Quote:
Quote by: flacidashtrack  Bush may care of the economics of the oil industry, at the same time as being blind to them too: i mean waging war aginst the country with the second highest reserves and consequently inflating barrel costs to record prices wasn't a bright initiative in my books.
Fact: 9 of the 10 hottest years ever recorded were in the last decade. Fact: levels of atmospheric CO2 are highest for, at least, 10,000 yr. What is also fact: US and EU cannot have got, nor stay at current development without present, or just less than present energy consumption levels. Fact: this level of energy consumption cannot b sufficed with renewables alone.
In my sceptic view: it will cost us the economy to save us from global warming, or global warming end up costing us the economy. catch 22 |
Ah yes, the "fact" based argument.......one of my favorites.
I have a few facts for you, pardner:
Fact: Several other planets in our solar system have been warming lately as well........too many SUV's on Mars?
Fact: The so-called scientists at the UN are known to have altered their data so as to ignore the Medieval Warming Period, because it is inconvenient to their results.
Fact: The "hockey stick" results of their computer modelling is known to be the result obtained no matter what data is input.
Fact: There used to be crops grown in Greenland, back when Eric the Red fooled some folks into settling there......the ruins still remain, from their evacuation due to the post-Medieval cooling of the climate.
Fact: There are records in the French archives in which the vinyards of the day were complaining of the competition from vinyards in England during the Medieval Warming Period.
Fact: Only three decades ago, "scientists" were telling us to get ready for the next ice age.
Fact: CO2 is NOT a pollutant.......it is actually what plants breathe, and in so doing, produce Oxygen for us to breathe.
Fact: CO2 levels have historically gone up AFTER a warming period, not before.
As for your, "sceptic view" (fruedian slip?), the first is not prudent, because the second is not yet proven-- which pretty much makes your "Catch 22" a fig newton of your over-active imagination, does it not?
As you were.