Top Post Dawg
- Apr 28, 2002
- 2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
In your opinion it overstates the threat. Not in the opinions of most scientists. In our physics department, I don't think there's a single one of the 50+ researchers who thinks we *aren't* causing global climate change, and would say it doesn't post a significant threat. Sure, it's not likely to be immediate (as in within the next few days), but you're greatly underestimating the potential suddenness of it. There are many highly positive feedbacks that once triggered, can greatly expedite the process - thawing of marshes releasing trapped methane, sudden melting of the Greenland ice (which will quickly decrease the salinity of the Atlantic, further slowing the Gulf Stream, reducing the heat transport out of the Gulf of Mexico - making it retain much more heat, and quickly cooling the eastern seaboard of the US and western Europe (this has started happening, but to a small degree. Once the Greenland ice shelf starts melting at a rapid pace, it will greatly expedite the process).fixer said:Your analogy is what is so wrong with this "debate" as it grossly overstates the threat. I reject the "walking towards a cliff" analogy, which makes it sound like the danger is imminent when it isn't. Instead of a cliff it's more like a long gradual slope and one that I'm still many miles away from. More correctly stated, I've been blindfolded and been told if I kept walking in my chosen direction that bad things may happen to me, but not sure what things, or when they'll happen, possibly in 10-20 years, or 20-50 years or 50-100 years or even further out, or not at all.
What's wrong with this "debate" is members of the public thinking that talking heads on TV know more than scientists about it.