I think if you bothered to read more about the science from reputable sources, you'd appreciate how confident we are that this is man made. But again, if you read my last comment, the sane thing is not to wait until we're 100% sure that we've doomed ourselves, it's to make sure that we're safe, and we're decades past that already. Structures are built to be safe under the vast majority of operating conditions, you wouldn't argue to continue using a bridge with the assurance that the best engineers are confident that it's going to collapse soon, but they can't yet be absolutely certain. Why would you take that insane stance for the world's climate?
No need to apologize as I can take much harsher language, and sometimes it's nice to speak plainly.
Depends how much of that corporate cool aid you've been sucking down...
I hope you're not going to tell me that you trust a couple of dodgy blogs over NASA and the United Nations?
you'd appreciate how confident we are that this is man made.
I could buy that argument, but what can we do about the extreme pollution being caused in SE Asia by dictatorial regimes? We barely scratch the surface when it comes to pollution coming from China and India. Everyone loses their shit when and negative action is taken towards China, taking action to get them to reduce emissions will be very painful
Get your logic straight - it makes no sense to bring up problems concerning global coordination to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as though they are some sort of condition on your acceptance of the fundamental science.
Your assessment of the cause of the problem should be independent of your analysis of the solutions. If you don't agree with this I think you're a fundamentally dishonest person.
As for blaming poor brown countries: Taking strong action for them may mean people starving and rioting (note Equador recently): real societal pain. It's laughable to expect that of them before richer nations have really made strong commitments, commitments that don't necessitate severe social hardship. Once wealthy countries get their shit together, they can pressure/encourage the others to tow the line as a united front.
Sorry, I haven't been sleeping well and used harsh language in my post while severely lacking sleep. I'll try to clarify.
My main philosophy is "how do we know that the temperature rise and ice loss would not currently be happening in a very similar manner if humans did not exist at all?" The earth has gone through what, 7 mass extinction events already, how do we know that it isn't just on a cycle towards number 8, irregardless of any human intervention?
That is more of my thinking. I also think a lot of carbon taxes are ridiculous and do nothing to solve the problem. The Paris Accord was a joke....ok China and India, the worst polluters, can keep expanding for at least 10 more years while all western nations wind down and pay a lot of money to......what? Export their industry to China and India who are not bound by the agreement?
Do gas taxes really make most people drive less? Even The Washington Post argues that ya, raising gas tax won't change people's habits.
Also, why did Al Gore preach global sea level rising from melting ice caps and then use the profits from his book to buy a several million dollar beach house? Idiots that are contradictory make people skeptical