The dollar menu is the dollar menu for a reason.
Seriously, though, the more I learn about human contributions to global climate change, the less certain I am of it, but only because I haven't taken the time to study the subject thoroughly; if I spent more time I would be more certain, though I'm not sure which way I'd go. I have seen a couple papers which showed that working only with the radiative heat transfer properties of CO2 it is difficult to support a claim that even a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations would raise the temperature more than a fraction of a degree (Celsius). Methinks there would have to be more to it than CO2.
To be honest, the reality of it doesn't matter to me. Impending doom makes me apathetic, and if we are all fucked because of our carbon emissions I'd rather not do anything. The ideological split to me is a good indicator that a lot of the people who have a position on either side of the issue haven't given the science of it much thought.
On the other hand, there are a lot of reasons to do the things that we're supposed to do to avoid global catastrophe that don't rely on avoiding global catastrophe as a motivation. It's kind of a non issue for me.
Last edited by filtherton; 05-07-2008 at 10:18 AM..
|