'Said activities' are having & will have an enormous impact on the world's poor. This is not necessarily a conclusive argument against undertaking them (if survival is at stake) but a balanced view of the kind we don't get is needed.
The language used is that of religious fervour with talk of 'denial', and 'sceptics' - as if reasoned scepticism isn't the basis of how science progresses. ("Conjecture and refutation- Karl Popper" anyone?)
My point is not to argue against CAGW but to bemoan the lack of any calm appraisal of pros and cons. A response to risk mitigation is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0 where the thesis is based on figures accepted by the IPCC and Lord Stern. I've not seen a sensible rebuttal. No one discusses the massive increase in the utterly predictable 'greening of the planet' that has and is taking place as a result of the CO2 increase. This translates to $billions in crop production. We only hear of negative effects. Estimates of the lowering of temperature supposedly linked to lowering of emissions after 50-100 years, cite decreases imperceptible to a human and hedged with uncertainties as to their origin and statistical treatment. And so on.
Finally, you don’t have to be a climate scientist to note that 1/3 of all emissions of CO2 have occurred since 1970 with no significant increase in global temperature. What do we deduce from this about CAGW? This is a question not a slanted conclusion.
The language used is that of religious fervour with talk of 'denial', and 'sceptics' - as if reasoned scepticism isn't the basis of how science progresses. ("Conjecture and refutation- Karl Popper" anyone?)
My point is not to argue against CAGW but to bemoan the lack of any calm appraisal of pros and cons. A response to risk mitigation is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0 where the thesis is based on figures accepted by the IPCC and Lord Stern. I've not seen a sensible rebuttal. No one discusses the massive increase in the utterly predictable 'greening of the planet' that has and is taking place as a result of the CO2 increase. This translates to $billions in crop production. We only hear of negative effects. Estimates of the lowering of temperature supposedly linked to lowering of emissions after 50-100 years, cite decreases imperceptible to a human and hedged with uncertainties as to their origin and statistical treatment. And so on.
Finally, you don’t have to be a climate scientist to note that 1/3 of all emissions of CO2 have occurred since 1970 with no significant increase in global temperature. What do we deduce from this about CAGW? This is a question not a slanted conclusion.