Quote:
I certainly agree that there is way too much nonsense, fear mongering, and 3rd party crap in the whole debate. But we do have a vested interest to maintain our current global environment, financially and otherwise. If the ice melts the oceans will rise flooding large sections of densely inhabited areas. The damage will be in the trillions if allowed, and cost many billions to build dikes to protect all the vulnerable cities.
Then of course there is the ecological concerns which could have a dire impact on our own species. When I talk about the potential for mass extinction, I am being quite serious as the potential is very real. Other mass extinctions have happened in the past under similar circumstances to what we seem to be heading toward. Nature itself is highly interconnected, and loosing one or more species can have a trickle down effect taking out other species which can trigger a domino effect wiping out all but the most flexible and independent species. Depending on what happens, and which theories prove to be most correct, the consequences could well be very bad. My own worries are very well founded in my opinion based on the research I have done into it.
|
I don't disagree with you. Hell, even if the icecaps don't melt completely, the change in the ocean's salination could have devasting impacts on weather systems and even hurt the world's supply of seafood.
But see, the thing is that we really DON'T KNOW much at this point, but many in the scientific community won't admit to not knowing what they don't know. As such, we have intense alarmism based upon inaccurate or even falsified data which has gone on to do nothing but diminish the cause of environmentalism.
The fact is that, say, Yellowstone could erupt tomorrow and change the Earth's climate practically overnight. In fact any significant volcanic activity could reduce global temperatures. Most large-scale, destructive natural events throughout history have involved the ejection of a far larger mass of ash into the atmosphere that all of human history ... combined.
The point is that the planet is a constantly evolving mechanism, and its systems are far too complex for us to have developed an ability of perfect predictability. However, some in the scientific community want us to make drastic changes and spend enormous sums based upon what amounts to science that is contradictory at best.
If there's a problem, and this problem does indeed need to be corrected, we need to know as much about it as possible before we try to fix it. And if, per chance, that a SIGNIFICANTLY long term warming period is underway (which I question) we need to search for solutions other than economically singling out the nations who are willing to play ball.
We need no more half-assed data and speculation, no more Al Gore's sensationalizing the problem for their own benefit, no more sweeping aside contradictory data rather than attempting to understand it.
In other words, the politicization of climatological science needs to cease. Both sides of the scientific discussion need to be heard, and the machinations of the issue warrant further study, WITHOUT predispositions.