GLOBAL WARMING The problem is that AGW deniers have contradictory conclusions: some argue that theres no global warming but an ice age, others argue that higher CO2 ppm is enough to lead to positive feedback loops to thwart an ice age, still others argue that CO2 has no such effect and that theres no ice age but everything is fine, and then others argue that theres no ice age and theres global warming but its natural, etc. Whatever conclusions are given the suggestion is the same: do nothing or spend more time to study the matter. Also, if there will be no conclusive answer to an unproven theory because we will run out of fossil fuels first, then that makes AGW denialism worthless, as the only logical motive for denial is that we shouldnt cut down on fossil fuel use as we might lose opportunities to profit. In contrast, one response to acknowledging AGW involves using fewer resources, which unfortunately for AGW deniers is what takes place given peak oil. Actually, what makes money for governments is not acknowledgment of AGW but AGW denialism. Thats because much of government revenues come from increased economic activity, which in turn involves more oil consumption. Thats why just as governments (Abbott) arent agreeing on what to do regarding AGW, they are also reacting the same way concerning peak oil.
Posted on: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 02:42:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015