No announcement yet.

Poll: Are Humans Causing Climate Change?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Poll: Are Humans Causing Climate Change -

    It must have been the internal combustion engine that caused the Medieval Warming period. The warming was very beneficial to humans living in Northern Europe by greatly increasing the land the was available for farming - allowed farming at higher altitudes.

    I remember my Western Civ Professor talking about some land that was farmed in 1000AD-1300AD would be farmed again until World War I or II.

    I hate Polls - there is No way to know how much level knowledge someone might have about Climate or Weather. I'll admit I'm no expert on the Climate or the weather - so I didn't vote. I do find it hard to believe that the Government bureaucrats are interested in protecting American Citizens. Did Congress protect American home owners from an out of control Real Estate Market (No because it was generating lots of Tax Revenues and Campaign donations). Climate Scientist are interested in keeping their Big customer happy -look at how much in Federal Revenue flows into R&D...


    • #17
      Originally posted by WDCRob
      I don't think anyone knows for sure what those percentages are c1ue. What if it's 90% of the change is due to human activity and half of it is reversible? Or 20% of the change is due to human activity, but failing to act will cause catastrophic changes?
      If a majority of the change were due to human derived CO2 and it was clear that reduction of MORE human derived CO2 would avert a catastrophe, then I would agree that the postulated action desired from Copenhagen etc seems warranted.

      However, neither the human portion of climate change, nor the human derived CO2 portion of climate change, nor the CO2 portion period of climate change, nor even the degree(s) of climate change is clear.

      All that is proven thus far is that CO2 has gone up and that there is a 1.5 degree/100 year trend.

      The insurance angle is similarly ridiculous.

      Paying $1000/year to insure a $200,000 replacement cost house is one thing.

      Paying 40% of world GDP for the next 30 years in order to solve a problem which isn't proven via a solution which equally isn't proven is ludicrous.

      This is even discounting the fact that the status quo desired would freeze billions of people in lower standards of living.

      If all the AGW fanatics really want to do their share, I suggest they first go live in 3rd world conditions for a few years.

      Simply driving a Prius and sticking some solar panels on the roof doesn't help.

      Reducing your standard of living by 75%...that would. And if you did that, then China and India would be much more willing to 'do their share'
      Last edited by c1ue; December 01, 2009, 03:53 PM. Reason: missing 'e' in climat