[alx13]

I'm gonna throw in my uneducated opinion here.

I admit I haven't taken the time to do the research. I stumbled upon some research here and there and used my rational judgement to form a (partial) opinion.

That being said, regardless of the topic, it always bothers me when one side of a debate says "this is established. There is consensus, so it's not up for discussion anymore.". This seems to be the case for the "man-made global warming" debate. Which I think is plain wrong! I'm glad PL used Galileo Galilei example, because it sounds a bit like the same kind of talk the Inquisition used when talking about God in the previous century.. You don't believe in God? You are a barbarian, a Devil worshiper, you should be killed... It seems to me that if one side has irrefutable evidence that they are correct, they shouldn't fear debate. They can easily dismiss it with their evidence.

2nd point I'd like to bring is that, in my view, there is just not enough understanding about the workings of our Planet to draw such drastic conclusions (like man is responsible for the majority of the Earth's warming) and to state on top that "it is not up for debate". I think it very well should be up for debate! I don't think I should be called an ignorant or a "don't give a sh*tter" or egoistic, or stuff like that if I state that the arguments about man-made global warming do not convince me. Our Planet went through a whole Ice Age, killed entire species (dinosaurs) and then warmed up again ALL ON ITS OWN! It was here long before humans inhabited it and I'd bet that going from an Ice Age into the climate it has now is a significant warming. How come it did that without humans and now, all of a sudden, in only 50 years (which is nothing vs. our Planet's age) humans managed to claim the majority of the warming effect? Doesn't that sound a bit like arrogance?

And now about CO2 emissions... The Earth releases huge quantities of CO2 on its own. I'm thinking about forest fires and volcano eruptions to name just 2.. How much CO2 is released through those types of events? I'd be curious to compare that vs. what humans release...

I think the Earth has a bigger self-regulating capacity than we give it credit for. That doesn't mean we should do whatever we want without caring, but I think a balanced approach is best. Imposing idiotic and crazy rules about car emissions which force car manufacturers to fake tests (see VW scandal and apparently now also other brands are discovered) is not a good way to proceed. The insanity about this goes even further... apparently everyone is so focused on how much a car pollutes, that the famous Prius, which was the first hybrid with low emissions, apparently used a very polluting technology for being produced... which was the equivalent of about 10-15 years of a normal car emissions... Of course everyone rushed to buy the Prius to "save the planet", when it was actually the same damn thing.

Bottom line for me: until the "global warming" crowd starts changing their attitude and bring some evidence backing up their doomist claims, I will be against extreme measures. I will recycle, because it's easy and it feels right to re-use limited resources. I will not waste electricity or water. But I will not give up on using the car and take the train or bus because "it's saving the planet". For all I know it might have little to no effect...

Now if you want to talk a real threat, let's talk about the population time bomb.. Don't even get me started of that one