Well said nedsaid.nedsaid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:15 am I know the Economist Magazine believes in all of this stuff but I have my doubts. First, the earth has been warmer than it is now, during the time of the Roman Empire, and history seems to show that civilization thrived. Second, the warming that we saw might have just been an emergence from the "Little Ice Age." Third, there seems to be a cyclicality to all of this. I have read that we saw warming during the 1920's and 1930's. Fourth, a lot of this is based upon computer models which have produced less than accurate forecasts. Two examples, the Ice Caps didn't disappear in 2013 and hurricane activity didn't pick up as predicted. Indeed, we saw a period of relative calm that lasted several years. Fifth, the influential people who lecture us most on this are energy hogs themselves, living in mansions and flying to conferences in private jets. The irony of the picture of private planes stacked up at Davos where the owners were attending a climate change conference.
Certainly I favor clean air and clean water. Certainly I favor greater energy efficiency and cleaner forms of energy. But there needs to be a real discussion on this and not just told "the science is settled." We can't even make 100% accurate short term weather forecasts. Too often, people who raise question are just silenced. Science has never been about "consensus." There is also the suspicion that the data has been tampered with.
Most of the North American continent was under sheets of ice not so many thousands of years ago. The earth warmed and there was no industry, no automobiles, no coal plants, and of course many fewer people. I also recall reading somewhere of a find of a Wholly Mammoth that appeared to have been flash frozen, like there had been a dramatic and sudden drop in temperatute. So it seems that climate changes over time and not too much man could do about it.
I also recall that when I was in grade school in the early 1970's that there was concern about a new ice age. Global cooling. Less than 15 years later, we were worried about warming. The hypothesis about warming and increased levels of carbon dioxide was a good one but there are many, many more factors at work here. In the 1970's, I remember that we had only twenty years before we were all polluted to death. Disaster is always around the corner but after a lifetime hearing conflicting theories and data, I am just skeptical.
Certainly, I applaud the great progress that has been made with environmental cleanup. Both the air and water are considerably cleaner than when I was a child. We are actually seeing reforestation here in North America. We have made progress with endangered species. So that battle hasn't been won yet and there is a lot to go but again much progress has been made.
Work on little changes you can make in your own sphere of influence and under your control. Buying carbon credits won't do anything but line someone else's pockets.
Read Valuethinker's post followed by nedsaid's. Now you understand why this issue is so polarizing. Science is settled, obfuscation with terms and science meant to strike fear into all, you are denier, meh.
I'll do things in my sphere of influence and in my control. The rest is noise, fear and aimed at separating me from my money. The guy in the next cube must have "methane pulsed" in his cube. I smelled it when I walked by.