Yeah, I'm not convinced by this argument at all: It
might be this, it
might be that. We just don't know. We don't have the data. We haven't ruled everything out.
To me this is clutching at something you want to be true; the environment we live in is fine.
Then at the end he goes black and white extreme and proposes the only way we can deal with this is by going back to the stone age. It's either the end of our environment or the stone age. Those are the two options in his argument (after he forgets his original argument that it doesn't exist anyway)? And he has the gall to call people that are warning us about climate change hysterical? WTF?
It seems blatantly obvious to me that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Surely we can all agree on this?It also seems obvious that we are emitting more. We have the data on this. Also we are flattening forests. So our actions are producing more CO2, and less forests to soak it up.
Surely we can all agree on this too?Sure it
might be something else, but it seems very, very unlikely. Us producing more CO2, a greenhouse gas, and reducing things that soak it up seems a pretty obvious reason things
are getting warmer. Occam's Razor (
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor).
The worst case scenario for taking action against CO2 is some change to industry (there is always change anyway) and greater energy efficiency. The worst case scenario for not taking any action is much worse, and as most people like to ignore a really, really bad scenario for the economy.
Look, the data IS there. This guy just pulls stuff out of his arse, comments like "the past ten years weren't the hottest on record, like scientists predicted". You the viewer just take that as fact, or perhaps try to use it as fact in a debate because you saw it on a youtube video. THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR. In fact the last ten years WERE the hottest on record:
"The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005." www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.htmlOther comments that just come out of nowhere, and sound appealing to some are
"...convenient for politicians and profiteers who are intent on regulating global energy for their own power and financial gain". This is beautiful as it appeals to people's fear of
both Socialists and greedy Capitalists. It's a paranoid fantasy. Of course we won't see many profiteers in the paper this week saying how pleased they are with the Carbon Tax, and Julia isn't scoring too many political points with it either. It's a tough ****ing sell.
I think us people that actually trust the scientific method (
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), with its own built-in bull**** detectors, are just ****ing tired of pointing out the facts again and again and again and again. And again. I'm tired of listening to these so-called opposing viewpoints again and again. They are old arguments, and stupid, and are designed to make the viewer feel smarter than they really are.
