RR, if you persist in calling everyone who disagrees with your opinion "ignorant," I will edit/delete your posts. Understood? No need to close the thread because
you can't keep it civil.
I did not rely on novels for my points, so I am not certain as to what you refer. I happen to have been following this debate since the WMO convened the first panel of scientists back in the 1980s and the IPCC was subsequently formed. Read the IPPC reports @
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prepared by scientists,
not a science fiction writer like Michael Crichton. Even trimmed back as they were by the governmental "reviewers," the latest assessments are backed with enough data and supporting research to make anyone reading them with an open mind to accept that anthropogenic impacts are real and in all likelihood accelerating and deepening the warming trend. We might debate which and how much and how fast, but most who have studied the issue in-depth have concluded that the data and trend cannot be explained solely by natural phenomena such as solar activity and cosmic rays.
Much of what we have to do for climate change mitigation and adaptation are things we probably should be doing anyway, such as switching to cleaner fuels, adopting more efficient engines/electronics/electrical devices, conserving electricity, closing/converting open-air trash dumps (which emit methane), slowing and stopping deforestation...so why not take such steps even if we are not yet sure of the magnitude and precise timing of the probable negative impacts of global climate change?
In an earlier post (#68), you somewhat cavalierly say at least you won't be around to see it happen. Makes me wonder if you have kids. I do. And if the scientists are anywhere near correct in their latest projections, my children will see the negative impacts. I may not live to see it all, but they will, and that matters to me.
(10)
