Quote:
Originally Posted by All Darc
Not sure if the analogy with cancer it's appropriated. Hundred things causes cancer, but the most relevant, the far more relevant, are smoking, second hand smoking, hard drinking, sedentarism and obesity, bad food (sugar/fat mostly) and genetics. There are other but the risk increasing it's high in the aforementioned ones.
To found what creates global warming it's important to know, since in case is something we can reduce. You can't cure a lung cancer in a patient just by making hin stop smoking, for example, since this works more from prevencion. But you may be able to reduce global warming by making world population burn less fossil fuels.
For me it would be too much of coincidence that global warming started righ after industrial revolution get high power, and speed up with it as it growed more.
|
Probably increasing CO2 concentration is the biggest factor accelerating global warming, and that accelerated rate of CO2 concentration is probably manmade. My point is that what to do about it doesn't change regardless if it's elevated volcanic activity, or transportation. My point is that if we must reduce the CO2 concentration, or at least slow the increase, what to do is the same in both scenarios.
Like risk factors for cancer, it's foolish to say that everything must be done to avoid it, because that isn't practical. Stopping breathing will drastically reduce cancer risk, since burning energy will cease, which is responsible for DNA damaging free radicals. In the known realm of mitigating cancer risk, there exists a spectrum ranging from obviously worthwhile behavior, such as not handling highly radioactive substances without protection, to obviously worthless behavior like stopping breathing, and everything in between.
The absurdity of the climate change debate is that we mostly only get opinion from people on the "don't breathe" end of the spectrum to the "handle radioactive substances carelessly" end of the spectrum.
Like a supply/demand curve, there should exist curves for various aspects we're concerned with such as standards of living, ecology, economics, meteorology, etc. Somehow those lines must be plotted and a conversation must take place that considers all of these aspects. To say that one thing is good or bad without regard for how it impacts the other values is ignorance at best, and corruption at worst.
A myopic study doesn't account for the whole, just as describing an elephants tail doesn't sufficiently describe an elephant in a meaningful way.