Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
That's an example of a hypothetical doomsday scenario, but as you can see there's a long chain "This could cause this", each has some probability, and the more of them you chain together the more improbably the scenario becomes. So they're described, but they're not proposed.
The media is notoriously bad at reporting science so it doesn't distinguish between these things. And politicians are worse at reporting science so you had Al Gore using outdated science on climate change from the seventies, where they had an exaggerated climate change.
I'm more of a moderate, I believe that the climate change we experience since the late fifties is caused mainly by human activity. I believe there's reason enough to suspect that accumulated over the next century it will cause significant disruptions to the biosphere, a lot of species of animals will die off, and there will be negative consequences on the economy of many countries. Based on the evidence we have, I conclude that action taken now is better than action taken later. It's more expensive to adapt than to prevent.
I don't believe it will kill humans.
As for any arguments based on NOAA or NASA data, they have been caught deceptively manipulating their numbers so frequently and so blatantly that I simply don't trust them. Sorry.
The raw data is available at the weather stations though, you can contact them and get them yourself. Some bloggers have done that, I'll see if I can find them.
I'm glad I did that though, I got a full time employment a while back.
Comment