Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
When will the human costs from climate change be paid for by the profits of the fossil fuel industry?
|
Surely, you jest.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arragonis
Lets assume that CO2 is a primary cause of climate warming / change / disruption and that humans are mainly the cause - parking the debate above for the time being.
So what do we do to effect the changes that might be required - what policies to use, how should they be enacted ? How do you go from where we are now to where you think we should be ?
I'm thinking more on a national and international scale.
|
*cough*
Cool Planet *cough* How many times do I have to say it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
The thing about doubting what the overwhelming scientific conclusion and all the data are, do you also doubt other areas of science? Plate tectonics or DNA or the atomic and subatomic particles or astrophysics or DNA are all beyond what most of us can "know" - and yet we accept them. Why is it that climate change is any different?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheEnemy
I don't doubt all other science, the other areas of science you have pointed out have alolowed themselves to be open, if you have questions on those subjects they will show you why, If you disagree with a conclusion they will discuss it, and will not try to discredit your reputation.
|
I think people argue about climate change because it is comprehensible. Compared to say Quantum Mechanics, which is the bedrock on which all this action takes place.
Astrophysics stamps its little foot and insists that space contains gravity and magnetism but no electric currents coursing between the moons and planets and stars and galaxies and etc.
How can you have magnetism without electricity?
And what's up with noctilucent clouds that reach much higher than water vapor could be lifted by the atmosphere?
Would anyone care to comment on this?
