posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 10:44 AM
For one, where is the reference? What journal did the Canadians publish in?
Secondly, one strike against one paper on global warming doesn't negate the phenomena itself.
That graph is the strongest evidence? Please. How about melting glaciers? How about Antarctica melting away? Greenland melting. Gee, I guess real
empirical observation isn't worth squat anymore when some geeks found a math error in another geek's geekery. Nevermind ice cores that show a
dramatic increase in CO2. Nevermind that nearly any method you choose shows that we are on a warming trend. That the Earth is getting warmer is not
in doubt. What is in doubt is how much of an effect we've had in this process.
But whether or not we caused the problem is really besides the point, now isn't it? Our only concern at this point is how to make the environment
more amenable to humans. If that involves reducing CO2 emissions, so be it. I don't see what the big deal is. We know oil reserves are being
rapidly depleted, we know that oil is getting expensive (both in terms of extraction/processing costs and its political costs). We know that burning
petroleum products makes unsightly and unhealthy pollution in our cities. What is the problem here? I don't see why the energy is spent in arguing
an obvious point instead of thinking of a solution to the problem (whether or not it is our fault--though it is sort of hard to argue that the amount
of CO2 we spew into the atmosphere each year is something that the Earth has seen yearly throughout its history before humans). Gee, like the world
would really be terrible if we bothered to re-plant some forrests, switched to cleaner burning fuels, and reduced our use of fossil fuels. Why on
Earth would that be so terrible?