yes theres evidence against it
but theres a whole lot more for it.
(
Arsonade is saving up for a new box of hummus, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 2:22,
Reply)
More evidence isn't necessarily better evidence.
I thought this was pretty thought provoking.
I'd also suggest the media feeding frenzy has been a huge hindrance, as usual.
(
Syncubus Yarr! Ye'll be walking Planck's Constant! [GMT-5], Mon 12 Mar 2007, 4:26,
Reply)
A friend of mine
is doing her PhD in media coverage of climate change.
She would agree with you.
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 9:00,
Reply)
media-frenzy a hindrance, yes
but I think the evidence for human-caused climate change - even if it is only in part - is bigger and better. Even if our role isn't the big one in this, we might as well try to slow the process down by reducing our emissions.
/green blog
(
morrybyte made a subtle namechange at, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 9:37,
Reply)
At what economic scale
compared to the amount of good we could do with those funds in other projects?
Carbon Dioxide is not a significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. (%0.5-ish) What tiny percentage of that percentage do you want to throw trillions of dollars at to reduce it by an even tinier fraction?
(
Syncubus Yarr! Ye'll be walking Planck's Constant! [GMT-5], Mon 12 Mar 2007, 16:42,
Reply)