Absolutely ZERO: 'climatologists will put the current erratic climate activity solely down to man-made global warming"!
Who, in GOD'S name said they NEEDED to????
All that it needs is for us to have INCREASED on the (let's call it) BACKGROUND global warming to make the difference! If we have contributed by (for eample) 50% to the 'backgound', then we would HELP the situation to CUT our influence, even by 25%!
Remember, discussing this stuff is difficult with YOU lot! Some of you are not even aware that it is happening AT ALL (e.g., Singers, who KEEPS alternating between 'yes it is' and 'we are going into an ICE age!) so that SOME of my answers have to be generaic'!
Even YOU have accepted that we HAVE made a difference to the RATE of global warming! So, you are CORRECT, we are NOT saying that mankind's actions are 100% responsible for it...... we never NEEDED to! Who thought it WAS necessary
Secondly, JUST like your claim for climate change: there was 'NO evidence' that you UNCLE was dying at the start of his illness , either! Would THAT have been an excuse for him to carry on! To start with, all the doctors would have said was 'cut down a bit, mate'! That's where MOST of us 'came in' on the Global Warming 'discussion'....... We now feel that it's gone FURTHER than than. The planet's 'health' has proceeded to the stage where we are sying: if you DON'T cut down, it's possible that it will KILL you. Even if you survive, you will be SEVERELY damaged!'. The damage is already CLEARLY VISIBLE in places like 'New Orleans' (as a 'shorthand for iu=invreased hricane and tornado damage)! Add in all, the OTHER 'symptoms' (Polar Melts, missing glaciers, season changes, more SEVERE weather, etc etc.) and we are getting towards the stage where the doctors told your uncle that he was in SERIOUS danger of KILLING himself if he carried on!
Remember, you Uncle was NOT the first to do this BUT it is the VERY FIRST and the ONLY time that we CAN do this to our planet! If WE get it wrong.... then there are NO 'nephews' to DISCUSS that matter LATER! It is therefore MUCH easier for the doctor to express the risks to your uncle in terms of PREVIOUS patient's 'outcomes' . What OTHER cases can we POINT to on global warming? Well, we COULD look at Venus and Mars..... however......
**************
The F*** example
Errr.... what would you LIKE me to say! Yes, I have been banging on about 'too many people' since I was 16 years old (damn me, that was FORTY YEARS AGO!!! God, I AM old!) in a school debate where I LEAD the argument for LESS people! Yes.... it would be the BEST thing for the planet to REDUCE the population! Only a MORON would NOT think so! However, just find a way to DO it that is MORALLY acceptable!
But, what, In GOD'S name allows YOU to jump to the BIZARRE conclusion that: "doing anything else will not work"? You tell-US-off for 'lack of EVIDENCE' for OUR ideas but just show me ANY evidence that reducing our 'average' 'co2' production by 50% per person would NOT have EXACTLY the SAME effect as reducing the POULATION by 50%.
Personally, I cannot think of a SINGLE morally acceptable way to cut the population by 50% within a time limit that WILL 'save the planet' but I can think of LOADS of morally acceptable ways to cut our 'co2' emmisions by that much! Just show me ANY evidence that a 50% cut in 'co2' output would NOT have the effect that a 50% cut in population! If you manage THAT, then explain how a 75% cut in aour AVERAGE 'co2' output would not be AT LEAST as effective as a 50% reduction in population! We both KNOW that you can't!
Was THAT the question I promised to answer???
Ian
|
|