Quote:
Originally Posted by PR_Tom
What we seem to be getting lately is symantics issues. I believe in global warming, but for me the jury is still out on whether HUMANS have contributed in some statistically significant way. To me it's not "global warming versus natural cycle", it's "human activity CAUSING warming (y/n)".
No doubt slashing rain forests has some negative effect simply because less trees = less CO2 processed by trees. I dont need more info on that particular aspect to decide that more living trees = better for everyone.
Just like I dont need more info to decide that less greenhouse gasses released directly into the atmosphere by factories and power plants in the world = better for everyone.
Forget the forest, just look at the trees in this case.
|
No one can deny the correlations. There is a strong correlation between human industrual activiy and climate / weather fluctuations. Unfortunately, there was climate volatility in the pre-industrial world - how is that explained? What is the magnitude of the effect of human activity on the system? Are there factors whose effect on the system is many orders of magnitude greater than human activity?
It's like, say you have a big swimming pool that is the earth's climate. There is a GIANT drain in the bottom of the pool. The change in the system is the change in water level. So what is the human activity? is it equivalent to poking tiny pinholes in the liner? causing a change, measurable but insignificant?? I mean, if there is 1 pinhole in the liner.. it is true that the water level is decreasing, however small the change. But what about the drain?? Maybe changes in solar activity is equivalent to opening the GIANT drain in the pool, causing a rapid and massive drop in the water level.. or maybe it IS true that human activity adds another giant drain to the pool, or makes the big drain significantly larger. The fact of the matter is, I don't think we really know what the causal relationship is.