Bludgeon wrote:Take away fossil fuels and there would still be dramatic shifts in the global climate. The sea levels would still change dramatically.
On a scale of millions of years. And ecosystems would be able to adapt.
With fossil fuels, it will take place in tens of years. And we'll be fucked.
As usual with conversations about this subject, I don't see much substantiation for the argument you are making. Surely you have to know you're making a wild exaggeration in both cases.
Stebs wrote:So let's sit on our hands and do nothing. We'll let God sort it out.
Nothing is easily the least counterproductive thing that we can
do. More harm than good is what we mostly seem to accomplish. For every shrinking 'carbon footprint' there are dozens of construction worker boot-prints surrounding it, that wouldn't even be there if we weren't trying to 'conserve' energy. Look at this ghastly bicycle bridge they're throwing up over the beltline. You know, the one that's right next to the other giant bicycle bridge that's already
over the beltline? Nothing says "Going Green" like expending a mountain full of Chinese steel and burning a boatload of fossil fuel to make sure bicyclists don't have to go the long way.
Lip service is all that 99% of our environmental efforts are going to. That seems to be enough for 99% of environmental 'activists'. Who cares if we're burning three barrels of oil to save one, as long as it does not inhibit our ability to feel sanctimonious about it?
/cough cough [iron man] cough cough.