The issue and controversy surrounding Climate Change is not the
reality of it, but rather - the CAUSE of it.
Climatologist ( weathermen) blamed it on men as the cause,
even though carbon emissions from man is less than what our
environment would create on its own.Earthquakes, tidal waves,
temperature havocs, storms had always been present since men began
recording history.
No matter what we do and how much we spend, it will not account
for a significant change to the climate, except perhaps a better
environment.
The cause of Earth's instability does not come from men. We have
no control over the air, land and sea. Earth had NEVER been a
stable planet. How we mankind managed to survived as long as we did
was simply because we had been adaptable.
Rather than to keep harping on mankind to spend money to limit
carbon emission is a fatal course of action, for it is in denial of
the truth of what's happening on Earth.
Instead, we should be spending money on how to be
ADAPTABLE to the instability of Earth. Poor
planning in Urban developement will kill us all instead, and not
Climate change.
eg: 1. Cutting down trees to make better use of land will
deprive the environment of oxygen, but we can always replant each
tree cut down with genetically modified trees of better oxygen
capacity within cities and developements, even on roofs if
necessary. Economic and Environment win win situation.
2, Research on better materials for buildings in quake zones
should be made mandatory. eg- why build skyrises in the san adrea
faultlines when we know the teutonic plates are instable?
3. Limit urban sprawls to the coastal areas of if necessary,
construct habitats with a height allowance of 1 meter above sea
level, as in the event of ice caps melting, the sea level will only
rise not more than 1 meter.
4. More spending by small island states on their infrastructure
to keep it above sea level, by hardwork and thrift to their
economy, will help them keep their soveriegnity rather than to beg
for charity for rich nations.
The Copenhagen talks were doomed to disaster, and rightfully
so, for it had been a wrong approach on a wrong
cause, in denial of what actually should be done to adapt to
earth's changes. It is indeed laughable to presume we mere men
could cause damage to earth or even the universe. Well, the
weathermen had never been known to be accurate in their predictions
anyway.
Here's something that may account for Earth's changes.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm
Firstly no one has yet been able to bring out any concrete proof
of there being another reason for global warming. Solar activity
does not colate with the warming of the planet, there has been
warming before yes and we still do not know what happened then and
how different it would be with 7 billion people burning fossil
fuels, spewing carbon dioxde at an unpreceded rate.
There is absolutely no connection between the content in your
nasa link that can be used to explain global warming.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to hold a PHD or to
become a professor before you start labelling them as glorified
weather boys? Btw, weather and climate are 2 different things.
You're pretty comfortable with your doctor's prescription no?
Would you be so comfortable if it was a chemist or a biologist
doing it?
Your list of "reputable scientists"? The majority are not even
climate scientists in the first place. Scientists need to come to a
majority concensus before any theory can be considered as fact, a
minority simply means it failed peer review by scientists in the
same field
Again, stop abusing the term scientists. Just because they are
intelligent in one field does not mean they are just as intelligent
and competent on another. Would you trust in a bridge designed by
an economist?
I would think nuclear weapons would be a pretty good indication
of our ability to destroy this world isn't it?
Remember , though it takes alot to destroy the world (which i
take it to mean to atoms) it in fact takes little to exterminate
life on Earth and a little shift in a few degrees is all it takes
to make supporting 7 -8 billion humans a nearly impossible
task.
You don't get it do you? Do you seriously think when the sea
levels change we in the cities could survive with our life style
unchanged with just a change in infrastructure?
Do you not also trust the engineers, economists, geologists when
they attempt to build the infrastructure?
What about the food and raw materials from the places not in the
city? Rising sea levels and global warming would hit them first,
then the cities are just tombs of steel and concrete.
Humans do not prosper till now just because we are capable of
adapting. One of our strength is the ability to look at an
occurance and predict possible patterns. That is how agriculture,
domestication of animals and irrigation come about. A lot of our
technology concepts come from observing natural occurances.
Now the majority of the folks who have spent their lives on
observing such things are telling us there is a high 90%
possibility ( no decent scientists would ever say 100% ) that
manmade activities are causing global warming that could cause
potentially caused unknown levels of destruction.
And you ignore them because you think they've wasted decades of
their lives being weather boys?
