Quote:
Originally Posted by BBQMan
Do you have metrics to support that statement or are you buying into the rhetoric that has made Al Gore a multi-millionaire? Should you dig into the data you will find that there is a good reason why the term 'global warming' has been replaced by the term 'climate change'. May I suggest you look at the worldwide network of sea level stations monitored by NOAA to start?
|
The reason that "global warming" was 'replaced' with the term "climate change" was because that's what it REALLY is when you get all-inclusive.
I remember during the first few times I'd heard the term, they DID include the idea that warming of the seas would produce more violent hurricanes and more severe storms in general.
Do I believe man is responsible 100% for climate change? No. Do I believe that we are contributing to it? Yes. How much? That's the crapshoot.
I mean, the climate change opponents point to ONE study that had some questionable practices (the East Anglia University scandal). Personally I think it's GOOD that the scandal was uncovered.
But you still have over 98% of the scientific community saying we're contributing to climate change. You can match up climate evidence in prehistory (like carbon levels in the atmosphere locked in polar ice) to predict what happens HERE when carbon levels get that high. We've seen what carbon does on a runaway scale (Venus) and we see what happens when there isn't enough (Mars).
Do I think we should go on a 100% anti-carbon crusade? No. Do I think we should use some common sense that gets us off of fossil fuels that will, by the way, stop sending money to people that want to kill us? Yes.
Heck, if nothing else, it'll save our domestic oil for all it's OTHER uses and make it last longer.