Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brucelee
"But, isn't that the point? Shouldn't we be exploring and confirming the Science rather than trying to end the argument in one fell swoop by stating that we're gonna Doom Africa to Starvation and Drought? I just don't think these types of hysterical arguments are germane to settling the issue."
Of course, I never said that and I am not the one creating hyserical arguments, that is up to the Gore folks. I simply pointed out that the costs of doing something are very very signficant and will not be borne by Al Gore or his type.
The point is that money spent on one problem cannot be spent on another, another that is very real and very impactful every day. There is no contesting the fact that thousands die of starvation across the glove everyday.
Where is the media's attention to THAT little problem.
I guess those Malibu beach houses at risk are more interesting that dying children.
|
Hi,
Famine, Drought, HIV-Aids, Alzheimers Disease, Cancer, the Elderly, Inadequate Housing, the list goes on and on. Of course our resources are Finite and devoting some to one problem naturally means they are not available for others. So, it's one of prioritizing how we allocate these resources.
But a very proper debate on Global Warming gets stifled when Gut-wrenching arguments like these are made. It side-tracks an issue which if correct has Global Implications, not regional or demographic ones. I'm not picking at you so much as trying to point out the need to stay on-point.
I'm not convinced that Global Warming phenomena do exist (no Chicken-Little syndrome), but neither do I believe that the continued unrestrained release of Industrialized Carbon, measured annually as approx. 6,400 Million Metric Tons Worldwide, with about 30% of that amount being stored in Carbon Sinks such as Forests, Oceans, etc. resulting in a Net release of approx. 4,480 Million Metric Tons of Carbon annually is without any effect whatever.
And, if that effect is negative, impacting all of us rather than some small portion of the World's population, then I believe that some allocation of resources is prudent to acsertaining it's implications and any possible corrective measures which may be available.
GHGs, CFCs, Aerosols, Free Carbon, Organic Carbons etc. each have their own implications and make the issue extremely complex - there is no one simple answer, or a simple debate. If interested, a good source of pertinent information (but certainly not the only one) can be found in the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences of the United States -
http://www.pnas.org/
Happy Motoring!... Jim'99