Here is an interesting question - I did not read about it on Political Forum.com, but I will post a response to it:
The fact is that if there was a anthropogenic cause for global warming it would not make a difference because any 'negative externality' has to be established on the basis that the trend is destined to cause harm to specific individuals. The fact that the process of change takes so long and change is occurring anyway tends to underpin any such consideration.
An argument could also be made that CO2 is a fertiliser to plants, and that enrichening the atmosphere will eventually result in stimulated plant growth, and higher temperatures would result in more evaporation, cloud formation and precipitation, resulting in greater oxidation (i.e. usually by carbolic acid, i.e. CO2) and more reflection of UV back into space.
The greatest obstacle to the current climate change debate is the lack of a compelling 'causation' for it. I would however suggest solar flares is far more credible as a cause.
--------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
No comments:
Post a Comment