Focusing on the Rule of Law derived from our Constitution, and laughing at Republicans who bow to a King.
One of the problems with the temperature analysis is that the data reflects too short a period of information in which to base conclusions. Tempurature rises like this have happened several times in history (long before the industrial ageI might add). How are we to know that 'this' particular data represents manmaid climate change and not just demonstrable patterns in weather change? Of course there is no way to know. Interestingly, this increase in temp was predicted in the 1970's before the global warming debate was accepted, based purely on cyclical climate models.I will concede that the climate is changing. Its been changing for as long as there has been weather!For further info :http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
It was not the scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming was inevitable in the 70s, and no simply cyclical model can be correct. Why not? Because the Human Race, beautiful bacteria that we are, have been growing at an exponential rate. The difference in impact had by 1 billion vs 7 billion people on the planet is significant. But your ignorance can be forgiven - this type of thinking is distinctly difficult to engage in, since in our daily experience we don't interact with systems experiencing exponential growth. Why not? Cuz those systems are necessarily unstable.Just because you can't bear the shame at the dirty hippies being right, doesn't mean you should doom future generations. It is a moral duty to keep the planet as nice as you found it. It's time to be bigger than your ego on this one. The argument is over. Man Made Global Warming is real.
Post a Comment