|
You know, I think we'll never really know. It's hard to "test" any theories on this. Aside from computer modeling. So it really comes down to whom you believe (there are plenty of competent and knowledgeable scientists on both sides) and what you personally believe. Computer modeling is a common method among scientists (I think). It's up to you how much weight you want to give it. Isn't an MRI 'computer modeling'? Aren't alot of buildings designed and built based on computer modeling? The main problem is there is no other way to test it other than to let it run its course. But the problem is that we only get to do it once. How about running tests in a "biosphere" or some other "mini-earth" mock up and simulating the conditions?
Zeld2.0, I also live in LA and I agree with your contention of alternate energy sources. It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. I believe we can profit and conserve etc. ( I just wish I knew how).
Whatever global warming is happening, one thing is for sure: I don't like temperature rising. I would rather it get 'cooler' cause I can always put on another sweater but if it gets too hot and I'm down to my skivies, well then I'm running out of options.
If people in New England welcome global warming cause they think it's too cold, well, that's a bit short-sighted. Just move to Florida.
The global warming debate is like the evolution debate in that regard: No conclusive proof - there's compelling evidence, but no conclusive proof. I guess we can just pick and choose what we want to believe then.
|