Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EricH
As for Mr. Pockets' question, I can tell you: whoever brought it up would be ridiculed and the evidence would be hidden away so that nobody would believe it. See Copernicus and Galileo with the heliocentric theory vs the Roman Catholic Church with the geocentric theory. Also note that at some point, the evidence would come out and people would accept it, and then the people who now say that it is caused by humans would be remembered as opposing scientific progress.
|
Yeah...it's sort of creepy to imagine what would happen if all of the scientists who currently form the "consensus" regarding global warming were remembered as "opposing scientific progress". Talk about promoting public confidence in the scientific community.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EricH
So why aren't we actually focusing on the bigger sources instead of putting fees on ranchers/dairy farmers for their critters' emissions by the head (or tail) to the point that they can't make a living? (Yes, that was talked about, as recently as this spring. I'm not sure of the current status of this.)
|
Well if we're heading in that direction, the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor, as it is the most plentiful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere...
I figure that I should insert a little disclaimer: I'm not at all opposed to the idea of reducing pollution, increasing energy efficiency, or developing alternative fuel sources. All of those are excellent uses of time and energy. I'm just not convinced that global warming is man-driven.