

Return to Almora, by Rajendra Pachauri











Comments     Threshold


RE: Crank of the Week
By reader1 on 2/10/2010 12:02:58 PM , Rating: -1
Global warming isn't a threat to mankind

Prove it.

RE: Crank of the Week
By kattanna on 2/10/2010 12:44:57 PM , Rating: 5
how about you prove that it is a threat?

RE: Crank of the Week
By reader1 on 2/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Crank of the Week
By kattanna on 2/10/2010 3:13:48 PM , Rating: 1
why? if CO2 where the primary reason for warming, then the temperature would rise steadily year after year as the concentration rose, yet it hasnt.

proof alone that CO2 isnt the MAJOR cause of climate change.

RE: Crank of the Week
By xpax on 2/10/2010 9:17:50 PM , Rating: 1
That's what we're attempting to do by decreasing C02 emissions.

Incorrect. Decreasing CO2 emissions is a response, not a diagnosis. In order to justify a response, there needs to be something verifiable to respond to.

By the way, it's CO2, not C02. One carbon atom, two oxygen. It's not the number on the side of the General Lee.

RE: Crank of the Week
By MozeeToby on 2/10/2010 3:24:37 PM , Rating: 3
The question isn't whether it's a threat or not, if global temperatures increase by a significant amount, it will cause problems. Rises in sea level, changing ocean currents, and changing weather patterns. Furthermore, we suspect that global temperatures have been increasing since the end of the little ice age, possibly more or less recently (the research is too politically sensitive to truly trust in my opinion). In the medium to long term, temperatures have been rising.

The questions that matter are:
Is there anything we can do about it?
How much human suffering and problems will warming cause?
Will doing something about warming cause fewer problems than not doing something about it?

And that last is the question that gets forgotten. Even assuming that CO2 is the be all and end all cause of global warming, I've yet to see an analysis that shows the cost of eliminating emissions (which would have to be the end goal) compared to the cost of doing nothing. Reducing and ending emissions will stall development of third world countries, it will decrease the amount of food than can be grown on a given piece of land, and it will increase the cost of energy and with it the cost of every single thing we do.

RE: Crank of the Week
By steven975 on 2/10/2010 5:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
It was a perfectly valid Null know, for science and all.

In science, one proves the affirmative, not the other way around.

