I have yet to accept we contribute to global warming.Bubba wrote:If you accept that man contributes even a little bit to global climate change, then that's all you need in order to conclude that we should take reasonable steps (as stewards of the planet) to reduce that impact. As one who tends to look at things in black and white and right and wrong, that should be good enough for you. We should, as good citizens of the planet Earth, use as little of Earth's resources as we can, waste as little as we can, be as efficient as we can in using resources and, clearly, pollute as little as we can. You should support doing this not because of global climate change but because, as one who looks at things in black and white and right and wrong, it's the right thing to do. Right? (or wrong?)
Perhaps I wasn't clear, mankind has had an effect on the Earth, but whether that effect has been contributed to Global Warming has yet to be determined.
If we're advocating the conservation of resources, energy, and pollutants, I'm 100% for it, but not on the premise we're doing it to stop Global Warming ... something we may or may not play a part in.
Yup, you're right. I'm 100% OK with changing my way of life in the advocacy of providing a cleaner Earth ... my beef is with those that feel change is necessary because if we don't change, Manhattan will be under water by 2043.
I can imagine the faces on these people when we've made all the changes, signed legislature for conservation, elected officials based on their Global Warming platform, raised taxes to pay for the "reduction" of global warming, spent billions of dollars to help stop Global Warming, and Global Warming continues ... this is why it's important to spread the correct information and not a diagram of Manhattan underwater to impressionable young people and others ... otherwise, the gov't could expect the same response as Iraq. The citizens will point to the gov't as a bunch of liars because they didn't come clean, instead they forced some "iffy" intelligence down our throat ... only this time for Global Warming, they'll be stuffing "iffy science" down out throat.
The only fact is that the Earth is warming by some means, but regardless of this, we should advocate a cleaner Earth because it's the right thing to do ... Not because some politician(s) and scientist(s) think Manhattan will be under water in 2043.
Just imagine ... we make all these changes and spend billions of dollars to help stop Global Warming, but Manhattan goes under anyway ... when that happens, who's going to tell Wall Street after the billions of dollars spent "Hey, it wasn't scientific fact, we just said it was to get change, we really have no role in Global Warming, now get lost!"?
