Dear
Weatherman2020 the Global Warming
arguments cover both extremes, where hot condtions get hotter
and cold conditions get colder. It's not just about the hotter
conditions but all conditions becoming more extreme.
The REAL issue with GW is how much is natural
and outside human control and activity.
We can all agree that the climate is going to fluctuate,
and go through ages and stages as throughout history.
What isn't being represented accurately is how much
is by natural causes, such as volcanic activity,
and how little would be changed by things we can do.
Different sources pointed out to me that just the widespread
effects of "tilling soil" to grow enough food to feed the populations
produces more of these effects than we could stop or else
people would starve to death.
And estimated that of the 20 percent of the effects
that are attributed to human activity, only 2 percent
would change if we did all the reforms on production.
The other 80 percent is due to natural causes.
And even if we changed and did the maximum
we could do to reduce emissions that would only
impact 2 percent of the 20 attributed to manmade causes.
So that is why this isn't going to be solved by
attacking "global warming" as manmade production issues.
The changes we'd have to make would not sustain the
population and still would not have an impact
compared to the natural causes.
What envrionmentalists should focus on instead
is reducing pollution and waste, increasing preservation
and restoration, and increasing quality of life and health.
That we can agree on. And get more done than
arguing about what we can't agree on or change.