Ever since the 70’s the evidence shows that natural forces are no longer the dominant force.
And here is a tip: Skeptical science links to the science itself, as far as I can see you only demonstrate unwillingness to check the evidence.
The problem with that theory, is that if the alarmists are correct, the type of insurance you really need to correct the problem is WAY more costly than anyone wants to really face. Better gas mileage in cars, lower polluting energy plants, etc. will be a drop in the bucket to counteract the impact of the doubled population.
The biggest contributor of greenhouse gases is the production of all of the food needed to feed all of the people on the planet. Mass genocide is really the only sure form to reduce the increase greenhouse gases that the doubling of the population has created in an appreciable way.
The current policies that are being proposed are lip service to the problem if the climate scientists are truly correct.
Number 1 in the skeptical science list of myths.
The quick reply was there for years already:
As for the “70-100 years” point it is really ridiculous as it is the same argument used by creationists when they deny evolution, they point at “no one has observed macro-evolution in the previous centuries”, therefore it is not happening. What is clear to me is that there is really a lot of unfounded assumptions behind the idea that we should dismiss paleoclimate evidence.
What is important is to know what is your definition of an alarmist, clearly it is not the IPCC. I have to say here that recent discussions have show me that many are not even aware of what is the difference and apply terms like “Alarmist” to conservative outfits (on the matter of predictions) like the IPCC.
Remember, policy positions are the result of what is possible in an environment where a good number of politicians even deny that there is a problem to begin with.
We know nothing of the kind. Someone who has money at stake as claimed that solutions will hurt the poor, sure. In other news, mafia bosses routinely plead innocent.
At least one study has shown, for example, that investment in specific green technologies has returned more cash than it cost, once one factors in long-term benefits including sale of the valuable tech itself. Perhaps that will be the case here. Since the alternative is wide-scale destruction and massive reinvestment in rebuilding, it seems certain that green tech will cost less (quick – how much to rebuild every coastal city on Earth?), but I’m only using logic, not actual cost estimating.