I totally get the point you're making about global pollution, but I don't see a reason to gauge what our environmental strategy should be by what other countries do. We should do what's right for us. Let me just say right now, forget the anthropogenic climate change argument. Cleaner water, less reliance on oil (yes, it will run out some day), cleaner air, creation of jobs. Even if anthropogenic climate change is in fact wrong, there are benefits to be had from exploring cleaner, renewable options for energy, packaging, transportation, manufacturing processes, etc.
Up there how? Without looking up the statistics, I believe I have read that we have higher per-capita emmisson, waste, etc. because of our higher standard of living and all the accoutrements of the modern American lifestyle. We individually have lots more stuff than your average Indian. My point is that addressing pollution is a completely different subject than climate change. They overlap, but pollution covers many other areas, such as clean water and such.
They ARE a dying breed... But address my point on cap and trade schemes. Enlighten those of us not "in the know". I don't think anyone is arguing that fighting pollution in general is a bad thing. Like I said, we have come a long way in that regard and are continuing to do so. The argument that green energy is good for the environment is solid. It's the argument that green energy use will change the climate that is in contention.
On the most prevalent greenhouse gas? I considered it common knowledge so I didn't bother linking some of the articles I have linked in the past. Same with the fluctuation numbers. No. The "worst case" portion of the statement led me astray.
I know, obvious, right? I made the point because the pollution of 7 billion people was linked the topic at hand, climate change. Come on panther, you're "in the know"! You should be able to keep up!
Its stupid to try and predict what the planet will do and call it "worst case" One good volcanic eruption can ruin any stupid prediction. I assumed someone dumb enough to use "worst case" would only be referring to man made emissions. Doesn't really matter as CO2 emissions are not at all the largest greenhouse gas. Climate "science" is a joke. The freakin weatherman can't even get tomorrows forecast right let alone what is going on next year, decade, or century.
Poor comparison. Drug companies actually have to produce a product that accomplishes something. The climate scientists in question (that 97% cited) have started with the assumption that the earth is warming and that it is caused by man. They are seeking evidence to bolster that assumption, and disregarding/suppressing evidence to the contrary. Climategate pointed out some of that, but there were already actions to point to that fact. As I pointed-out earlier, the scientific proof for a theory is the inability to disprove it. That isn't accomplished by gaming the studies. It is how we end up with non-scientific facts to prove a theory needed to further political ends. I believe I pointed this out once before with research done that proves that secondhand smoke kills. Everybody knows that fact. The problem is, the research doesn't back it up. Instead, the "evidence" was manufactured by misusing data and ignoring all data that didn't conform to the results desired. That's not science, it's fraud. Many scientists have become the equivalent of snake oil salesmen.
The thing that scares me is the same people/mentality that helped cause the financial crisis stand in league regarding climate change. Do we really want our future left to these knaves?
I agree, the far left can't be trusted to control our future. Glad to see we're on the same page here.