If local forecasts about tomorrow’s weather are often wrong, then how likely are predictions about the planet’s future climate to be correct?
So begins an audio broadcast from CBC regarding climate change. My own personal position on climate change and the impact that man is making on global warming is uncertain. My scientific background does not qualify me to decide.
There is a body of evidence on both sides and sadly those that dare to say that maybe climate change and global warming might NOT be caused by man’s impact are outcast and derided by the popular movement. That’s not constructive debate.
Opinion always requires debate.
I was recently sent this link to a CBC podcast on climate change, outlining how it is possible that man may not be the reason for the increase in global temperatures. We really ought to consider both sides of the equation rather than heading down a path of strongest media opinion.
Have a listen, see what you think. Just because one opinion is different to the accepted wisdom, doesn’t make that position insane or wrong.
Let’s face it, the steps proposed to solve the assumed problem of CO2, are pretty damaging to the environment, whether it is replacing rainforest by palm oil for bio fuel, eucalyptus for carbon sequestration, or dammed valleys for power generation, not to mention despoiled landscapes and migrant bird and bat kill by windmills, as well as habitat loss from blocked off estuaries.
What if the theory of global warming caused by CO2 is not true, as so many reputable scientists are saying now?
Let’s face it, CO2 is necessary for life on earth, it is plant food. It makes forests grow faster.
It is in our interests to do all that we can to protect the environment, particularly the rain forests.
Policies designed to reduce CO2 may well be counter productive, apart from , of course, those that preserve and increase the world’s rain forests.
It’s important to look at both sides of the coin. No?
Popularity: 13% [?]