5 Points To Remember About The Global Warming Debate
There has been so much written about climate change by scientists and others in support or opposition or skepticism of global warming. However, there are several points that everyone should know irrespective of which camp they belong to in that debate (more details here).
1. The science of climate change is NOT settled
Cutting-edge tools/methods are required to settle that debate (here are more details on why the science has not been settled yet).
2. Pollution is pollution and no one can reasonably argue it is good for us
Some people may argue that CO2 is not a pollutant and won't affect climate change negatively (more details here). Again, without employing cutting-edge tools/methods to determine such change quantitatively, such arguments can not be supported.
3. A sensible plan to achieve pollution-free standards must be adopted
It won't matter whether such pollution-free effort leads to global warming or cooling. Cutting-edge tools/methods can help us ascertain how such effort may lead to global warming or cooling. For those who argue pollution is beneficial should also use cutting-edge tools/methods to demonstrate such beneficial effects.
4. Get politics out of sensible policymaking
5. All countries, big or small, must choose to do their part in addressing the global pollution problem
President & CEO Nicsysco Inc
9yJim, the fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you do not distinguish between pollution and the climate-change-caused-by-man hoax. I agree with you that trying to justify pollution is irresponsible, but I don't think you can show to legitimate sources that hold to the position that "pollution is good." Which brings the track record of this hoax's proponents into view. If you were a banker and anyone applies for a substantial line of credit with a track record such as the proponents have, would you extend to them another dime? I think not; I think any responsible banker would rather foreclose in the light of every single promise to make good on payments has been violated, every business model proposed to bring liquidity has been fundamentally altered and the moneys that were collected were spent on self-aggrandizing and self-profiting projects. None of what they promised or predicted came to pass. Actually, their predictions turned out to have been made on fabricated evidence and tampered climate models. If it had been in a financial institution situation, it would be fraud and people would be on their way for an extended stay with Bernie Maddoff. And what are we, their bankers (since they want to exact money from us for their theories) supposed to do when they do not celebrate the fact that the oceans didn't rise and New York is still above sea level almost 10 years after they predicted it would be a marine lab? They are not glad that they were wrong and millions of people didn't get killed. Instead they doubled down on the disastrous predictions having just pushed the fruition of their utterances so far into the future that none of us would live to see whether they were right or not; a fatal mistake they made 30 years ago. I think people who still hold on to that hoax are finding that their bona fides are getting in serious jeopardy. On what other matters would they hold on to flights of fantasy while prima facie evidence exists that they have been wrong and are still wrong? I wouldn't hire anyone in a policy-making role who would get dragged away by such blatant irrationalities. Would you?
Founder & Executive Director at OCIOA
9yWell Saids !
James: I enjoy your perspective - Thanks for contributing a reasoned and practical voice to the conversation.