Quote:
Originally Posted by KB5252  I respect your views on this subject greatly, however I am sick of the debate about whether it is man made or not. I am pretty sure most Americans can agree man has an effect on the environment around him. What we need to do now is try and distinguish man made vs natural/cyclical warming and try to work out a compromise instead of short selling ourselves with restraints without any real idea of the extent of our impact.
It is a very complicated issue and neither side has it right. Sadly it has become the new "controversial issue" that defines your party affiliation. Before any politician says something as strong as "it is man made without a doubt" we need to know just how true that statement is! American policy can be affected by statements like this. |
I agree completely with your sentiments. There is nothing gained from further polarizing the issue...and we absolutely don't need more rhetoric. However, I think that we probably disagree on how much we know about man's impact...or know about the extent of our impact. The IPCC (and its task forces which are made up scientists from around the world) has combed through the scientific literature to make assertions about the extent of man's impact. I tend to accept those conclusions. I'm somewhat beyond the temperature issue...and now I'm more interested in how well we can predict the effects of that temperature increase - and I think that this could certainly be better (especially considering the $$ if we do something for no reason or don't do something when we should have).
Do you think the issue is that we need more studies...Or is the issue a perception that the existing studies are biased and therefore null and void? ....or is it that the politicians are just saying these things to make dramatic appeals but don't really understand it ... and aren't fully assessing the impact of their actions - either on the climate or the economy?