Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
#2 and #3 have nothing to do with the existence of climate change which is the topic at hand and where the skepticism is undue. I agree with #2 and #3. Rightwing propaganda purports that the entire thing, climate change as a whole, is a hoax, which is the most retarded position one can have. We know:
1. The climate is becoming hotter.
2. Humans are responsible for this abrupt and sizable change.
3. It's too late to quickly reverse.
We do not know: All the effects of this change going forward.
Every major economic stakeholder in the United States except renewable energy companies, which are poor and sparse, stands to benefit from muddying the waters on this. Your Republican representatives don't care what the truth is or what the evidence says, they only care about what the people who are paying their bribes want. And the people paying their bribes want to pollute.
|
this is a reasonable position and i agree with most of it. i think your second assertion is a bit off though. we are very confident humans have contributed to the change, but we do not know the magnitude of the contribution. the problem with advancing absolutes is that any grain of contrary evidence shatters the argument.
I've a question though. Given that it cannot be reversed quickly and despite broad agreement that we should do what we can to avoid exacerbating the condition (ignoring that there are benefits to warmer climates such as increased crop yields and an overall greener planet) do you think adaptation ought to be prioritized more, especially given that the west's ability to throttle any changes diminishes as rapidly as the third world industrializes?