Please, support this statement Del. "97% of scientists agree" cannot be used. That has been debunked 1000 times already.
Show the science. Not 'opinions.'
Because the "real" science shows absolutely no global increases in temps for 15 years.
Well, it's just as debunked that choosing "15 years" just magically takes you back to the last big El Nino when temperatures were REALLY high (just like this year).
The truth is (and what I believe) is that climatologists can pretty accurately predict how events like solar flares, volcanoes and other natural phenomenon affect global temperatures. But since 1950, those predictions no longer hold true. For "some reason" when volcanic eruptions pushed down temperatures throughout history, they aren't pushing down temperatures as much anymore. For some reason when solar flares and El Nino's and whatever else happens, temperatures are HIGHER than predicted.
The only logical reason is human intervention with burning fossil fuels. That's the only logical answer.
In my opinion (and many scientists from around the world), there is enough evidence to change our patterns of burning fossil fuels. We don't have to know EXACTLY what's going to happen and when to err on the side of caution. I fully agree that policy change should be fair to America and take into consideration our economic well being. I fully agree we shouldn't be pushovers and allow China and India to do whatever the hell it wants and only US/Europe enact change.
But I also think taking a laissez faire attitude and let everyone do whatever the hell they want is dead wrong for this planet. If we are to continue to be world leaders as a military and diplomatic power, then we also have to lead by example in changing our policy of fossil fuel use and pollution. I think we can do it in an effective way and not impact our economic growth.
When I was younger, I used to think that the eventual scarcity of fossil fuels would increase costs and alternative energy sources would "take over" via economic factors. But the scary predictions of oil reserves back in the 1980's proved way false. And the technology of fracking and shale gas has revolutionized the fossil fuel market (and helped the environment to some degree I might add). Now it appears there is no end in sight to the prospect of cheap fossil fuel energy. At least not in the next 20-30 years.
But that amount of cheap energy via fossil fuels scares me as a conservationist and environmentalist. If the US has to do twice as much to convince India, China, Pakistan, SE Asia and emerging markets in Africa to do HALF as much, then maybe that trade off is what is best for the Earth and buys science more time to correctly predict what might be happening to the Earth from fossil fuel use.
I'm not saying I know all the answers, but I am just as skeptical of your chosen scientists and skeptics saying THEY know the answers as well. In fact, I highly doubt your opinion that man is not affecting global temperatures or climate change will have no impact on civilization. If I was a betting man (and if anyone here had to bet their house on it), I'd say it's something in the middle. We are definitely headed towards global temperature changing 1-2 degrees over the next 50 years IMO. And I disagree with people that think that will have no impact on humanity or ecosystems. Just because we don't have 100% of the answers doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. That is a path I'm not going to vote for or support in a candidate.
I don't believe in the "conspiracy" of a vast majority of scientists that think man is impacting our environment via fossil fuel use. And I don't believe that just burning more and more because it's cheap to gain short-term economic growth (both here and around the world) is the correct course of action.
