[/quote]No. Average temperatures are rising which is a fact but whether it is indeed entirely caused by climate gas emissions is not totally clear. The likelihood is large but as anything in science it is not a 100%.
That nothing can be done is also wrong, of course reducing climate gas emissions and/or the ability of the ecosphere to transform CO2 into O2, i.e. trees, are measures that can alleviate the problem assuming that the greenhouse effect is the major cause of the rising temperatures.
As I explained in an earlier post the real issue is that once we take into account our reactions the problem is asymmetric. Not doing anything against really existing human-caused climate change will lead to a lot of damage whereas doing something against inexistant human-caused climate change will only lead, assuming that our only measure is to tax CO2 and subsidize forests and that you believe in the story told by Econ 101, to some mild misallocations. Too much trees, too few steel factories. Can be easily amended at very small costs whereas the destruction of entire ecosystems and the resulting migration and wars will lead to enormous costs and loss of human life.[/quote]
But I mean, even IF we reduced our emissions, it would still take time, so really, it would still be a danger to the current generation. Also, I think that the eco system has had time to adapt to compensating any real danger of a fireball earth, so really, isn't more CO2 output a good thing? Wouldn't we see a more lush earth? The best times on this planet occurred during a warming, where life was abundant, and it was hotter THEN then it is now. When people keep asking ti reduce CO2 emissions, my thoughts are always to ask why? Without CO2, we'd have no plants feeding off of it and outputting oxygen into the atmosphere. Past data has shown that there were higher outputs of CO2 when Dinosaurs roamed the earth then there are NOW, and life was Abundant then.
ALL PRAISE TO ZARDOZ!
GREAT SCOTT!!! ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ!