MrSmith Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 But without them we'd be living on a snowball...which is worse? I like the snow, but yes I agree the problem facing man is keeping them in balance, something that hasn’t really mattered before, the climate as always changed and many different species have been lost, but ultimately the climate always finds a balance. It’s different this time because humans are a big contributor the climate change and our ability to feed (7 billion plus) people depends on the climate being suitable to produce food and provide water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 What would be the point, you don't think man is in any part responsible for climate change, from your last post you also don't think the planets temperature and sea temperature are rising, if you are right then sea level won't rise and they will be safe from climate change, if you are wrong their habitat will be lost to the sea. Please don't presume to tell me what I think. The climate has always changed, sea levels have always fluctuated, I just don't see man as the primary driver of such changes. Could I ask what fixed temperature and sea level you'd like to set? Please also address the point that the sea level changes in the area are as a result of subduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Please don't presume to tell me what I think. You post what you think on here so I don't have to presume anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 You post what you think on here so I don't have to presume anything. Wrong, You stated that I thought that man had no part in climate change. I don't. I think man has a part in climate change, by way of deforestation and pollution. I don't think that man's CO2 output has any significant impact upon the climate though. So it would appear that your understanding of my thinking, like your understanding of climate change, is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Is anyone's understanding of the climate not flawed? I'd like to meet this person with perfect knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Agreed, it's the cold we have to worry about. What the warmists seem to forget is that the Titanic wasn't sunk by a heat wave... Wrong, I think man has a part in climate change, by way of deforestation and pollution. Why are you concerned about deforestation when you think we should be worrying about it getting colder? Deforestation makes the planet warmer, so if you are right then deforestation would be a good thing and make us all warmer. I on the other hand thing we should be looking at all the impacts man as on the climate from, deforestation, green houses gassed and other pollutants, and we definitely need renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Why are you concerned about deforestation when you think we should be worrying about it getting colder? Deforestation makes the planet warmer, so if you are right then deforestation would be a good thing and make us all warmer. I on the other hand thing we should be looking at all the impacts man as on the climate from, deforestation, green houses gassed and other pollutants, and we definitely need renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. I'm concerned about deforestation, mainly because it detroys a large proportion of the 'lungs' of our planet, and the fact that it means we are losing the natural habitats of many endangered species. Climate is not all about temperature or weather you know. I have no problem with looking at all the possible impacts man is having on our world. I just thing it's wrong to try and set policy based on incomplete, flawed and manipulated 'evidence' regarding one trace gas. PS I totally agree on finding alternatives to fossil fuels, however we shoudn't go off half cocked on this. The deforestation, and decreased food supply caused by the rush to biofuel crops was a mistake. I believe wind power to also be a mistake (unless we invest very heavily in pumped hydro). We need nuclear and we need it now. Edited January 30, 2012 by convert smelling pistakes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 We need nuclear and we need it now. You're wrong...we needed it about 5 years ago.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 You're wrong...we needed it about 5 years ago.. On that point, I will happily concede.... Maybe 10 years ago though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 On that point, I will happily concede.... Maybe 10 years ago though... Yep.we'd have been using it by now and not producing all that 'orrible CO2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now