No. of Recommendations: 11
Minor things, of which I've posted before, like how we're cooler today than the geologic warming trend of our planet 11k years after the last glaciation; atmospheric CO2, the GHG about which so much worrying is done, has been much higher in past epochs, and the climate was both much warmer in those periods than today and life was lush, and much colder than today, and life was...not lush; and ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica indicate that atmospheric CO2 rises occur contemporaneously with or after planetary warming has begun.
No one disputes that the planet has been colder, and warmer, at other times in its history. There was once a giant snowball earth, and at other times a hellish landscape of fire and magma everywhere. Luckily neither of those two extremes are true at the moment, and we are in the Goldilocks era for human (and animal) habitation.
It seems that some don’t care whether we tend toward one extreme or the other, but what is clear is that once a trend develops it’s *devilishly* hard to reverse. Therefore it seems prudent to monitor such a trend, and if possible, and with minor inconvenience, try to keep the environment more or less where it is today, rather than wait so long and then realize you’ve gone past the tipping point and will have to wait another 4,000,000 years for things to come back into balance.
It is a fact that mankind is dumping about 1,000,000 years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere every 365 days via coal and hydrocarbons in auto exhaust, cruise ship emissions, heating byproducts, factory output, electricity production and the like - and there is a reasonable hypothesis that this is having an effect on the amount of heat trapped within the atmosphere. Scientists can find other times when there was more, but - and this is important - they can find no time when it shifted as rapidly and decisively as it has over the past decades.
Therefore, a prudent person, like a prudent investor, considers the possible outcomes, and perhaps makes a rational decision to come to grips with possible solutions. Some investors are downright stupid, or so recalcitrant that they refuse to do so, and they reap the rewards. Unfortunately in the case of the environment those “rewards” will be borne by future generations.
Then, buried at the end of your response, comes your adhominem remark. That greatly deprecates your seriousness.
I’ve always sort of thought that if it’s true, it’s not ad hominem. It’s more like “pointing out motivation.” YMMV, unfortunately.
