It is not often you see somebody from a political party that has traditionally been opposed to many scientific research conclusions, such as evolution and climate change. However, this is no worse than the other political party in the US that is often represented by people who go ballistic at the very mention of the word "nuclear" in regards to energy.
I myself do not know what to believe when it comes to the matter of climate change. On one hand, the climate of the Earth is rapidly changing, but the Earth's climate has never been constant throughout its geological history. The amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases coming from natural sources such as volcanoes and is immense but at the same time this is not to say that humans are partially responsible.
However, even if it did not have adverse effects on the Earth's climate, continual reliance on fossil fuels leads to a lot of pollution in the form of smog, coal ash, and water contamination in addition to having to rely on regions of the world that are politically unstable for resources.
The Earth hasn't had this much CO2 in the atmosphere in about 15 million years during a time (the Middle Miocene) when there was very little ice in Antarctica and temperatures were about 5 to 10 degrees higher than today.
It is not often you see somebody from a political party that has traditionally been opposed to many scientific research conclusions, such as evolution and climate change. However, this is no worse than the other political party in the US that is often represented by people who go ballistic at the very mention of the word "nuclear" in regards to energy.
ReplyDeleteI myself do not know what to believe when it comes to the matter of climate change. On one hand, the climate of the Earth is rapidly changing, but the Earth's climate has never been constant throughout its geological history. The amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases coming from natural sources such as volcanoes and is immense but at the same time this is not to say that humans are partially responsible.
However, even if it did not have adverse effects on the Earth's climate, continual reliance on fossil fuels leads to a lot of pollution in the form of smog, coal ash, and water contamination in addition to having to rely on regions of the world that are politically unstable for resources.
The Earth hasn't had this much CO2 in the atmosphere in about 15 million years during a time (the Middle Miocene) when there was very little ice in Antarctica and temperatures were about 5 to 10 degrees higher than today.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
Here's a map of the Earth if we completely melt the ice caps for future generations:
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/03/worse-case-scenario.html