mind, you make it sound as if there will be a "runaway" heating cycle unless humans do something to reduce the CO2 levels.
I contend that there is a natural regulator that will prevent any such anthropologic catasrophe. Even during the early Plistocene, temperatures were never in excess of what could support mammals. As temperatures rise, the air holds more water vapor (actually a much worse "greenhouse gas" than CO2), as predicted by Boyle's LAW, not some poppycock THEORY. What results is more cloud cover and more rain, which cools the atmosphere. What would be likely to happen is the Temporate Zones would move closer to the poles. Even if there were to be significant warming, it would mostly mean that humans would move towards more moderate areas. Bad for LA and Miami maybe, but Montreal and Anchorage would benefit.
Sure, there might be some significant changes to human activity, but it certainly wouldn't mean an end to human life. And that's IF all the "our hair's on fire" evangilists are anywhere close to being correct.
The reason so many "scientists" are on board with Global Warming is simply because that's where the grant money is. Any research pointing in other directions simply doesn't get funded adequately. Couple that with what will be published (only those in lockstep with Global Warming advocates get any publicity), and your so-called "data points" become less and less convincing to me.
You say you are involved with some high-powered problem solving teams. If so, do your teams only use information that supports a particular outcome, or do you try to get info from both sides of an issue, even when some of the dissenting information is hard to find and unpopular? |
