|Why does it even matter who caused it?14-03-2014 05:01|
|I know this probably sounds silly -even ridiculous- something only an el-stupido would ask. But it really is a real question. I really am puzzled, and really want to understand something that's currently a mystery to me:|
Why does it even matter what the cause of climate change is? Regardless of whether it's caused by homo sapiens, or mother nature, or little green men from Mars, if the climate is getting noticeably warmer we have a problem and we need to respond to it. So why does it matter what exactly caused that problem?
Edited on 14-03-2014 05:02
|You cannot be serious when you ask such a question. |
First off. 0.85C increase since 1850 is nothing to worry about. Its just an insignificant number in historical data.
However if you do think it is important, than what is causing the warming is important to determine how we address it or IF we can even do anything about it.
Homo Sapiens did it... how and can we change it.
Mother Nature... we cant do anything about it, most likely.
Little green men from mars did it... better find them and have them reverse it.
The question IS important, and if you cant see that, then what are you even doing here?
|Well if we know the cause of a problem (whatever it might be) then we can find a solution to it? How do you want to fix something if you don't know why it broke in the first place?|
|I agree with both of these fellows: it is very difficult to successfully address a problem if it you do know its cause. I wholeheartedly disagree, however, that 0.85C since 1850 (and well more than half of that since 1975) is "insignificant".
Edited on 27-11-2014 14:18
|It seems to me the "easier to fix if we understand the cause" argument is a _general_ argument, and one with questionable applicability in this particular case. |
Hopothetical: it's getting hotter, and we know that if we seed the upper atmosphere with some hazy-reflective substance it will get cooler again. Knowing the specific cause of the heating does _not_ seem to be necessary in this particular case. If anything, it seems to me that at best knowing the cause would make the solution "easier", _not_ "possible".
How is saying we need to understand the cause to fix the problem, without providing the _specific_ reasoning behind that argument, not just a circular answer to my query?
|You should re-read yourself, because you are running circles around your own argument.|
Geo engineering is irresponsible in a chaotic system, at best.
Knowing the cause is extremely important. As certain actions, namely what you mentioned, can have unknown consequences.
The specific reasoning in that argument is self-evident. If you are sick with a disease and I pump you with steroids, I might just accelerate and make your condition much worse.
|There are a number of actions we could take that would cool the Earth. Most of them are expensive and most of them have at least the potential for significant side effects. We know that the primary cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation. Both can be addressed directly and neither has potential for deleterious side effects. So, what's the question here?|
|Is M2C2 a matter of the method of interpretation?||2||23-10-2018 02:22|
|How Much Is Trly Human Caused?||16||29-03-2018 12:52|
|Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals||1||03-02-2017 20:30|
|climate change is a liberal mental problem caused by man made chemicals proliferation||20||07-12-2016 04:08|
|glacials and interglacials caused by resonance?||1||10-01-2016 00:38|