Comment Re:In other news... (Score 1) 1200
Look, I believe that ozone depletion is cause by Cl - Fl molecules in the upper atmosphere. The evidence is there. Its been presented and I can read it and make a decision.
There isn't anything even close for global warming being caused by human activity. If someone showed me any/some evidence that I found convincing, I might change my mind. Telling me that someone else found the evidence convincing just doesn't cut it. Apparently a lot of other /. readers feel the same way.
Despite the opinion you may have formed to this point, I am not a fool. If I saw evidence that there was some chance of human activity causing a global climatic cataclysm, I'd be in favor of some changes.
But, I might say, "lets plant more trees". Or "lets dump Iron Sulfate out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean" (which starts a chain reaction that causes very large amounts of CO2 to be consumed and sink to the bottom of the ocean, where it's not in the atmosphere anymore and won't be for a very long time). And, I might say "lets worry about methane in the atmosphere and do something about it. (The greenhouse effect due to methane is much greater than due to CO2)" Then, after seeing if these things have effect I might even say we have to cut down on emissions. But, when I look at cost/benefit, the last item is just not at the top of the list.
Show me the evidence. Don't put words in other people's mouth. That is my point.
There isn't anything even close for global warming being caused by human activity. If someone showed me any/some evidence that I found convincing, I might change my mind. Telling me that someone else found the evidence convincing just doesn't cut it. Apparently a lot of other
Despite the opinion you may have formed to this point, I am not a fool. If I saw evidence that there was some chance of human activity causing a global climatic cataclysm, I'd be in favor of some changes.
But, I might say, "lets plant more trees". Or "lets dump Iron Sulfate out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean" (which starts a chain reaction that causes very large amounts of CO2 to be consumed and sink to the bottom of the ocean, where it's not in the atmosphere anymore and won't be for a very long time). And, I might say "lets worry about methane in the atmosphere and do something about it. (The greenhouse effect due to methane is much greater than due to CO2)" Then, after seeing if these things have effect I might even say we have to cut down on emissions. But, when I look at cost/benefit, the last item is just not at the top of the list.
Show me the evidence. Don't put words in other people's mouth. That is my point.
