Hi,
I will be much obliged to anybody that will find it of interest to comment on my following thought:
As a critical thinker and one that is affiliated with the scientific community in general and follows new theories and findings, I have a serious problem with the argumentation that the human race has anything to do with the evident "global warming" phenomenon.
The whole argumentation seems to me as a fallacious one.
It has been confirmed, by measurements, that there is a cluster of empirical facts that are dubbed inclusively:"global warming".
There is, also, a sound physico-chemical theory that describes a plausible mechanism through which certain gases ("green house gases") can cause local warming of a relevant environment.
And yes, it is obvious that a certain amount of these gases are emitted into the environment through some human "modern" activities.
BUT, how do we know that human activity is enough to transform the whole planet earth climate conditions? How do we know, for example that earth mass by itself is not emitting much more heat into the atmosphere than all human activities on it put together ? Or, that the amount of heat generated through the human related "green house" mechanism is enough to even put a minor dent in the global climate? Or, that the relevant gases are in place where they ought to be according to the described mechanism for long enough before disappearing in various mechanisms (such as reacting chemically thus, changing, carried away fast and rising to irrelevant heights etc.)? Has the geological history of planet earth not seen dramatic changes in its climate long long before the genus "homo" existed?
I can go on with theses questions but I hope the point is taken that the argument that the human race and its technology are the cause for the "global warming" phenomenon is far from being logically sound or empirically based.
Thanks,
Albert