I have a number of problems with this. Here’s one, The claim is that mankind is the greatest cause of “climate change.” What if mankind was removed, what would be the effect? Would the climate still change? What if just all the volcanos were removed? How about taking out just the sun?
So is mankind really the greatest cause, or just something that can be more easily controlled? Then ask how and who would control all of mankind? How would they do it?
From the geological record the climate has changed multiple time over the eons. It may be doijng so now and it will again. Not mauch mankind (sorry, peoplekind) can do about it. One volcanic eruption like Mt. St Helens or Krakato put more CO2 and other gases into the air than humanity has don'e in it's entire history. It is going to change and we should get used to the ides.
I've been taught with the same evidence used in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," i.e. ice core carbon dioxide concentrations and atmospheric carbon dioxide readings. The majority of the time we are shown graphs with no information about the source so I'm highly doubtful as to whether they're credible.
I have not seen any scientific data supporting "global warming" that has not been proven to be a wild ass guess (computer model) based on assumptions that are not rational (having insufficient supporting empirical evidence.) If you find some, please post it. ;^)
I'm currently taking an environmental science class and they unsurprisingly teach the antithesis of your perspective. My stepdad (whom I greatly respect) has the same view as you, except he believes certain industries (e.g. oil) are pushing the whole global warming theory. He compares it to the "save the trees, use plastic" movement that he claims existed when he was younger. I don't know what to believe! They give me "scientific data" that supports global warming theories but I keep hearing a completely different argument from respectable individuals like yourself. I plan to research "both sides" in the future. Anyways, thanks for sharing.
Climate does change and it has done so for as far back in history as humankind has been able to examine. The effect that the actions of humankind have on climate is insignificant. "Global warming" is a term invented by politicians to loot and control humankind.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
The claim is that mankind is the greatest cause of “climate change.” What if mankind was removed, what would be the effect? Would the climate still change? What if just all the volcanos were removed? How about taking out just the sun?
So is mankind really the greatest cause, or just something that can be more easily controlled? Then ask how and who would control all of mankind? How would they do it?
It is going to change and we should get used to the ides.
I'll try to find some haha :)
If you find some, please post it. ;^)
My stepdad (whom I greatly respect) has the same view as you, except he believes certain industries (e.g. oil) are pushing the whole global warming theory. He compares it to the "save the trees, use plastic" movement that he claims existed when he was younger.
I don't know what to believe! They give me "scientific data" that supports global warming theories but I keep hearing a completely different argument from respectable individuals like yourself.
I plan to research "both sides" in the future. Anyways, thanks for sharing.
The effect that the actions of humankind have on climate is insignificant.
"Global warming" is a term invented by politicians to loot and control humankind.