You base that on what? The lack of 100% hard evidence that our massive energy use isn't changing the dynamics of our planet at all? Because that can't be provided, it can't be considered? You don't even find it worth considering that we *might* be impacting the planet.. And that such an impact has consequences? No offense, but I know that keeping my house cool doesn't come without a cost - it's basic physics.Abraham wrote:So-called man made climate change is snake oil hyped as a warning for the rest of us to comply with whatever the snake oil salesman says we should do. We're all SOOOO guilty.
There are social agendas. There are economic agendas. There is money involved. That still doesn't necessarily change anything.
To me, there are 4 camps:
1) Humans aren't contributing to climate change.
2) Humans are contributing to climate change.
3) Not sure if humans have anything to do with it.
4) The climate isn't changing. Look at this weekend, it's cold.
I find it unfortunate that a lot of social and fiscal conservatives fall into category #4. At this point, they might as well believe the world is flat, because 99.9% of the respected scientific community says that climate is changing. You're not only ignoring science, you're ignoring history... The climate has been changing for thousands of years. That's what "climate change" means to me - and it hurts my ears to hear that it's all fiction.
So that leaves the other 3 camps. I've not no solid proof on #1 or #2, although one would be wise to keep an open mind and consider because we learn new stuff every day.
If you're in camp #3:
1) Consider the consequence of humans not really being a factor and taking unnecessary action.. We clamp down the economy unnecessarily (job loss) and force some innovation that would have occurred earlier. All for nothing.
2) Consider the consequence of humans being a factor and taking action.. Likely we improve the condition of the planet and we prevent a much bigger economic melt-down than we had if we did nothing. Perhaps. Some point out that it might be moot anyway... Perhaps.
3) If humans are not a factor and we do nothing - we're no worse for wear.
4) If humans are a factor and we do nothing - well, we made a much bigger mess than we were in previously..
So, if you're not sure.. balance the risk. The odds are about 25% on those 4 choices, assuming their weighed equally.
And look there are some good things that come out of this. I like to point out that a late 1960s muscle car probably put down 400 hp and got 7mpg. Today, the same vehicle puts down 400hp and can do 20 mpg. Those "greenhouse gas" clampdowns resulted in innovation and decreased our dependance on foreign oil. We could still be driving cars that get 7mpg (if gas cost the same) and cars would cost less, but perhaps is some of it is good?