
23-09-2009, 02:49 PM
|
 |
Worse or better?
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 319
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coen
- Finally, climate change skeptic does not equate to an environmental ravager, to link the two goes to the emotional and political rather than the rational and as a result you get exploitation by both sides of the debate with no chance of sensible resolution.
P.P.S. Encourage everyone to take care of their environment, it is the sensible thing to do.
|
True, science is based upon people being sceptical. Quite often when there is a debate or discussion when I mention that I am not 100% sold on the idea of man-made global warming for my own reasons I get looked at like I was Hitler and stupid, when all they have done on the topic is read whatever the newspaper tells them and that they had watched An Inconvenient Truth.
I am open to either way of thinking, man-made, natural or no global warming. Too many people make up their mind about what is truth (either side of the debate) and then become zealots who ridicule and harass anyone that doesn’t follow.
And to your second point, I could not agree more, the argument is really nullified because the end result (less emissions and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels) is a good one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rabbit
I find it incredible that this debate still rages on.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rabbit
Forget global warming, it's sideshow and a distraction. We need to find alternate fuel/energy sources other than the carbon based ones we use now.
Fact, they will run out and soon.
|
We will run out one day, but what is the more urgent nature of your argument is that we will exceed sustainable peak supply. Meaning that humans will need more fossil fuels for everything that we use, that can be extracted from it and once demand exceeds supply we are in a tad of trouble.
|