Quote:
Originally posted by russotto
The case for the existence of global warming is pretty good. The case for anthropogenic origin of that warming is far weaker. Personally, I note that we're at the top of a ~110 year solar cycle. Further, apparently the Earth's orbit is entering a period historically associated with warming.
|
At no time in the earth's previous 10,000s of years history has the earth's temperature risen so far so fast as it has in the last 100 years. Normally changes this large take many thousands of years.
Why was the Brooklyn Bridge built? Back then the annual ice completely across Hudson and East Rivers was a problem. Today it never happens. That kind of climate change used to take a thousand years. Only in this last hundred years has the earth seen a temperature change so quickly.
The problem is associating this change with specific activity. For example 11 Sept was a rare oppurtunity to prove another theory. Jet contrails are now known to contribute to planet cooling. As the list of variable continues to grow, in the meantime we know two things:
1) Mankind has somehow affected the earths climate far faster than any previous natural event ever has, and
2) Energy consumption in the US could be significantly reduced with an increase in standards of living. The SUV is the classic example. No reason (other than bean counter logic) for a vehicle that small to consume so much energy.
Reasoning from our right wing government is quite extraordinary. Global warming is a function of human activity. But since we cannot stop it, then we must not even try to slow it. Ostrich feathers were observed after that declaration.