The thing is JQ, global climate systems are complex and hard, if not impossible to model and predict with
precision given current understanding and computing technology.
Is Man made GW/climate change a 'scam'? You don't know
for certain, I don't. The truth is that nobody does,
for certain. So the real question is rather; do we gamble that it is as you say, a scam, bury our collective heads in the sand and carry on business as usual? Then in 100 years when it turns out otherwise and it's too late to control the situation say OOPs if only we'd listened to Al! Or do we take precautions
now which may (or may not) reduce any possible impact, and, as a corollorary improve our environment and energy efficiency along the way?
If it turns out we're wrong (and you're right) and the human race has only peripheral effect and the climate still changes as predicted, or even close to it then we (or rather our Grandchildren and Great Grandchilden) are in shit anyway, whether they live in Florida or not. JQ, Sea level rise is one small component of the bigger picture, fixation on the keys being underwater in 100 or even 200 years seems churlishly irrelevant if by then 70% of the US, or indeed northern Europe is a desert (or an ice sheet), don't you think?
There is rarely, if ever a complete consensus in science, after all gravity was just a theory (well actually it still is) So a lack of across the board consensus and resistance on something this esoteric is a non argument against it. In part this is due to genuine uncertaintanty and in part to blatant political and commercial self interest, if there's a scam anywhere you'll find there.
That said, for me there is sufficient consensus among those who know better than I, and by the sources of your argument so far, yourself to make me think that we, as a species should err on the side of caution. Your sources and arguments are partial, selective and based on more on the cult of personality than empirical science.
That may be enough for you to dismiss the entire theory, that's your view, to which you are entitled. What you're
not entitled to do is attempt to demean those who don't agree by calling them childish names, but without rational argument. It not only undermines your argument it makes you seem inarticulate on a personal level.
But, in the final analysis even if
you don't believe in man made climate change then such a negative, dismissive attitude towards those that are in some way seeking to reduce the undoubted (surely even by you) negative impact we have on our planet has little to do with the validity of the theory and more to do with your evident contempt for [y]our planet and it's future inhabitants.
JQ, I don't know if you have children but if you do then consider the possible impact on them and their offspring if
you're wrong. I'm sure they'll be singing praise for your enlightened attitude toward their legacy as they starve to death in a Montana dustbowl or drown in their Miami Boulevard penthouse.
What say you JQ?
