I've chosen to remain neutral on Global warming, because it seems too complicated for me to wrap my head around, and I'm not a scientist. But this video offers some compelling evidence.
Edit: Even the co-founder of Greenpeace contributes (who's since left, partly cause they wanted to ban Chlorine worldwide ). It's very fascinating
In light of the summary report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there should be little doubt in your mind that a warming trend is occurring and that human "forcing" constitutes a significant contribution to this trend.
One should note that the opinions of individuals (even individual scientists) should always be looked upon skeptically. But the power of the IPCC report is that the document was prepared through the research of hundreds of scientists who are experts in climate science, and was reviewed by further thousands of such scientists. In addition, the language of the document was agreed apon by all govenments composing the IPCC. Because of the political nature of the document, and the fact that everyone must agree to the conclusions of the scientists involved, the report is quite conservative. And yet the consensus of the scientific community (which is not as easily biassed as the opinion of a single scientist) is quite clear.
The debate is over: what remains to determine is what, if anything, we ought to do to slow the change that is happening. It may be decided that warming is just the way it is and changing it will cost too much (more than what would actually benefit us). And it is undeniable that people like Al Gore are alarmist (for instance, he fails to mention that his doom and gloom predictions are what may happen over the next 100-200 years, at which time we may be dealing with a completely different level of technology and the whole climate change thing might be moot). But I do believe that it is important to make modest changes to reverse the human forcing of global warming: we do, afterall, have a high stake in the way that the climate is now (as we have built our civilization around "how things are now"). But there is no point in being stupid about the changes we make. The greatest asset we have as a species is our ability to innovate, and I have no doubt that we will take the steps that are required to change what ought to be changed.
The debate is over: what remains to determine is what, if anything, we ought to do to slow the change that is happening.
Thank goodness for that!! Now we can let all the bureaucrats get down to business of harvesting and redistributing wealth.
Seems like there's hardly any debate anyway -- you either agree with the herd or you're branded a looney. Nothing like a little healthy scientific dialog.
Comments
I've chosen to remain neutral on Global warming, because it seems too complicated for me to wrap my head around, and I'm not a scientist. But this video offers some compelling evidence.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...35300469846467
Edit: Even the co-founder of Greenpeace contributes (who's since left, partly cause they wanted to ban Chlorine worldwide
In light of the summary report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there should be little doubt in your mind that a warming trend is occurring and that human "forcing" constitutes a significant contribution to this trend.
One should note that the opinions of individuals (even individual scientists) should always be looked upon skeptically. But the power of the IPCC report is that the document was prepared through the research of hundreds of scientists who are experts in climate science, and was reviewed by further thousands of such scientists. In addition, the language of the document was agreed apon by all govenments composing the IPCC. Because of the political nature of the document, and the fact that everyone must agree to the conclusions of the scientists involved, the report is quite conservative. And yet the consensus of the scientific community (which is not as easily biassed as the opinion of a single scientist) is quite clear.
The debate is over: what remains to determine is what, if anything, we ought to do to slow the change that is happening. It may be decided that warming is just the way it is and changing it will cost too much (more than what would actually benefit us). And it is undeniable that people like Al Gore are alarmist (for instance, he fails to mention that his doom and gloom predictions are what may happen over the next 100-200 years, at which time we may be dealing with a completely different level of technology and the whole climate change thing might be moot). But I do believe that it is important to make modest changes to reverse the human forcing of global warming: we do, afterall, have a high stake in the way that the climate is now (as we have built our civilization around "how things are now"). But there is no point in being stupid about the changes we make. The greatest asset we have as a species is our ability to innovate, and I have no doubt that we will take the steps that are required to change what ought to be changed.
The debate is over: what remains to determine is what, if anything, we ought to do to slow the change that is happening.
Thank goodness for that!! Now we can let all the bureaucrats get down to business of harvesting and redistributing wealth.
Seems like there's hardly any debate anyway -- you either agree with the herd or you're branded a looney. Nothing like a little healthy scientific dialog.