Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
I do know that rising temperatures will be detrimental to human health and water supplies.
|
How do you know this? The science I am familiar with indicate warmer temperatures are beneficial....increased productivity of food sources and so on. Nonetheless... that is not what I asked. What is the optimal temperature? Meaning, at what temperature does the earth need to be at for a beneficial balance to be attained?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
I am not an IPCC, climate on NASA scientist. In the studies they have ranged from stating dominant to 70-95%. I do not know the answer.
|
You are correct, you do not know the answer. Man's contribution is <1%. With out knowing this answer, answering the remaining questions would make little sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
There are many scientific laws that apply , but the the one that comes to mind first is the Stefan Boltzmann Law.
|
You are right, there are many laws that apply, but how is this relevant? Stefan's law is about calculating the "effective" temperature and this has nothing to do with "optimal" temperature nor does it contribute toward explaining how the 1% of CO2 emission by man is capable of having any significance on the other 99% of this dynamic, complex adaptive system we call Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
There are many reasons to reduce CO2 emissions
|
I think you are getting ahead of yourself. As best I can tell, we have not yet determined that CO2 and certainly not man's contribution of CO2 is significant in affecting the Earth's Climate and certainly not significant to the point of being able to "control" Earth's climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
...and if the consensus of the majority world's leading scientists do not convince you, the geopolitical,security and economic aspects should.
|
I can be convinced, but only with real science not politics...and I have yet to see any real science being used to support the panic that is being generated. Who are the scientists that make up this "consensus"?... not that this really matters anyway, because as far as I know, there is no such thing as "consensus" in science. If it is to be science, it either is... or it is not... the rigors of the scientific method makes no room for agreements. Agreements are for politics. Climate change is nothing more than a hypothesis and needs to undergo the scrutiny of all the scientific disciplines so that we can make it settled science--one way or the other---and as of now, it is not settled.