I'll start at the end. It wasn't the question you promised to answer. Simply put, can reducing our carbon output by 50% compensate for the additional carbon produced by an exponentially increasing world population ? My example indicates that it can't.
Now back to the other stuff. In fact this is where it comes full circle once again to the beginning.
o There is no 'proof' of a connection between human activity and adverse climate change. There are hypothesis only.
o There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any of the recent disasters such as what happened in New Orleans or the flooding in the West Midlands last year were the result of man made climate change. Again, there are hypothesis but they can not get even close to being proven... and they're historic. By the way, there is however plenty of evidence to link those horrors to bad adaptation - another matter, I know.
o As a consequence, not one single human death can be put down to man-made climate change. As before, it can be hypothesized but that's all.
o Furthermore, there is not one shred of evidence to indicate that we will be unable to adapt to man-made climate change. Again, it can be hypothesized.
So there we are.
But even if the statements above could be proven... I'm interested to hear how we can do anything about it while we have an exponentially growing world population.
|
|