Am 08.05.2017 um 19:04 schrieb Bald Eagle:

> Sorry, I just find the claim that human generated CO2 is the be-all end-all
> cause of "global warming" --- I mean, "Climate Change".
> 
> Correlation does not imply causation, and
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

No scientist in their sane mind will say "climate change is /all/
human-made". But it's a pretty clear fact that humans have a major
influence on climate change -- more specifically, on the climate change
seen in the last 30 years.

Correlation does not imply causation, but /absence/ of correlation
clearly implies the absence of causation - and in the last 30 years
scientists are seeing changes in the climate without correlation to
/any/ natural causes.

Moreover, the scientists' arguments in favour of major human
contribution to climate change are not just from correlation -- it is
from a pretty clear understanding of the mechanism behind it.

You want extraordinary proof? It's right in front of your nose: The last
30 years have seen climate change in a magnitude that has rarely been
seen in nature before, with a remarkable absence of correlation to all
the usual culprits found in nature associated with such events.

With the only exception of greenhouse gases -- the increase of which is,
again, remarkably uncorrelated to all the known natural causes, e.g.
volcanism.


On the other side of the aisle there's the unprecedented situation that
a staggering amount of CO2 that had been eliminated from the atmosphere
over the course of millions and millions of years and deposited in the
form of carbohydrates has been introduced back into the atmosphere in
essentially just a single century.

It is a long-recognized fact that the sun's output (or, more precisely,
the sun's input to earth) has been slowly increasing throughout all
those millions and millions of years, and it had already been an
accepted fact, long before man-made climate change was even a topic,
that this increase in solar energy has been just about canceled out by a
steady elimination of CO2 from the atmosphere over the same time, so
that Eath happens to have kept a habitable climate.

And now that all this CO2 is re-released you expect it to have _no_
effect on climate whatsoever?


> But you're gonna tell me that I need to TRUST ---- an entire pyramid and chain
> of things to the point where we're going to put a _government_ in control of
> people's livelihoods on that basis alone....

And what if YOU are wrong?

If I am wrong, then in the worst case we'll waste lots and lots of money
to achieve independence from fossil fuels decades earlier than we'd have
to. (Because face it: Ultimately the fossil fuel reserves /will/ be used
up. And in the best case the money spent won't even be wasted, just
spent earlier.)

If YOU are wrong, we'll waste the one and only place we can call our
home. And not even just for us, but potentially for all life.

So pray tell me, on which side would YOU prefer to err if there's nobody
we can really trust?


Also, achieving the ability to live from only what the sun gives us on a
day-to-day basis might have the beneficial side effect on reducing the
frequency of international conflicts.


And when I ask, "cui bono?" I always keep coming up with the same
answer: There are some very powerful and well-established interest
groups that benefit a lot from keeping the world entangled with fossil
fuels; on the other hand, at least from my seat, the interest groups
that would benefit from getting the world out of the fossil fuel trap
seem to be mostly underdogs, some of which weren't even around when the
scientific discussion about human-made climate change started.

So if we should be wary of manipulation, then isn't the powerful
pro-fossil-fuel faction the one we should be most wary of?

Post a reply to this message