|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Jan 20, 2010 6:28 am |
|
re: re: re: The Reality of Climate Change |
Thomas Holford
| |
Reg Charie sayeth:
> Thomas said:
>The essential issue, from my perspective, is: To what extent does human activity cause irreversible long team changes to the earth's climate.
>>And my answer is: as a practical matter, the effect of human activity on earth's climite is negligible.
> We must live in different world Thomas.
I'm sure we do. And I've written an extensive posting in just that topic.
> I have seen whole forests turn brown due to acid rain.
I have watched wildlife and dwindle and species hunted/fished into oblivion.
> I have seen the destruction of countless habitats, including some belonging to humans. (They paved paradise and put in a parking lot).
> I have sailed through countless miles of plastic and debris in the Sargasso Sea.
> I have seen a switch from trusting tap water to buying bottled.
> I've seen what happens to the land when it is strip mined, over farmed and over forested.
> I've seen fresh clean water polluted by the effluent of cities. Just check the beach reports around Toronto in the summer.
> How about the holes in the ozone layer?
> And you say we don't have any effect?
Which illustrates perfectly my point about the inability of people to think in a disciplined way because NONE of this laundry list has any bearing on whether or not human activity causes global warming.
If you think any of this provides evidentiary support for the proposition that human activity causes global warming you would earn a richly deserved "F" in any serious institution of science learning.
> Do we have ENOUGH of an effect to cause global warming should be the question.
No. It's not the question.
Merely proving that we have ENOUGH of an effect to cause global warming is NOT the same as proving that we ACTUALLY CAUSE global warming. Global warming has occurred long before humans roamed the earth, and what global warming that HAS occurred in the human era is not consistently correlated with human activity.
Science is rigorous. Science makes distinctions because distinction is about understanding.
Politics blurs distinctions because politics is about displacing understanding with emotion.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford (new win) |
|
| |
|
