Of course human activity has a negative effect on the environment. Only a fool would deny that.
But the *degree* of that effect is being exaggerated by political and corporate interests.
borndead1 wrote:
I happen to agree with this.
Lacking from every "scientific" study I've seen has been figures to go along with their "facts".
The climate is changing, and it's very likely that we're in an upswing in global temperatures right now.
If it's 100% due to mankind, tell us.
If it's not, then tell us what percent impact is from humans.
Then break that down further to show us the percent of human influence from fossil fuels, versus how we farm, clear cut forests, build asphalt highways and concrete cities. Never mind how we've dammed up our rivers and changed our landscapes by replacing native growth with ornamental.
But we all know there is no money to be made if the problem isn't tied to oil.
If someone else is better at searching the NASA site, I'd love to see how they break it down. Last time I looked was a couple years ago, and they had nothing.
A formal conclusion without quantitative support should not be taken seriously. To make policy without so much as a pie chart should be outright unlawful.
I'm all in favor of moving towards a cleaner environment. This politically manufactured crisis hasn't even budged us in that direction.