(February 13, 2015 at 9:38 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:(February 13, 2015 at 8:38 pm)IanHulett Wrote: The more people who accept the evidence, the better the chance of saving our planet. Kudos to him.
Until "accepting the evidence" leads to actually doing something about it, there is little to no hope. Unfortunately, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is very profitable while other methods of energy production are far less so. Unless that changes...
Is there any reason the same arguments against pollution and toxicity can't be made on the basis of pollution and toxicity? Why does it HAVE to be argued on the basis of "changing temperature or climate"
Isn't environmental destruction enough to call it for what it is?
And agree to preserve resources and not pollute or destroy the planet?
??? We'd already agree by now, if it was good enough to just agree to stop pollution and destruction of natural environment.
Why the added agenda? This merely creates more suspicion and accusations that the carbon credits is some monopolized way to make money and take political control over the issue. Can't that factor be removed and just focus on saving the environment for its own sake?
Anybody?
