I have looked. I have not seen any conclusive evidence that the increase in temperature of this planet is a direct result of human activity. Please feel free to do it for me.
My mistake on the Nasa thing.
Don't talk down to me you ~*baguette*~.
What, in your mind, would constitute conclusive evidence?
There you have it, Huginn. Due to the nature of climate activity it is very difficult to prove what exactly is happening. Don't get me wrong on this issue, my post was attempting to open up debate on the moral issue of spending that much money on it instead of using that money to save lives now.
The majorty of scientic institutions endorse that it IS in fact human activity causing the problem but a true scientific mind has to admit that it may only be a factor, yes? You also will notice in my post that I said that taking action now to reduce emmisions and energy consumbtion is a no brainer.
With issues like this I try not to go in full support of either side but try to find the most logical action that I think should be taken. I don't expect my opinions to be belittled and I do do my bit in energy conservation and waste management.
Well, it seems to me that asserting whether human activity is contributing or contributing significantly is, at its core, rather elementary. All we need do is examine how likely it is that natural variations and trends in temperature could explain current data. If the models of natural global climate do not explain these trends or could only explain them as being incredibly unlikely, then we have two options: either our models are wrong, or we are contributing to climactic change.
Granted, I'm no more inclined to read hundreds of pages of reports and abstracts to figure out whether I believe the scientific community or not than you are. There are, as I see it, only a handful of possibilities.
1) We are not the cause of global warming, or we do not contribute significantly to it.
2) We are contributing significantly to global warming.
From here, there are two further possibilities.
A) There is nothing we can do to slow or stop the climate change; we can only prepare for survival, or any efforts would be beyond our capabilities and resources.
B) There is something we can do to slow or stop the change significantly, and these measures would be feasible with acceptable strain on human resources.
In my mind, it's not a matter of who is or isn't correct. It's a matter of what we consider acceptable strain on the economy, on resources as a whole, as we take measures to slow down climate change. Ultimately, it does not really matter how fast our civilization increases its wealth and capability; what matters is that we never drive it into the ground.
Thus, while it may be that this climate change fuss is all for nothing, that we can ignore the consequences and pursue economic growth and other problems of human civilization...what is the point then? Is that all we gain from this scenario?
Whereas in contrast to what we could lose if climate is changing...serious crippling of our civilization, perhaps the entire ecosystem of the planet.
Now Leif makes a point: that the advancement of our civilization could very well outweigh the possible damage done. Why stop a train if you can outrun it, if you will? I admit, I find this possibility intriguing, but it's a gamble. There's no way to predict how far we will come, whether we will outrun it after all.
It just is.
No, zem. I'm saying that I meant the idea that wars are started for any reason but the interests of the people at the top is funny, it was more like derision against the people who always start those wars in the name of helping people out of things like poverty and hunger. Looking at my post again, I see why you thought I was calling you stupid, bad wording, sorry about that.
