Implying that GW skeptics are unreasonable? Not this one.
Either, climate will change radically in the next 20 to 50 years, killing tens or hundreds of millions. Or it won't.
False dichotomy. The science is poorly understood so there is some uncertainty. But there is no tipping point, runaway greenhouse, or any other such nonsense that is possible without heavy bias towards speculative models.
You're reply is quite reasonable. But you're implication is not. I think I was speaking the simple truth - there are simply not enough reasonable people around to make a difference.
False dichotomy...But there is no tipping point, runaway greenhouse, or any other such nonsense that is possible without heavy bias towards speculative models.
Really?
You're saying that no large-scale change in climate is at all likely within the next 50 years and therefore any preventative action taken now is premature and not warrented by the science, the facts, or the possible consequences.
That's completely at odds with a large segment of the scientific community. You could be right...but it's also reasonable to think you could be wrong.
My dichotomy stands.
You're right. There is a third possibility - in the next 20 years the science will be clarified enough to settle the issue and preventative measures, if justified, will be instituted and prevent catastrophe.
Keep in mind, however, the scale of behavior changes required to stop population growth and reduce or stop greenhouse-gas emissions.
Gore is a major source of ozone depletion - and from a long line of Leftist Russian Bootlicks who killed 100 million in the last century.
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3160_0_2_0_C/