There should be no debate that the climate changes. It has been changing since the beginning of the planet. The real climate debate should be about whether mankind is elephant or the pimple on the elephant's butt in this climate scenario.
For me, mankind is the pimple in this case. Look at the fact that New York was once covered in 200 feet of ice. The receding glaciers created the Great Lakes. Mankind was a minor player in these events. If mankind is so much of a force, why can't we remove the mountains along the west coast so that the east bound moisture can reach the parched lands of Nevada, Utah, western Washington, Arizona, etc.? If mankind is so powerful, why can't we control the wildfires in the parched western US?
In other parts of the world, let's return the Sahara region to a fertile savanna. Getting rid of the Himalayas could return the Gobi desert to a fertile region.
Remember what John J McKetta said about pollution way back in the mid 70s. There was more pollutants put into the earth's atmosphere by just three large volcanos erupting than all the cars that have ever been produced.
My point is that I think it is the height of hubris to think we have the kind of power to have world changing power over the climate of the earth. I think the purpose of the climate change debate is to find a way to tax someone to get revenue for the government.
For those of you who believe that mankind is making such a "huge" impact on the world's climate, make a case on how we should behave to reverse this "huge" impact. Short of going back to 1850 style of living, what should be done?
For me, mankind is the pimple in this case. Look at the fact that New York was once covered in 200 feet of ice. The receding glaciers created the Great Lakes. Mankind was a minor player in these events. If mankind is so much of a force, why can't we remove the mountains along the west coast so that the east bound moisture can reach the parched lands of Nevada, Utah, western Washington, Arizona, etc.? If mankind is so powerful, why can't we control the wildfires in the parched western US?
In other parts of the world, let's return the Sahara region to a fertile savanna. Getting rid of the Himalayas could return the Gobi desert to a fertile region.
Remember what John J McKetta said about pollution way back in the mid 70s. There was more pollutants put into the earth's atmosphere by just three large volcanos erupting than all the cars that have ever been produced.
My point is that I think it is the height of hubris to think we have the kind of power to have world changing power over the climate of the earth. I think the purpose of the climate change debate is to find a way to tax someone to get revenue for the government.
For those of you who believe that mankind is making such a "huge" impact on the world's climate, make a case on how we should behave to reverse this "huge" impact. Short of going back to 1850 style of living, what should be done?
