Quote:This is the classic response.   You don't like the hypothetical solutions, so you deny the existence of the problem.   You don't want to move out of the road, so you deny there is a car coming. 

 

Well, your guess is wrong.   The existence of the problem, and the desirability of any proposed solution, are two different things.   I am not endorsing any particular solution.   I'm not even saying we should do anything about it.   Just pointing out an article that says the earth is getting hotter. 

 

That said, let me ask you this.  If scientists said an asteroid is headed for the earth, and will destroy all life if it hits, and that we need to come up with some way of heading it off, would the fact that we would need some type of effort to head it off cause you to deny the existence of the asteroid?  

No, because the existence of an asteroid heading toward earth can be scientifically proven as fact. On the other hand, global warming and the ideal that it is the result of mankind abusing the environment is just a theory. This theory is based on data obtained by individuals who have a stake in promoting its existence... individuals who have, in fact, been found to 'skew' data for their own purposes. 

 

That being said, what if we are in the midst of a global climate change? Considering that... 

 

*given the relatively short duration of time that data about the climate has been 'scientifically' recorded, and

*the known fact that global climate change has happened in the past... before the industrial period, 

 

how is this climate change proven to be caused by the 'carbon footprint' of mankind? There's no question that man produces more pollutant than desirable, particularly in countries like China; but the total amount of pollutant produced by man is almost non-consequential when compared to the amount of gasses and solid pollutants caused from natural sources... namely volcanoes. The most well documented example of a global climate change event was brought about by the eruption of Krakatoa in Indonesia. This one eruption brought about a world wide drop in temperature! Consider that there are hundreds of volcanoes world wide and many are active... any one of which produces more pollutant than any industrialized country in the world all by itself! The problem is that it's hard for certain government entities like the EPA to justify it's existence if it's shown that the primary source of pollutant is from natural sources that we have no control over.  

 

I think the veracity of the individuals who are collecting this 'data' can and should be questioned, but even if we are experiencing a global climate change, it isn't the first time. What's more, the assertion that this 'climate change' is the result of mankind is highly questionable given it has happened in the past prior to industrialization. It all sounds just a little too much like some organization which receives government funding is trying to justify its existence by the cry of 'the sky is falling'.

---