Quote:
Originally Posted by ba1025
i don't think it's a stretch to think greenhouse gases may cause an increased greenhouse effect. Even if you argue the warming is a natural wouldn't we want to mitigate that natural trend to avoid the natural consequences. I have np with man changing his environment. i am not some knee jerker saying don't drill in Anwar...the polar bears are already fuxored whats the big deal. I also linked a .gov site where they reached the conclusion it was from increased CO2
|
It's a bit of a stretch but it's true stranger things have happened.
However, as there isn't actually any science that proves it, it's all just theory despite the IPCC press releases and the faith-based internet sites you've linked to.
You've got to admit, if you substituted the word 'god' for 'global warming' on those internet sites, you'd be sitting around a campfire singing kumbuyah and damning the heretics. 'He's not a man, he's a duck' 'that's true, I saw him floating in the water just the other day'.
The problem of course is that even though it's not proven, wouldn't it be better to do something, just to be on the safe side. Look after our kids and grandkids? Well yes, but....
When you f*ck with a system as complex as mans energy dependency you better be damn sure you know what you're doing, and be damn sure you need to do it.
Ethanol. Great, not more dirty oil.
More polution. Shhh.
Higher food prices. No worries, we can afford it.
Ah, but millions, possibly billions can't and will starve to death, because after all mass production of food is heavily reliant on petrochemicals right through the entire process, irrespective of whether you divert a small part of that food to provide combustible fuel.
The current food riots over a small price rise from increased ethanol production are nothing compared to the distortions in food prices that will occur when carbon tax gets applied to food production under Kyoto.
F*ck with the farms at your peril.