Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
Surprised no one brought this up in this thread...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/sc...rtner=homepage
Seems like another major climate report has come out;
The report released here represented the fourth assessment since 1990 by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, of the causes and consequences of climate change. But for the first time the group asserted with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities were the main drivers of warming since 1950.
Obviously another batch of complete morons who can't think for themselves, and have been duped by the Gores/Suzukians of the world. Another blow struck by the clime-apologists! |
You can't dispute it... climate change exists. You also can't dispute that by sheer numbers alone, we are somewhat responsible.
However, and what shows the sheer politics of the issue on both sides, is that two crucial questions have not been effectively answered. They also seem to ignore that this climate change is right on cue... seems to happen every 500 thousand years... why say suddenly "
that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities were the main drivers of warming since 1950." That just seems too partisan to say, especially without documenting terrestrial and solar contributors of climate change.
1. What percentage of contributing factors are directly human related... 1%? 10%? 50%? 99%? If its 1%, why bother... if its 90%, then Kyoto is nothing compared to what should be done and fast.
2. Can we actually stop it, limit it, or should we focus our money and energy into efficiency, clean power, clean air, clean water and emergency money for when these negative effects emerge? (The UK Met Office says the difference between implementing Kyoto and not implementing Kyoto by 2050 is a difference of 0.08 degrees celsius. Either way, they see that 1.5-6 degree increase.)
I'm no scientist, but as a politician, I couldn't possibly make any huge moves until I knew the answer to these two questions. There's too much at stake either way to screw it up on impulse or theory.