I'm not going to press this too much, because as I have said before, I doubt we can come to a consensus on this issue.
Firstly, the rate of climate change can roughly be discerned from this graph. It is not a be-all end-all argument. It's not even a strong argument, but there are many like it and they show that other possibilities are out there.
That's all I'm asking, consider the other possibilities.
Secondly, I would like to point out that the IPCC is a) not composed entirely of scientists. Activists have joined their ranks and some scientists have withdrawn from the panel in protest of its' activities.
and b) the IPCC is not uncontested in its' findings and some of their research methods are questionable
http://constitutionallyright.com/200...change-errors/
admittedly, this article (letter, whatever) is biased in favor of my viewpoint. But these people have some good points.
So, all I ask is that you would genuinely consider the opposing view. I would offer to do the same but I spent all of my teenage years believing that global climate change was man-made, already.
Climate change, even if man made, will take quite some time to profoundly affect the Earth. Even if it is only a few decades, that is precious time.
On the other hand, economic harms are almost immediate. And there are even some environmental harms in things like biofuel as the article I provided states. An argument I had not thought to investigate until now.
I'm sure we can both agree that the government generally makes a mess of things and is ineffecient. The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel.
Should we not, then, question their findings?
Although we (and our respective camps) may not ever agree on this issue until economic or climatalogical consequences have manifested themselves, would it not be best to at least attempt to reach some sort of compromise?
At the last I will say that the economic harms of action to stop climate change have already begun and they are quite noticeable. The use of ethanol has raised fuel and food prices, and renewable energy projects and research (particularly wind farms) have cost hundreds of billions of dollars, mostly from the taxpayers' coffers, for a marginal return.
Thoughts?