In a word, no. In two words, lol no. Also, you've decided to be a dick and ignore the request of the OP, but I'm just a little bit of a dick so I'm going to respond this once and drop it.
Your entire argument can be summed up as "I don't understand it, therefore it doesn't work that way". That's a formal fallacy, and has no bearing on the facts of the matter; there is no climate change debate in scientific circles, it's purely a debate of public policy. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
You sound like a creationist in the way that you argue that Earth had to go through all those climate variations exactly to produce us. It didn't. Things would have turned out differently, sure, but there's nothing magic or special or sacred about Earth's climate changes.
Humanity has already survived several climate changes, which is great if all you're interested in is survival. Natural climate change almost certainly
Nobody can argue that. [/QUOTE]"]caused the collapse of the Indus valley civilization. We're a lot bigger than one valley now, but that doesn't mean that fertile areas going arid and arid areas flooding won't put some hurt on us. To say that we should ignore what's happening because it's natural is a double fail, because that's wrong
and natural events are perfectly capable of killing us.
Which brings us to man-made climate change. It's a thing, it's extremely well-documented and the only people that reject it are (willfully) ignorant and/or aluminum foil hat wearing types. Fifteen years ago the case for anthropogenic climate change was decent, but these days it's absolutely conclusive. Our science doesn't understand all of
how things are happening, but it's quite clear that they
are happening.
I am not a climate scientist, and I only have a passing interest in it, and though that's a hell of a lot more than most people have it isn't enough for me to tell you how things can be "fixed." Most likely there is no way to "fix" things, this isn't an episode of Star Trek here. What we do know is we can reduce future damage and improve current quality of life by responding to the way things are rather than the way we want them to be.
Some people have tossed around ideas like iron seeding to reduce atmospheric CO2, but personally I don't think we understand all the systems and processes involved well enough to commit to something like that. The day will come though, and when it does I hope this insipid "debate" will have run its course so we will be free to do whatever it is we need to do. In the mean time, measures like controlling the refrigerants we use, fuel economy standards, and limiting industrial emissions certainly won't hurt the environment or our collective health.
Facebook
Twitter