victor809 wrote:What, you're the one who is using the "it's a natural cycle" as a reason to not even consider what could be an interesting problem.
I mean, lets take this discussion into a more "black and white" realm, to remove any ambiguity.
Lets say that the planet starts warming up 10 degrees every year. After a couple years we find out it's because the solar output is increasing, as measured by spacecraft (so this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the earth or anything humans are doing). Our greatest minds all agree (every last one of them, including those paid by the oil companies) that if we do nothing, the planet will continue to warm exactly 10 degrees (year round, every temperature you currently have will increase by 10) every year until 2023 (so in 2023 every temperature will be 100 degrees warmer year round), and at 2023 the temperatures will remain stable for an extended period (about 100 years), after which the planet will cool down again.
If we do nothing, we all die. It's unarguably natural causes. But I'm sure if we put our minds to it we could find a way to survive it.
So, is your stance still "it's a natural phenomenon, we shouldn't bother doing anything"?
Since we’re playing hypotheticals, what if they are wrong? As it stands right now, the climate models are so laughably incomplete, and so laughably wrong that the only way you’re going to get concrete proof that a warming trend will hit the target you think it will, is for the warming to have actually already occurred.
If it doesn’t actually occur, and the “consensus” of scientists is dead, flat, wrong (which they can be because they are absent any sort of god-like powers to see into the future), and you “fix” the problem before it occurs, what you inevitably do is actually make things worse in the opposite direction. Because, historically, when you do things for the first time, they tend to be one-way streets; meaning that they cannot be easily backed down, or reversed. So, they do successive band-aids to “fix” the problem they created in the first place.
You can model a building to take the impact of a meteor. You will never know whether your models are correct or flawed until the meteor actually hits a building you constructed with the aid of your model. Anyone who has EVER developed anything knows this as a cold, hard fact. There is always an uncertainty when it comes to models, because in most models there are still variables that are not compensated for. Which is the reason why – after 100+ years of continual internal combustion engine development – the only real test of whether your design works or not is to actually construct the engine, and test it on a testbench. And automative companies do that with every…frickin’…engine.
There it is for you in black-and-white.
So, in essence, you can easily create a massive problem where none existed in the first place. And that has just as high a probability of happening as the scenario they you presented, Victor, as both rely on predictions whose process is FAR from accurate. And given the slavish, bovine-esque herd mentality of the Climate Change crowd, I’d say that my scenario is more likely to occur than the opposite. Why? Because when has it been proved that a natural, cyclical change in climate occurred in the past that destroyed all life on the world? The answer –to my knowledge – is never. The other reason is that historically, these type of people have created these artificial hysterias (and this has been documented to be true since the early 1900s) with just as much cyclical regularity as the earth’s climate.
Likewise, how do you know what you’ve done to fix the problem is actually going to work? The answer is: you don’t.
I guess in the end, Victor, it really comes down to this: if you want to “fix” the earth’s climate be my guest. I’m going to Heaven after I die a horrible death at the hands of Climate Change nutjobs. You’re an atheist – you won’t.
