Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV
Don't worry Coign, I'm not talking to you. Your list of prerequisites clearly indicate your position and your interest and willingness to learn more facts. I do find it interesting that one of your conditions is that you're only interested in talking about non-politicized information and in the very next sentence you display a high degree of politicization on the very same subject. I wonder what you *do* with non-politicized information?
|
That is the problem with discussions of climate change right now. It immediately dives into politics right now. Carbon Tax, laws that outlaw incandescent bulbs, subsidiaries for ethanol, and more. There is a reason for governments to fund these papers that slant results to show it is happening so they can push more control, more taxes, and more money into the pockets of the congress/lobbiests backing it.
The problem is the computer models cannot prove or disprove climate change is man-made. And it is not even that they need to prove if it is happening or not, it it proving that carbon dioxide, the stuff that makes plants grow, is the cause of it.
Until we know it is happening, and more importantly know what it is causing it, anything we do to slow/halt/reverse it is just an unnecessary tax/control against an economy that does not have the money to spend.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/29/co2-levels/
Also Google "Climategate" and "Steve McIntyre" to get a start on a lot of views that say, "we don't have any proof. We are just now learning more about Climate and how we affect it."