A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Global warming IS happening … albeit at the rate of 1 degree per century, but not evenly. It has been going on … unevenly … for a hundred years … actually since the Little Ice Age.'I am convinced, as I said on a similar thread 3-4 months ago, with very similar arguments being put forward, that global warming is happening. And that we have a moral imperative to change our lifestyles accordingly.
There do seem to be plenty of good reasons to adopt a more environmentally responsible lifestyle, even if you are not convinced by global warming:
Now, surely if we take all that (and there are other arguments - loss of biodiversity for example), and then (again, for the sake of argument) concede there’s a 30/40% that global warming is happening too, surely there is less to be lost, and a great deal to be gained by becoming more eco-friendly? And surely, given the odds, we should at least be trying to change our lifestyles, rather than running the risk of being accused in years to come of fiddling while Rome burns? And surely, even above all that, we have this beautiful, magnificent, breathtaking creation that God has gifted us, and shouldn’t we be looking after it, rather than simply using it up as a commodity?
- The world’s resources are limited. … and far too many urban and suburban dwellers are dependent on cars in the first place:
Can anyone honestly say that, even if global warming is propaganda, decreasing our dependency on cars and fossil fuels isn’t at least a good aspiration?
There is absolutely no evidence, however, that man is responsible for ANY of the global warming.
The current controversy is a kind of abuse of the English language. The accurate scientific term is “anthropogenic global warming”. Which means: “man-made global warming”.
And there is no evidence that any such thing exist.
We, humans, have absolutely no idea what the “ideal” climate or temperature is for the Planet Earth.
If we accept the Kyoto limitations, then we will have to just about shut down U.S. industry, with massive unemployment. It’s not just reducing gasoline consumption by 10% or some such number or embracing fluorescent lights.
The idea that natural resources are “limited” or “finite” is a false analogy. The Earth is 7,000 miles in diameter and we have scarcely explored the top mile of the crust. There are valid theories that the amount of petroleum, for example, is virtually limitless. There are enough natural resources to last billions of years. Until the sun burns out.
The Club of Rome a couple of decades ago did some serious computer modeled projections that we would run out of natural resources within 20 years. Their projections were totally blown. Totally false. False alarms. Got to be very careful about false alarms.
For some reason, saying that we need to save the Earth by using less stuff makes us feel virtuous. It may have some validity in terms of Christian sacrifice; however, it has absolutely no scientific validity in terms of “saving the planet”.