet would be destroyed through Global Warming within the next 10 years (it didn't happen). Now, we're being told that the polar ice caps will be completely gone by 2021 (or something like that) if we don't do something NOW...DANGER, DANGER! Sorry, I just don't buy into it.

[Thorne]

What's the evidence? Forgive me for being obtuse, but I've never seen/heard concrete evidence proving anything one way or another

The evidence is there, in thousands of papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the kinds of things that denialists, and journalists, don't like to talk about. I'm not saying there isn't still some element of doubt, but the more I see, the less doubtful I've become.

The future has ALWAYS been just around the corner. In the late 70s, they claimed the next Ice Age was coming...DANGER, DANGER! (it didn't happen) Then they said the planet would be destroyed through Global Warming within the next 10 years (it didn't happen). Now, we're being told that the polar ice caps will be completely gone by 2021 (or something like that) if we don't do something NOW...DANGER, DANGER! Sorry, I just don't buy into it.

Most of the information you're referring to did NOT come from scientists, but from the media, who condensed, consolidated and confabulated the information to make a more sensational story. Back in the 70's some scientists determined that there appeared to be periodicity in the cycle of Earth's ice ages, and that we were heading towards a new ice age, in a couple of thousand years. That's NOT how the story was reported. Likewise, no reputable scientist ever claimed that the planet would be destroyed through global warming. Habitats will change, species will be stressed, some to the point of extinction, ocean levels will rise. In short, things will go on pretty much as they have been for the last 4 billion years. The problem is, it's OUR habitat that will change, OUR species which will be stressed, OUR homes destroyed in the rising tides.

It's quite possible that the Arctic Ice Cap will disappear, during the summers, well before 2021. <shrug> It's happened before, even without our help. It will reconstitute during winter, just as always, just not so thick. It's doubtful that Antarctica will thaw by 2021, though. That's one HELL of a lot of ice! It may melt, along with the Greenland Ice Cap, by 2100. That will be a problem, for sure. All that extra water, pouring into the oceans. Well, at least it will help to dilute the carbolic acid accumulating from all the excess CO2 absorption.

No, there's no doubt now that the Earth is warming. There's little doubt that mankind is making the problem worse, even if we're not the primary cause. But there's also little likelihood that the worst-case scenarios, the ones the media love to blast all over the airwaves, will come to pass.

[steelish]

The evidence is there, in thousands of papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the kinds of things that denialists, and journalists, don't like to talk about. I'm not saying there isn't still some element of doubt, but the more I see, the less doubtful I've become.

like this one? Or maybe these?

There's little doubt that mankind is making the problem worse, even if we're not the primary cause. But there's also little likelihood that the worst-case scenarios, the ones the media love to blast all over the airwaves, will come to pass.

EXACTLY

[DuncanONeil]

And all of the scenarios presented to us as factual are all the worst case scenario! What are the others? And how often in the test does the worst case show up? But then again we are not permitted to see the data and run independant tests on said data.

I used to think this way, too. But evidence is increasingly pointing to the fact that mankind is, at the very least, making a natural situation worse. Possibly much worse.


The problem here is that we don't HAVE thousands of years! The problem is happening NOW. The future is just around the corner. It's even possible, as some are claiming, that we have already passed the "tipping point" and that there is little or nothing we can do to stop it. The best we can hope for is to lessen the effects and prepare for the consequences.


I agree with you here. In fact, virtually any government sponsored and controlled "fix" is probably a bad idea. Any time you have politicians and industrialists climbing into bed together, you know that they are NOT the one's who will get screwed.

[Seroquel]

When the worst case scenario is "We all die" don't you think it's worth considering?

[Lion]

This thread sounds like the commentators of Fox News and NBC going against each other.

[DuncanONeil]

That is not even on the table! Beside what in all the doom and gloom makes you think that is even a possibility?
Mankind has survived far worse with less abilities.

When the worst case scenario is "We all die" don't you think it's worth considering?

[Ultraprene]

The evidence for climate change isn't just in weather records for the past hundred years or so, but in understanding the physics. The Earth "normally" has a temp about 30 deg C above that you would calculate from the Planck Theory of heat radiation. That is due to Greenhouse effect of CO2 and other gases with optical absorption bands around 10-15 microns. During the industrial age we have nearly doubled the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the amount is about half that released by fossil fuel burning. (the rest was mostly absorbed int he oceans making them more acidic.) Isotopic analysis shows that the added CO2 came from fossil fuel. I recommend an excellent article in the Jan. 2011 "Physics Today."

If a kid is batting baseballs at a house, d owe have to wait till he has broken a window to predict that eventually he will?

[Thorne]

If a kid is batting baseballs at a house, d owe have to wait till he has broken a window to predict that eventually he will?

Only if you can't admit that windows can be broken by baseballs. After all, have you ever seen a window broken by a baseball? Do you have any proof that the baseball can actually break the window? No, no, actually testing this theory by throwing baseballs at windows is not acceptable, because everyone knows that no one deliberately throws baseballs at windows in real life. I'll only accept real evidence of a baseball being hit by a kid and breaking a window. What? Which video is that? Oh, that's an obvious fake, made by a window maker. In league with the government to raise our taxes to pay for all the windows that aren't going to get broken anyway. It's all a conspiracy, don't you know.

[Wiscoman]

A couple of things; first, the "this is all natural" thing is wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Second, it doesn't strike me as extremely rational to believe that we can pump literally millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and think that nothing will happen.

On cap and trade, we already do it for sulphur dioxide to control acid rain. It works, it hasn't driven anyone out of business, and it hasn't made any nation any poorer. If anything, it helps generate wealth by creating a new markets complete with new technologies. This isn't some wildly speculative economic/environmental theory, it's a tested method that's shown real world results.

[steelish]

A couple of things; first, the "this is all natural" thing is wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

I never said "this is all natural". What I said is that my theory is the planet has a natural life cycle and it's too soon in mankind's existence to PROVE that we have that much of a negative effect on it's cycle.

Second, it doesn't strike me as extremely rational to believe that we can pump literally millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and think that nothing will happen.

Again, that is not what I said. It's not that I believe we have absolutely no effect whatsoever...it's that I find it difficult to believe that in the last 200 years of technological advancement, that we influenced the planet to that degree.

On cap and trade, we already do it for sulphur dioxide to control acid rain. It works, it hasn't driven anyone out of business, and it hasn't made any nation any poorer. If anything, it helps generate wealth by creating a new markets complete with new technologies. This isn't some wildly speculative economic/environmental theory, it's a tested method that's shown real world results.

It's easy to find both pros and cons

[Wiscoman]

I never said "this is all natural". What I said is that my theory is the planet has a natural life cycle and it's too soon in mankind's existence to PROVE that we have that much of a negative effect on it's cycle.

And I said there was absolutely no proof of this hypothesis. All you have as evidence is wishful thinking.

Again, that is not what I said. It's not that I believe we have absolutely no effect whatsoever...it's that I find it difficult to believe that in the last 200 years of technological advancement, that we influenced the planet to that degree.

No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument.

It's easy to find both pros and cons

It'd be a lot easier to believe the cons if we didn't have proof that it's all untrue.

On a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here

[SadisticNature]

It's the pick a side and support it blindly game.

Lets establish a question and some facts so we can actually discuss this problem reasonably:

Fact: The temperature of the earth does have natural cycles.

Evidence: Ice Ages and glacial retreats due to global temperature retreat are well documented long before humans were pumping any chemicals into the atmosphere.

Fact: The quantity of glacial Ice in Antartica has been measured since a point of time in the 1970's. The highest recorded measurement occured in Winter 2008.

Evidence: Unfortunately I have misplaced the link, you're welcome to google it.

Fact: There exist controlled experiments showing that in atmospheric models the introduction of certain chemicals can cause temperature change.


Opinion: Adding -gate onto the end of every potential scandal is really damn old. I mean has anyone noticed the Nixon presidency was actually one of the better ones? Ended the disaster that was Vietnam, great international presence in China and Russia showing the communism failed as a method of providing benefits to the average person (Kitchen debates for one). It's getting a little old already.

Opinion: I'm not opposed to getting a lot of these emissions reduced regardless of causing temperature changes. But anyone who thinks China should work on reducing C02 emissions while continuing to pump out S02 (the old nasty soot in the air that coats the inside of the lungs common with 19th century industrialism), has the environmental problems backwards.

Opinion: The connections between temperature change and global disaster are wild hypothesis at best. This is the area where there are huge gaps in the scientific evidence. While the science is good on establishing the temperature change is occurring and has significant evidence that supports the hypothesis that its occurring as a result of man-made pollutants, It's not clear that increasing the average temperature is going to result in:

1) More and worse Tsunami's
2) More and worse hurricanes
3) Higher Winds
4) Other global disasters.

We have no good models that describe how that temperature increase will be distributed in water, or even how much the temperature in water increases. If its a uniform increase, the differentials that cause conditions for these disasters will not be affected.

Opinion: Rising sea levels are probable, this presents problems for many coastal cities and small island nations. These problems need to be dealt with. My personal view is evacuation and building in a new safer area is a far better use of money than trying to spend a fortune to little or no effect on combating C02.

Opinion: C02 is a much harder problem than S02 and other such gases. C02 and other greenhouse gasses are easy to natural produce. C02 is an emission from human breathing for instance. Methane is a product of animal waste. Any plan to deal with greenhouse gasses needs to get right down to an individual level, this isn't a few big factories causing problems, it's a massive system with a number of players approximately equal to the population of the planet that needs to be regulated internationally. The politics of this is likely an unsolvable problem. International Efforts are generally rather token, look at the world bank, IMF and UN for examples of bodies that are largely ignored.

[Midnytedreams]

Just recently the Scientific research that has been progress since 1970 by the U.N has found to have been tampered with. If you want to know the truth follow the money, those estimates in your links are now outdated the recent figure in in the trillions. Who is to get the money world wide but the same companies that pollute the most

In 1980 the government of United States gave billions for developement of clean energy
The EV1 an electrical car was made, it was not polluting, you could only lease them not buy them. Why becuase as soon as the government money stopped . All the cars were seized by the company and destroyed.

You can get a patent for anything from the government , even an idea or program, but try to get a patent on a self substaining vehicle {needing no out side power source} and the doors close. The technology is already there it has been since the 1980, Why is it not used because of power.

The same delegates and scientists who started the global warming scare in the 1970s now have the power, the secound suggestion they made at the conference was a world bank. one currency. Look at Europe now ...one currency... and they {the people in power in government}are now discussing the same for the united states.

The man standing on the street yelling, the world is coming to an end, wearing rags.
Has been replaced by the man in the 2000 dollar suit and private airplane stating it.

Ask yourself this the world is a huge place, of all the places , why was the middle east the cradle of civilization, simple because, at one time it was lush and fertile not sand, this happened way before automobiles and plants spi lling toxins into the air.

The evidence is in in the last 7 years the earth has cooled not heated up, yes some areas have got hotter some cooler but that is the way its always been.I personally think the Myans didnt just disappear they just moved to a better climate .

here is a site you might want to check out

http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/index.html

[Wiscoman]

It's the pick a side and support it blindly game.

Only on one side, unfortunately.

Lets establish a question and some facts so we can actually discuss this problem reasonably:

Fact: The temperature of the earth does have natural cycles.

Evidence: Ice Ages and glacial retreats due to global temperature retreat are well documented long before humans were pumping any chemicals into the atmosphere.

Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.

Fact: The quantity of glacial Ice in Antartica has been measured since a point of time in the 1970's. The highest recorded measurement occured in Winter 2008.

Evidence: Unfortunately I have misplaced the link, you're welcome to google it.

I did. Not a fact.

Fact: There exist controlled experiments showing that in atmospheric models the introduction of certain chemicals can cause temperature change.


Opinion: Adding -gate onto the end of every potential scandal is really damn old. I mean has anyone noticed the Nixon presidency was actually one of the better ones? Ended the disaster that was Vietnam, great international presence in China and Russia showing the communism failed as a method of providing benefits to the average person (Kitchen debates for one). It's getting a little old already.

A-freakin'-men.

Opinion: I'm not opposed to getting a lot of these emissions reduced regardless of causing temperature changes. But anyone who thinks China should work on reducing C02 emissions while continuing to pump out S02 (the old nasty soot in the air that coats the inside of the lungs common with 19th century industrialism), has the environmental problems backwards.

No argument there.

Opinion: The connections between temperature change and global disaster are wild hypothesis at best. This is the area where there are huge gaps in the scientific evidence. While the science is good on establishing the temperature change is occurring and has significant evidence that supports the hypothesis that its occurring as a result of man-made pollutants, It's not clear that increasing the average temperature is going to result in:

1) More and worse Tsunami's
2) More and worse hurricanes
3) Higher Winds
4) Other global disasters.

We have no good models that describe how that temperature increase will be distributed in water, or even how much the temperature in water increases. If its a uniform increase, the differentials that cause conditions for these disasters will not be affected.

Not surprising, since Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, not the climate. For the rest, the American Meteorological Society disagrees.

Opinion: Rising sea levels are probable, this presents problems for many coastal cities and small island nations. These problems need to be dealt with. My personal view is evacuation and building in a new safer area is a far better use of money than trying to spend a fortune to little or no effect on combating C02.

The introduction of fresh water into seawater decreases the salinity of the oceans, causing massive problems with the global food supply.

Opinion: C02 is a much harder problem than S02 and other such gases. C02 and other greenhouse gasses are easy to natural produce. C02 is an emission from human breathing for instance. Methane is a product of animal waste. Any plan to deal with greenhouse gasses needs to get right down to an individual level, this isn't a few big factories causing problems, it's a massive system with a number of players approximately equal to the population of the planet that needs to be regulated internationally. The politics of this is likely an unsolvable problem. International Efforts are generally rather token, look at the world bank, IMF and UN for examples of bodies that are largely ignored.

The problem isn't that greenhouse gases exist, but that there is too much of them. I can take a couple aspirin and be fine, but if I take a bottle, it'll kill me. The fact that a small amount of something is harmless does not automatically mean that it's harmless in any amount.

[DuncanONeil]

And do not forget that the models that are used to predict the future are merely programs written to tinker with the raw data input to produce a result.
We do not know what the tinker rules are, or even the raw data input.
Oh yeah, the US has been reducing CO2 for years, and it seems that we have done a better job than the people that claim to be complying with Kyoto!

It's the pick a side and support it blindly game.

Lets establish a question and some facts so we can actually discuss this problem reasonably:

Fact: The temperature of the earth does have natural cycles.

Evidence: Ice Ages and glacial retreats due to global temperature retreat are well documented long before humans were pumping any chemicals into the atmosphere.

Fact: The quantity of glacial Ice in Antartica has been measured since a point of time in the 1970's. The highest recorded measurement occured in Winter 2008.

Evidence: Unfortunately I have misplaced the link, you're welcome to google it.

Fact: There exist controlled experiments showing that in atmospheric models the introduction of certain chemicals can cause temperature change.


Opinion: Adding -gate onto the end of every potential scandal is really damn old. I mean has anyone noticed the Nixon presidency was actually one of the better ones? Ended the disaster that was Vietnam, great international presence in China and Russia showing the communism failed as a method of providing benefits to the average person (Kitchen debates for one). It's getting a little old already.

Opinion: I'm not opposed to getting a lot of these emissions reduced regardless of causing temperature changes. But anyone who thinks China should work on reducing C02 emissions while continuing to pump out S02 (the old nasty soot in the air that coats the inside of the lungs common with 19th century industrialism), has the environmental problems backwards.

Opinion: The connections between temperature change and global disaster are wild hypothesis at best. This is the area where there are huge gaps in the scientific evidence. While the science is good on establishing the temperature change is occurring and has significant evidence that supports the hypothesis that its occurring as a result of man-made pollutants, It's not clear that increasing the average temperature is going to result in:

1) More and worse Tsunami's
2) More and worse hurricanes
3) Higher Winds
4) Other global disasters.

We have no good models that describe how that temperature increase will be distributed in water, or even how much the temperature in water increases. If its a uniform increase, the differentials that cause conditions for these disasters will not be affected.

Opinion: Rising sea levels are probable, this presents problems for many coastal cities and small island nations. These problems need to be dealt with. My personal view is evacuation and building in a new safer area is a far better use of money than trying to spend a fortune to little or no effect on combating C02.

Opinion: C02 is a much harder problem than S02 and other such gases. C02 and other greenhouse gasses are easy to natural produce. C02 is an emission from human breathing for instance. Methane is a product of animal waste. Any plan to deal with greenhouse gasses needs to get right down to an individual level, this isn't a few big factories causing problems, it's a massive system with a number of players approximately equal to the population of the planet that needs to be regulated internationally. The politics of this is likely an unsolvable problem. International Efforts are generally rather token, look at the world bank, IMF and UN for examples of bodies that are largely ignored.

[steelish]

On a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here

lol. No, that's proof positive of puritan attitudes dying out. (Thank God!)

[Lion]

on a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here

lol

[DuncanONeil]

And I said there was absolutely no proof of this hypothesis. All you have as evidence is wishful thinking.

As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!

No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument.

Seems that, in spite of data, all the Goreites are capable of say is that "you are wrong!", No refutation, no counter, just the school yard taunt that the side I believe is correct.

It'd be a lot easier to believe the cons if we didn't have proof that it's all untrue.

As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!

On a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here

That is not "proof-positive" of global warming, that is proof-positive of a cooling of morals!

[Midnytedreams]

That is not "proof-positive" of global warming, that is proof-positive of a cooling of morals!

[/QUOTE]

Have to disagree here those crotchless bloomers look more tempting than the thongs.

[Wiscoman]

[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;830323]

As there is no PROOF to your hypothesis, either. Much of that is wishful thinking as well. Not to mention the cooked books!

If you're not willing to look at the facts, I really don't have the time to waste with you. It's like arguing with a creationist -- you've got your mind made up and you're dead set on remaining wrong forever. I gave you evidence, you ignored it.

If you need me, I'll be over here, talking to people who haven't let Glenn Beck rewire their brains.

[DuncanONeil]

There is no cap and trade on SO2. Were there it would have been used to support CO2 cap and trade!
It is clear that the planet has gone through cycles like this before and that such cycles could not have been caused as Goreites believe by little ole us. Also there is no real compelling evidence that we are the cause either. In this decade it was reported that an error had been made and the hottest year on record was 1934. Yet now the data for this decade does nothing but increase each year, defying the logic of natural events. And in contrast to the actual temperatures that have been declining. Cows pump millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere, as do trees. In fact every living thing adds its share toi the environment. Who are we to claim that intimate knowledge of such an organism is ours to know, when we do not even know all the parts of said organism!

A couple of things; first, the "this is all natural" thing is wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Second, it doesn't strike me as extremely rational to believe that we can pump literally millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and think that nothing will happen.

On cap and trade, we already do it for sulphur dioxide to control acid rain. It works, it hasn't driven anyone out of business, and it hasn't made any nation any poorer. If anything, it helps generate wealth by creating a new markets complete with new technologies. This isn't some wildly speculative economic/environmental theory, it's a tested method that's shown real world results.

[Wiscoman]

There is no cap and trade on SO2. Were there it would have been used to support CO2 cap and trade!...

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

http://www.epa.gov/captrade/

[DuncanONeil]

Bit harsh don't you think?

It does appear that you are correct. But I wonder, with the effects of acid rain so obvious and the disagreement in the issue at hand.
Add to that the proposals for CO2 cap and trade may not be of the smae nature as what was laid out in the previous plan.
Think I might need additional research. But the threat laid out by the President about controlling CO2 makes me worry more!

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

http://www.epa.gov/captrade/

[Wiscoman]

Bit harsh don't you think?

Actually, the word I'd use is "accurate."

[Ozme52]

I agree steelish... the Vikings (with inifinite humor?) named a northern island Greenland, settled there, and also settled in the then balmy climes of Newfoundland.

It's been warmer, it's been colder. We've been keeping close track all of what, 200 years?

The Sahara was lusher when it was warmer and less water trapped in the icecaps. Even some 2300 years ago. Remember Carthage? (Well probably not, thanks to the Romans. Who says violence doesn't solve anything?...) Well, they were every bit as powerful and prosperous, in the Sahara. It was a different climate.

Remember that neolithic "Iceman" recently uncovered by a retreating glacier, who fell and died in the Alps... wearing relatively mild weather garb? He was far far higher than need be unless the climate offered opportunity based resources.

And the dinosaurs must have been farting a lot of greenhouse gases back in their time.

Remember Krakatoa? Vesuvius? Mt. St. Helens? A volcano can pour far more tonnage into the air in mere moments than can humanity despite all our efforts. Remember the Dark Ages? Many historians now believe it really meant dark ages. When the amount of light getting through the volcanic dust clouds sent into the air was reduced in the northern hemisphere. I can see it now, a really big volcano goes off, reducing captured heat, and we have to shut off all the CO2 scrubbers to help keep greenhouse gases high to retain more heat.

All that said, do we have an impact? Of course we do, but we are neither the cause nor the solution. Can we do some things to mitigate the impact? Of course we can and should. Are there things we should be doing for other reasons, (like getting off of foreign oil,) that we are promoting as a cure for global warming? Yes, we should, so I don't have an issue with many of the conference's goals...

But mostly I think it is our very hubris that somehow we are to blame that will get us in trouble again later, when the sun cools again, or we miss an opportunity because we're blinded by our own conceit.

[VaAugusta]

Maybe it is natural for the earth's climate to fluctuate. Maybe it is natural for species to die out. But in the face of this, as a human, would you not want to attempt to preserve the human race from going extinct?

I find it strange that people can be so against trying to retain the world in a way that is suitable for humanity.

[DuncanONeil]

And what do we do when the changes necessary to meet the imposed requirements of CO2 reduction make it impossible to live where we do, accomplish our work, feed even our own people, or support a planet of 6 billion?

Maybe it is natural for the earth's climate to fluctuate. Maybe it is natural for species to die out. But in the face of this, as a human, would you not want to attempt to preserve the human race from going extinct?

I find it strange that people can be so against trying to retain the world in a way that is suitable for humanity.