You are giving the fossil fuel companies a free pass.
Would you be so sanguine if they were knowlingly impacting your drinking water??
No - you'd hold them to mitigating it and paying for the consequences.
That is what they are trying to avoid.
Exxon says "it's an engineering problem "....yeah it is ...but who bears the cost ??
Human caused?......yes we have methods from modest to extreme ( SO2 stratosphere injection ) to address it.
Climate variable? - dick all we can do about changing the forcing....we can't alter the orbit or change the output of the sun ( tho SO2 would alter what gets to us ).
Anthro based - the world can campaign as it is doing to both reduce the future impact, cope with current impacts and hold those responsible accountable just as with cigarettes and cancer....
Just as the Rockefellers are doing with Exxon - holding accountable and forcing change by board action, soicial media action and plain old dumping their investments.
Putting it down to natural variability just lets the coal owners shrug instead cleaning up their act which they are now forced to do in ever greater numbers.
Would you not be outraged at a company ruining your drinking supply ??
Why are you willing to give them a pass on the atmosphere when the science is just overwhelming
Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.
This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”
In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”
Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington
That was 5 years or more ago....
I'm pleased you are modifying your position...that's a healthy response to new information.
Most of us here are pragmatists...not tree huggers. We'd love to see more nukes in play and recognise there are no magic solutions.
But letting companies like Koch continue to pollute, buy politicians with the proceeds of that polluting act AND get subsidized to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars a year!!!!
c'mon.....put the responsibility and cost squarely where it lies and force change as administrations all over the world have done.
Ontario is a big industrial economy - 18 million people - ranked up with small first world nations in GDP.
We went from 25% coal to zero in a decade because it's the responsible thing to do.
Coal use was costing billions in our province alone in health costs ( mostly from Ohio plants ).
We couldn't shut them ...but we shuttered the biggest single CO2 source on the continent..Nanticoke.
The buck has to stop with the corporations emitting CO2 - clean up or get out of the energy business.
Societies cannot subsidize the damage they cause worldwide.
Hell a ship dumping waste water from the bilge will get nailed.....but coal companies get pretty much a free ride tho slowly that is changing.
www.news24.com/tags/topics/pollution?pid=0&mobile=true
2015-01-16 10:18. Residents .... China will ban the sale and import of "dirty" coal in less than four months, in an ...
China cracks down on environmental crimes.
They clearly know the source and are holding the companies accountable ...so should you.
It's not Ma Nature....it's H Sapiens.
!
D) where argument by authority and scientific consensus have actual meanings.
