Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
BagBoy, I in no way (personally) refuse to acknowledge humans' impact on global warming. CO2 emissions are certainly a result of human activity, but there's still a challenge in attaching that factor to the recent overall rise in temperature since the industrial revolution.
What? You admit that CO2 emissions are rising due to human activity. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and traps heat, and yet you are saying there is challenge in connecting rising temperatures with human activity?
Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
There's the "mini ice-age" during a several hundred year period leading up to the industrial revolution that jacks up a proper comparison of temperatures. There is the issue of mini temperature waves during each century to deal with, and then figuring out how the earth's overall temperature has actually increased over the larger course of time.
The study in the article was addressing CO2 levels, not temperatures directly, but it went back 22,000 years, so from a CO2 perspective they have enough data to smooth out any anomalies. From the article-> “The concentration of carbon dioxide increased by 31 parts per million during one 1,600-year interval in the pre-industrial period -- its fastest growth before the industrial age -- and went up by the same amount in the past 20 years.” We can study past temperature swings until the cows come home, but this planet has never had 7 billion people burning stuff like we do now. Temperature swing studies with data from prior to the industrial age have very little relevance to the here and now under these circumstances, because based on those CO2 numbers, it’s gonna get really hot, really fast, and it’s only just beginning.
Look, I’m not blaming anyone, or saying we need to trash our economy to save the planet. The point is that this is real, and it’s actually happening. I can’t believe that it’s too much to ask that this issue is simply acknowledged. Why can’t Joe Conservative just say, ‘yes global warming is real, but I’m not in favor of environmental standards that hurt jobs’? I have so much more respect for that response versus a response of ‘we don’t need environmental standards, because everything is peachy’.
Also, when you think about it, isn’t it immoral to deny global warming? Let’s say some giant asteroid is heading straight for earth, but we don’t currently have the technology to stop it from hitting us. So, from now until it hits us, do we deny it exists, or do we acknowledge it and work to do what it takes to deal with it?