View Single Post
Old 03-03-2014, 06:45 PM   #34
l'oiseau
**BANNED**
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,154
I just thought of something I probably should have mentioned previously in my argument.

I know you just want me to state a position and argue it. I'm more 50% on the side of global warming - but that really doesn't matter, and that's what I realized.

I'll give a scenario, which seems unrelated... but I assure you is.

The earth will be hit by an asteroid in it's future. It has been in the past, and it will again. Science won't be able to predict this in any certainty until very close to the actual event. There are a million reasons why, but that being said, it doesn't mean that the earth won't be hit at some time. There is also a small probability that my first statement is false and it will never be struck again. This is an unlikely outcome, so to make those who want definitive answers, we'll say it MUST be true.

Now the earth may be struck by many asteroids in it's future, but how many will cause mass extinction. Again, science cannot give us the answers. If the event were to happen, it may be able to predict it with some degree of accuracy close to actual event.

Now lets consider climate change. The chances are highly in favor that the Earth will experience a climate change in it's future. It has gone through many in it's past, or at least we have some degree of data that provides evidence that it may have. No actual measurements from those times exist so we have to infer them from modern day measurements.

So we can assume that the Earth may undergo a climate change in the future, the odds are high. Exactly when or how is the issue. Climatologists argue it going to happen very, very soon. And we aren't even certain how many of them agree on this. Some evidence exists, but evidence also exists of asteroids and proximity to the Earth. We also know there are plenty we can't see, because space is dark, so many are lurking out there that could be in a direct path with the Earth.

So we have some evidence that things are changing, the evidence is there, within our measurement error. But we really don't know the course, that is all speculation. It is like one of those dark asteroids out there... we are modelling it will hit us and cause a mass extinction. The real question is not who is right, it is why do we play the odds?

Would we play the odds with an asteroid? Or would we just ignore it until it was a few miles away, and then panic. Would we keep our 'eye' on it and decide if it was a threat in the future, when possibly it is too late to deflect it? Seems illogical.

So who really cares what the outcome could be, why not focus on regulation of the issues that cause problems now. We all know too much of anything is not a good thing. So why should CO2 be any different? And do we really want to gamble on such an event if there is some suggestion that it could be stopped?

That is the position I am in and the argument I will always stand by. Even if the models predicted that there was 1/1000 chance that we'd cause a mass extinction, why would we risk it? If we have the intelligence to understand the consequences, then maybe we ought to be more careful with our ecosystem or suffer the fate.
l'oiseau is offline