Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Except if they happen on a smaller scale. Just because changes over long periods exist does not mean that changes over shorter periods are not possible, or that they are not important.
Statistically speaking the earth has historically been inhospitable to human life.
Arguing that there are changes not influenced by humans is not an argument that this change is not influenced by humans.
And just because it exists doesn't mean it's accurate or legitimate. How does one tell the difference?
|
Isn't this sounding like some of our famous CP religious debate threads? That's why I see the same parallels between religious arguments and climate change arguments and why I take issue with the movement itself. I don't take issue with the science. I've never argued that changes are not due to humans. I'm not arrogant or learned enough to make any claim of the sort. I said I'm not on the bandwagon. Not that I don't believe in it.
My positions is that climate change activists need to examine alternative evidence and that the science is not complete and there is no consensus as is often claimed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
You're implying I don't do that. I've asked for the goods are you aren't giving them out.
I think we both think the same thing with respect to climate change. You want us to decarbonize even though you're skeptical and I'm not as skeptical of the evidence and therefore want us to decarbonize.
The Economist had a good passage a while back saying that even if you're skeptical, the global costs are something like 2-3% of what we would have grown anyway. And considering the potentially disastrous ramifications, this is like payina 2-3% insurance premium to mitigate against those outcomes. If you think about it, you pay at least that much of your income per year for life insurance why wouldn't we do it for the life of our planet too?
|
Thank-you.